M.G. 1100 v. Renault R8

Sir,

I am afraid that I cannot possibly allow your remark in January’s. Editorial—”All in all, . . ., it needs a pretty good excuse not to buy British,” to pass by without comment.

Last October I was in the market for a new car, £650-£750, good performance, good fuel consumption, and above all peace and quiet, allied to comfort, at 80 m.p.h. cruising.

Every car was dismissed for some reason or other, leaving a short list containing the M.G. 1100, and the Renault R8 1100.

The M.G., I suppose, looked slightly smarter, but was noisy, uncomfortable to drive—I am 6 ft. 5 in. tall—something which the Motor Industry do not allow! But the Renault was supremely comfortable, quiet, and generally a far more likable vehicle. Now, when one examines road-test figures:—

Acceleration (Mean)

M.G.: 1/4-mile … 21.9 @ 85.o m.p.g.; 0-50 m.p.h. … 14.7 sec.

R8: 1/4-mile … 21.0 @ 85.2 m.p.h.; 0-50 m.p.h. … 11.9 sec.

Hill Climbing

M.G.: 2nd. … 1 in 5.2; 3rd. … 1 in 7.8

R8: 2nd. … 1 in 4.8; 3rd. … 1 in 6.9

Overall Fuel Consumption

M.G. – 29.1 m.p.g; R8 – 34.2 m.p.g.

Piston Speed – Mean Revs

M.G. – 3,100 r.p.m.; R8 – 2,300 r.p.m.

From this, the Renault comes out well and, in addition to the lower piston speed, it must also be remembered that the engine has five bearings for its crankshaft, and also has wet liners to its cylinder bores.

Needless to say I purchased the Renault, and have nothing but praise for it. After careful running-in for 2,000 miles, Molyslip went into the engine and gearbox, and now after 5,000 miles, it will reach 80 in 3rd, and, given time,100 on the “clock”— together with a fuel consumption to date of 37.8 m.p.g. The brakes are excellent, and the seats out of this world, and even with the recent price increase is cheaper than the M.G., as underseal and a starting handle are thrown in, as well as a steering lock.

Andrew Egerton-Smith – Puttenham.