IMHO the best year car is the year that you own/owned/want. For me that
is 71. I don't know why it just is.
James Nazarian
'71 B roadster
'71 BGT rust free and burnt orange
'63 Buick 215
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"
Enzo Ferrari
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Max Heim wrote:
> Maybe the subject line should have been "can of worms"...
>
> : )
>
> ...but since you asked, my opinion is '66-67. Chrome bumpers, original
> grill, leather seats, clean classic dash, 5-main engine, no smog gear at
> all, highest HP output (98HP @ 5400RPM, 107 ft/lb @ 3500 RPNM). '63-65
> would be a close runner-up.
>
> In contrast the '71 had the "Abingdon pillow" dash (at least in the US)
> and the recessed grill (my least favorite of the three CBB variants), and
> vinyl seats. In its favor (safety-wise) it had headrests. Against that it
> had the incredibly clumsy shoulder belt mounting point on the rear deck.
> It is also burdened with an air pump and evaporative loss control system,
> leading to slightly reduced output, although more torque, curiously (92HP
> @ 5400RPM, 110 ft/lb @ 3000RPM). Appearance-wise it has the stuck-on
> looking side marker reflectors, and busy two-tone taillights and front
> marker lights (admittedly these are trivial matters, but I have a
> fondness for the clean fenders and monochromatic lamps of the earlier
> cars). Then again, reversing lamps are handy. The triple-wiper syndrome
> is good for starting conversations, but looks a little crowded, to my way
> of thinking.
>
> I am not sure why the '71 would be particularly favored over the other
> '68 through '72 vintages. I might prefer the classic grill '68-69 models.
> But I am not familiar with all the minor changes through these years.
>
> The '73-74 cars lost significant horsepower, and then the rubber bumper
> cars are a whole different kettle of fish. You either like them or you
> don't. But...
>
> ...the great thing about MGBs is, there is something to say in favor of
> just about any year (even for the performance nadir years of '75-76, one
> can always modify or "backdate" one's car to suit one's requirements,
> within local regulations). This leads to interesting discussions, and
> keeps the field open by not making one or two years prohibitively
> expensive due to perceived "desirability" (unlike some other classics).
> It is truly a case of "YMMV" and "IMO"... you don't have to defend your
> choice, you only have to please yourself.
>
> In other words, I don't expect a clear "consensus" to emerge -- but
> that's cool.
>
> Dan DiBiase had this to say:
>
> >Is there a consensus on the 'ideal' year of MGB? I had
> >heard that 1971 was the 'best' year - best being
> >defined as ultimate combination of features, looks,
> >(lack of) smog/safety stuff, mechanical development,
> >etc.
> >
> >I'm looking at a '69 (long-term) project car that I
> >may be able to get cheaply as a teaching tool, so I
> >don't have to take my 76 off the road as I experiment
> >and learn...
> >
> >What are the thoughts of the listers?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >=====
> >Dan D
> >Dayton, NJ
> >76 MGB Tourer - Brooklands Green
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> >http://invites.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
>
|