[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "the MGB was an awful car"

To: "'MG List'" <>
Subject: Re: "the MGB was an awful car"
From: "Hutmacher, Greg" <>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:48:34 -0500
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 <>
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. 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
> 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
> Mel Frank
> 1971 MGB GT

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>