Jump to content

Talk:MG T-type

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:MG T)
[edit]

Re this edit. I've reverted it for the moment as too vague (unlinked and not specific enough), but I think there is scope here.

There is a genre of popular film & TV which is "English country house drama", Agatha Christie, P.G. Wodehouse et al. This is very often portrayed with the aid of an MG T, usually an MG TC. The reason is that they're relatively common (especially in the US), relatively cheap and easily available. They're one of the few post-war British sportscars which can portray a pre-war (and so more expensive and temperamental) British sportscar. Can we expand and source that statement to make a worthwhile "In popular culture" section? This, as a broad section, would be so much more encyclopedic than the usual "An MG appears on screen for 2 seconds during Fast & Furious 27, but has no relevance to the drama" lists of "my favourite film". As much as cravats and Chappist moustaches, the MG T series is used as a handy signifier for a particular sort of character. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joninpalawan:?

To get the ball rolling, some examples of iconic use of the T-series in films:

The MG-TC of Dr. Barbay, the priggish British business professor in Back to School (1986).
The MG-TD of Dr. Barnaby Fulton in Monkey Business (1952), which he buys after drinking his "fountain of youth" elixir.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question was from 2016. Since then we have deleted "Trivia" and "In popular culture" sections from most car articles, as per WP:CARTRIVIA.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MG T-type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad picture showing aero screens

[edit]

Why have we got a picture showing aftermarket aero screens on a 1948 TC that should have the lexine covered dash? Also, the steering wheel has aftermarket steering wheel wrap, and displays an aftermarket temp gauge under the dash and non-stock moto meter as radiator cap. Surely a better pic can be found. Bugatti35racer (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You go right ahead and find it and solve your problem by uploading it and showing it in the article. Eddaido (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MG T-type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MG T-type

[edit]

I want propose a replacement of on some images. The current TD image is too tightly cropped and there a person in the background. The TF info box image is too tall and is at a weird angle, rather then a 3/4 angle. The TF interior image is at a weird angle as well. I proposed these image which I believe better replacements. They are at a decent 3/4 angle both the TD and TF images, the front image of the TF is not really at a 3/4 angle and is more of a sharp front shot. The interior image for the TF is facing front rather then at a angle to give a better view of the interior. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MG TD

[edit]
  • Current image on the TD section
    Current image on the TD section
  • Proposed image for the TD section
    Proposed image for the TD section

MG TF

[edit]
  • Current image on the TF section (Replica)
    Current image on the TF section (Replica)
  • Current image on the TF section (Replica)
    Current image on the TF section (Replica)
  • Current image on the TF section
    Current image on the TF section
  • Proposed image for the TF section
    Proposed image for the TF section
  • Proposed image for the TF section
    Proposed image for the TF section
  • Proposed image for the TF section
    Proposed image for the TF section
The current images for both the TD and TF look just fine to me. The proposed images also look fine but don't have any obvious advantages over the current ones (or at least have a similar number of minor flaws). My thoughts are to leave the current ones there (along the lines of WP:RETAIN) and work on other articles that need more attention.  Stepho  talk  00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no need to change the TD one, the TF ones look like an improvement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toasted Meter (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
infobox?
I disagree with this last unsigned comment. True the TF infobox picture is defective like you say but it is just such a nice appealing picture. I cannot say the same for any of your proposed alternatives with particularly distracting backgrounds, washed out colours and non traditional colour of the car. Here is one that I think is acceptable for the infobox. Would everyone be happy with that? Eddaido (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like Eddaido's proposed image. It's not perfect (green MGB in background) but better than the other images presented so far.  Stepho  talk  08:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only image I don't exactly like is the current front image on the TF and the interior, there obviously (IMO) some improvement over the current ones. Eddaido Stepho-wrs I would also like to point out the current TF image is actually a replica by Harper Roscoe called the TF1800 while my image is a genuine one. The angle on your alternative one is good but there lots of blur around the wheels and on the body. --Vauxford (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eddaido The image which you tried to replace with hasn't been agreed or disagreed enough to be used yet, the reason why I made a replacement edit myself because it confirmed based on DVLA data that the red ones before were replicas. [1] Only one person has actually agreed that picture should be used. --Vauxford (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to it pre-discussion state, I admit I shouldn't of replaced the previous (replica) image prematurely during the talk page discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like Eddaido's proposed image for the TF. (The one that's there now is at such an unsuitable angle I can't believe it's persisted this long.) The others I would leave as-is. --Sable232 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that image Eddaido put wasn't there in initial talk page discussion. The thing I don't like with Eddaido is that he revert edits he disagree with and suggest it should be taken in the talkpage yet he would make at least one reply but then doesn't get involved after that, even when I pointed out a very vital factor about the image he is defending is a replica and that the engine isn't even the right displacement for the TF.
Adding onto the one that Eddaido inserted in, the sign on the windshield is a bit of let off while the white doesn't have any signs. --Vauxford (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
21 hours

It is now about 21 hours since I saw signs flash up at the top of my page warning that my edit had been reverted by Vauxford and that this page had been changed. I was unable to decide how to deal with the situation and I am still of the same mind (my italics for emphasis). So I did not even come along here to read it or notice the revert of the revert. There was also a notice that I had been mentioned on Charles01's talk page and I have just read the then new correspondence. So, I'm sorry folks, I didn't know there was more happening.

If Vauxford is reading this may I suggest he should study the photos of the MG TF-1800 replica at length. They sucked me in as any really good pro photographer can make photos do. They made me feel good, about the car, and they made me feel good anyway, warm and friendly. But Vauxford certainly with these MG images you so ache to put in here, as well as the violent fake blue versus the much more comfortably proportioned almost black and white Q3, your pictures repel.

