Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Ideal\s+MGB\s+Year\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Ideal\s+MGB\s+Year\?\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:08:52 -0700 (PDT); 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 dev; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00062.html (7,657 bytes)
2. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Phil Bates <jello@ida.net>; Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:15:45 -0600; Depends on what you want. For simplicity, and classic looks, most say '67 or before. They have the chrome bumpers (and overriders), a lower ride, no emmissions, a metal dash, the vertical slatted gri; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00063.html (8,939 bytes)
3. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Geoffrey Gallaway <geoffeg@sloth.org>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 21:38:13 -0400 (EDT); The split rear bumper was offered in 70 (I have a 70 BGT). The year that I would think ideal for me would be 71 or 72, which ever had the dash with the glovebox.. I'm going to convert the dash in my; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00064.html (10,104 bytes)
4. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: mga <mga@napanet.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:46:08 -0700 (PDT); That is easy! In the US at least, any MGB pre-'68. The federal rules really ruined these cars. The early cars had: Metal dashboard No smog equipment Simpler twin carbs Traditional leather interior Si; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00068.html (8,707 bytes)
5. Re:Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 00:57:29 EDT; I like the 69 for best year, myself. Bill; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00071.html (7,923 bytes)
6. RE: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: "Garner, Joseph P." <JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu>; Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:28:11 -0700; (I suspect that if i didn't say so, Humphrey might throw another $400 fit...) ;-) Actually, though, and i know this is hereasy to most people's ears, but i like the look of the rubber bumber cars fa; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00076.html (10,622 bytes)
7. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:25:54 EDT; Hey what's not to like? Slower, more ungainly, jacked up compromised suspension - I guess some people can overlook all that if they happen to prefer the esthetics of the rubber bumper look ;-) My pre; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00097.html (8,582 bytes)
8. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Ajhsys@aol.com; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:27:34 EDT; << 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; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00099.html (8,816 bytes)
9. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: <SRegel@dpra.com> (Scott Regel); Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:37:26 EDT; I prefer the 63 B. I had two of them and they were simple and a pleasure to drive. With no modifications I had the second one up to 98 mph and it still wanted to keep going. Unfortunately the road I; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00102.html (9,608 bytes)
10. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: "Diane S." <cessna@speakeasy.org>; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:00:06 -0700; I think the ideal year is by gosh the year I have ! 1977 ! 4 speed syncho w overdrive, very large engine bay, and the v8 is a drop in. larger radiator, electric fans, and an easy ability to drop the; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00103.html (10,085 bytes)
11. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:40:47 -0700; 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; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00107.html (11,465 bytes)
12. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Bullwinkle <yd3@nvc.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:15:37 -0700; Having not owned or having a yen for, there are still B's worth considering. My choice would be the the earlier ones. If I were to choose the rubber nosed job, that rubber best seems to go with the r; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00119.html (8,324 bytes)
13. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:21:34 -0700 (PDT); Well, Max, I did have a smile on my face as I typed the word 'consensus'...! However there is always a first time, and we're apparently still waiting for it!! == Dan D Dayton, NJ 76 MGB Tourer - Broo; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00123.html (8,551 bytes)
14. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: James Nazarian Jr <James.Nazarian@Colorado.EDU>; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:52:07 -0600 (MDT); 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 "Aerodynamic; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00126.html (12,554 bytes)
15. Re:Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Robert Sexson <rsexson@excite.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT); Contray to popular opinion I think the 74.5 is the best. A friend has a cherry 67 and a restored 78. My 74.5 rides better and runs better than either of his. R. Sexson _______________________________; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00140.html (9,190 bytes)
16. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: David Councill <dcouncil@imt.net>; Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:22:57 -0600; Although I am in agreement with Don's detailed answer, there is no answer to this question. And I would have answered this differently 20 years ago when I bought a 71BGT to serve alongside of my 65 M; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00142.html (9,902 bytes)
17. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Dave Quirt <quirt@sk.sympatico.ca>; Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:03:54 -0600; I agree 100%. I have a '62 and a '63 and prefer them to any of the rubber-bumper Bs that I have had in the past. On the other hand, I had a '69 with overdrive and it was excellent too. I put overdri; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00166.html (9,412 bytes)
18. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Dave Quirt <quirt@sk.sympatico.ca>; Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:03:54 -0600; I agree 100%. I have a '62 and a '63 and prefer them to any of the rubber-bumper Bs that I have had in the past. On the other hand, I had a '69 with overdrive and it was excellent too. I put overdri; /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00167.html (9,366 bytes)
19. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Eric <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:59:29 +0000; Hmmm, I have heard that before (before... before... before...) Eric '68MGB MkII PS Now this would be embarrassing if no-one else received three or four copies of Dave's mail :-); /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00170.html (7,786 bytes)
20. Re: Ideal MGB Year? (score: 1): Author: Eric <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:59:29 +0000; Hmmm, I have heard that before (before... before... before...) Eric '68MGB MkII PS Now this would be embarrassing if no-one else received three or four copies of Dave's mail :-); /html/mgs/2000-06/msg00172.html (7,695 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]