Although my '75 MGB hasn't been "trouble free". It has been reliable. I
bought it almost two years ago and the only things I've HAD to do to it are,
push the bulb for the high beam indicator back in it's holder, replace the
gas gauge sender, tighten some screws on the carb, replace an exhaust
manifold nut and that's it. oh yeah, I just replaced the rear brake
cylinders and the front wheel bearings. So, remember this rule... Replace
the bearings and brake cylinders every 25 years whether they need it or not.
I'd say that the car has done pretty good considering...
My '95 suburban on the other hand, just lunched the transmission and pinion
bearings to the tune of about $2100 and my '88 Porsche just needed the $850
timing belt replacement.
----
John Steczkowski
Director of Software Engineering
Crossroads Systems, Inc.
512-794-2742
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hutmacher, Greg [mailto:ghutmacher@stanleyworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 8:49 AM
> To: 'MG List'
> Subject: Re: "the MGB was an awful car"
>
>
> Excellent point, Karl. That's excatly what I was thinking as
> I followed this
> thread. I'm new to MG's although I've had three TR6's. I'm currently
> restoring a 68 MGB/GT that I received already stripped and
> disassembled.
> I've always loved the lines of the chrome bumper GT's and
> look forward to
> mine taking to the road as a restored example. However, after
> monitoring
> this list for a few months and reading about the problems
> that appear to be
> common to MGB's, I must admit that its had a sobering affect
> on my orignal
> enthusiasm. And mine hasn't even been on the road yet. Of
> course, I've had
> non-LBC friends look at my TR6 and say "Gee, don't you get
> tired of all of
> the electrical and mechanical problems with these cars?" when
> the truth is
> that, if you just keep up with normal routine maintenence, my
> TR6's have
> always been very reliable, trouble free cars. In fact, when
> our 96 Chevy
> Suburban has had to go to the dealer for some unexpected
> problem (including
> an alternator failure at only 15,000 miles), the TR6 has
> always fired right
> up and run perfectly as backup transportation to work. I'm
> hoping my MGB/GT
> will be the same way. I expect it has a great deal to do with
> whether or not
> these cars have been and continue to be maintained properly
> or just ignored
> and driven into the ground. I'm looking forward to getting my
> MG finished so
> I can further amaze my non-LBC friends.
> Regards, Greg Hutmacher
>
> //////////////////
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 03:39:18 +0000
> From: Karl Shultz <karl.shultz@ibm.net>
> Subject: Re: "the MGB was an awful car"
>
> I agree 100 percent...they're (MGBs and other MGs) great cars.
>
> BUT...if joe average were to look at the traffic on this list, he'd go
> running for shelter. Especially the stories about Lucas, which I
> remember thinking, "it can't be that bad," but oh my goodness. Posts
> pleading for properly lighted instruments, turn signals that just fail
> without any reason, and so on. I must admit they're not for the faint
> of heart.
>
> Most people aren't into cars, period. And an MG (an A, a T, a B,
> whatever) requires more TLC than most. That woris always
> rewarded IMO,
> but the average middle-age-crisis person who wants a car with no back
> seat (for no other reason than no back seat) will never
> understand. Nor
> should they.
>
> Just my two cents - from someone who grew up with, and now
> races, modern
> japanese appliance cars.
>
> Pointparty@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 99-03-31 15:53:50 EST, you write:
> >
> > << e may not want to admit it publicly, but you can see he
> knows the MGB
> > was an awful car. A decade old in the early 1970s, the B
> was, by the
> > generally low standards of the day, poorly engineered, maintenance
> > intensive, often unreliable, rather slow and quite uncomfortable >>
> >
> > What a load of cr#p! I've owned my current MGB GT over 15
> years. It has
> > been professionally maintained and renewed as required. The MG is
> cheaper to
> > maintain than any of our domestic cars and we have had a
> bunch of them all
> > purchased new from Saturns to Jeeps to Volvos to Cadillacs.
> The MG starts
> > everytime, runs without complaint in town or on trips to
> the beach or
> > mountains. (as long as I don't try to adjust the carbs.)
> >
> > Perhaps the MGB was not the most technically advanced or
> state of the art
> > auto of its time. However it is inexpensive to maintain,
> fun to drive,
> > reliable and MG owners are the classiest, most pleasant
> well adjusted
> folks
> > around. The person responsible for the observations to which this
> message is
> > a response, this sounds like a krautcar type. In the interest of
> civility, I
> > deleted the adjectives that originally appeared describing
> a krautcar
> type.
> >
> > Mel Frank
> > 1971 MGB GT
>
>
|