Please teach yourself how to make pictures of instant appeal - go for a pleasing background for the car and avoid used car lots. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC) (P.S. when I put up the infobox photo as explained above - because it was so sexy- i didn't expect it to remain there for as much as 5 minutes)[reply]

Go figures. Well, I guess it safe to say that the red one is going to replace the replica, sadly the drawbacks of photographing classic cars is that they are super popular and are mostly found at shows full of people. --Vauxford (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vauxford's proposal, with Eddaido's darker red suggestion for the TF. A better picture is a better picture, even if the nominator did hold the camera. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, aren't Q plates almost always on replicas? We ought to have stopped that one earlier!  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good solution. Sad it has to take all that huffing and puffing. Interesting what you write about "Q plates". It makes perfect sense, but I couldn't find any reference to it here. Is there an online source about somewhere that we could link into an appropriate one-liner in the vehicle registration plates article? Or am I simply not looking hard enough / in the right place? Thanks. Charles01 (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Very little weather protection"

[edit]

I removed the phrase "very little weather protection" from the lead, but it was reverted by @Eddaido:, so I will discuss it here. Why is it necessary to include this phrase? It's really quite strange, I think. Practically every formula one car, for example, offers very little weather protection, but I feel it would be ridiculous to put that in the lead of any of them. Also I note that none of the other MG Midgets have this in the lead even though they have similar weather protection, and I think this is rightly so as it's just an odd thing to put there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the T was a 1930s car, being sold in the 1950s. Particularly at speed, its weather protection was now considered inadequate. It's no worse than my J2's, but it's a long way behind the contemporary Triumphs, Austin-Healeys or then the MGA. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An open 2-seater is almost guaranteed to have poor weather protection. But if it is particularly bad even compared to other open 2-seaters of its era, then perhaps we should add something like "offers very little weather protection, even compared to other open 2-seaters of its era". I'm assuming that this is something to do with a well designed windscreen being able to deflect rain upwards when travelling at speed and that the T-type doesn't do this.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what's its "era"? The point is that it's a 1930s car, to 1930s standards, still being sold unchanged in a new era of the 1950s, with new standards and expectations.
It doesn't look much different to a TR2. But try taking the hood up or down. See how many separate parts and fasteners there are for a T. Or try driving at speed with the roof off and see how much wind protection the screen gives you on a T vs. a TR2. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then make it explicit in the description that it might have been similar to other open 2-seaters when it was first made in the 1930s but that in the following years/decades other cars got better weather protection while the T-type didn't.  Stepho  talk  22:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My objection isn't even to including the phrase somewhere, I just think it's very strange to have it in the opening sentence: "The MG T series is a range of body-on-frame open two-seater sports cars with very little weather protection that were produced by MG from 1936 to 1955." - as if the cars were defined by having poor weather protection. Of course somewhere in the article, if you wanted, you could discuss that it kept a mostly 30s design into the 50s etc etc, but I don't think it belongs right at the start. A7V2 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They pretty much are defined by that. Their most obvious aspect is (like Morgans) the dated nature of their bodywork and styling. Even though their running gear had been updated to the standards of the day. I don't think "weather protection" is the best way to express this, but the idea of a coachbuilt ash frame and 1930s styling would be justified for mention in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But then of course they were built initially in the 30s. But I agree that it is worth mentioning in the lead, I just feel it is very oddly worded how it is now, and that the first sentence or so should be more "objective". How does this sound: keep the first paragraph as it is, but removing the reference to weather protection from the first sentence, then in the same paragraph at the end put a sentence or two about keeping the 30s design into the 50s. So it would be something like "The MG T series is a range of body-on-frame open two-seater sports cars produced by MG from 1936 to 1955. The series included the MG TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, and MG TF Midget models. The last of these models, the TF, was replaced by the MGA. The design was contemporary blah blah... but by the 1950s it was blah blah... (I'm not sure of the exact wording here)"? Also I'm not a huge fan of "The MG T series is a range of", it might be better to have something like "The MG T-Type was a series of"? A7V2 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal sounds good to me. However, the tense should remain "is" because you can still see/touch/lick a real example today - ie examples of the T series are still around, even though new ones are no longer being made.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out the change I suggested but keeping the tense as "is" as suggested by Stepho. I'm not particularly committed to the last sentence I added but no-one else had a suggestion and it does the job for now but certainly could be changed. A7V2 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MG-TD did have a water temperature gauge

[edit]

The "TD Midget" section states there were "minor complaints over the lack of water temperature and fuel gauges." But it did have a temp gauge. It was combined with the oil pressure gauge; the combination was called a "safety gauge", made by Smiths; these served through to the 1967 MGB. It can be seen on the image labeled "1953 TD instrument panel", at the top right corner of the center panel. The top half is oil pressure, the bottom half water temp. The water temp needle can be seen to be slightly off the peg, indicating the engine was still warm. It was mechanical -- a Bourdon tube registered the vapor (excuse me - "vapour") pressure of an ether-filled bulb in the engine. (The oil pressure gauge also used a nearly identical Bourdon tube.)

These mechanical gauges responded much more quickly than their electrical replacements (starting with the 1968 MGB), were more accurate, and as mentioned above, registered even with the ignition switched off.

As to the lack of fuel gauge, quite true. But there was an after-market fuel tank dipstick available, which was eminently credible and could measure down to the last quart. BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MG_T-type&oldid=1206889000"