james wrote:
> I don't have any accurate numbers, but as I understand it, by the time they
> got the engine fitted in the C they gave up a lot of the power that it made
> in the Healeys, and yes, the thing is a boat anchor. If you've ever tried
> to work with one, hoist or not, it is a back breaking experience.
Only looked at a couple.
> Although it all happened before I was born, I think the failure of the V8
> was two fold. I have often read that the supply to MG was cut off by Rover
> during the launch of the SD1 as they wanted the engine volume for their own
> production. Secondly, as rated by the factory, it made ~150BHP ( vs ~100)
> at twice the price of the B, and wouldn't have been viable even if it had
> gone into widespread production. I have read some reviews from the time and
> people were starting to call the B dated by the mid '70s so I expect it
> would have taken a large influx of cash to redo the interior and probably
> update the body a bit, but BL was never known for even medium influxs of
> cash.
It was quite dated. I didn't like many of the styling studies they did
in that time though. I hate the look of the Aston Martin MGB.
BMC didn't do much influx either, but BL did about 0 perfering to spend
the limited amount they had on Triumph. And we know how well that worked
out.
> It's nice to dream though. I always wonder what would have happened if the
> MGB had gone into production with IRS. The first prototype had IRS, but
> they couldn't keep the panhard rod from tearing out of the floor, so they
> scrapped it and redesigned most of the trunk in the process. In this
> prototype, the spare sat vertically in the trunk, and left a lot more room
> for luggage, but I guess we'll never know.
I thought that the IRS was scraped for economics. The rear end was off
the shelf where as the IRS would be new parts. Can't remember which book
I read that in.
Paul.
> James ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Root <proot@iaces.com>
> To: james <jhn3@uakron.edu>
> Cc: Plunk, Eric <Eric.Plunk@allegiancetelecom.com>; <mgs@autox.team.net>
> Sent: 25 February, 2003 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Requesting Opinions for MG Magazines
>
>
>
>>That seems to be most written analysis of the 'C. The engine was too
>>heavy and threw off the balance of the car. Many say that the CGT is
>>a very nice cruiser.
>>
>>They should have ramped up production of the aluminum V8 and used it
>>from the get go.
>>
>>Paul.
>>
>>
>>james wrote:
>>
>>>I'd also add that for a first MG, the B might be your best bet. The
>
> tech
>
>>>support and parts are more readily available, and I've never been
>
> convinced
>
>>>that the changes made to create the MGC really accomplished that much.
>
> IMO,
>
>>>YMMV, etc
>>>
>>>James Nazarian
>>>71 B tourer
>>>71 BGT V8
>>>85 Dodge Ram
--
Paul T. Root E/Mail: proot@iaces.com
600 Stinson Blvd N.E., Fl 1S PAG: +1 (877) 693-7155
Minneapolis, MN 55413 WRK: +1 (612) 664-3385
FAX: +1 (612) 664-4779
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|