OK, Now I'm feeling guilty about even having a 67 MGB-GT Parts car! I've been
heading down the track of taking what's useful from it to keep my roadster on
the road.
If anybody in the Northwest wants a what I've been considering a parts car for
restoration (the engine and the rest of the drive train, and the suspension are
intact) contact me privately and we'll need to talk. It has wire wheels, and
good suspension parts but most of the dash has been pillaged for its gauges and
switches.
At what point is the thing OK to "crush"? I want to do the right thing, but
I'm a bit torn.
This thing would need a bit of work and expense to get it going, but then again
- 67 was a great year for the MGB.
Feeling guilty,
Tony Woodruff
67 MGB Roadster
67 MGB-GT - unknown future.......
>>> "James H. Nazarian" <microdoc@apk.net> 11/23/99 8:05:36 AM >>>
Jim,
Don't you dare think about having two more MG's sent to a crusher! Ask a lower
price if they won't sell. Advertise on the net if you haven't already, not just
in Californicate. GT's are very popular in the Great Lakes regions of the US and
Canada. More of the superb restorations of MG's I have seen in recent years
were
GT's rather than roadsters, and most of those came from Canada.
I think someone else said that GT's were more expensive to restore than a
roadster. In general I have seen no difference. The specific coasts will vary
from car to car regardless of the GT vs. Roadster question. If one thinks a
headliner is difficult to install, they should try a soft top. Because of
protection from sunlight, a GT interior tends to be in better condition than a
roadster under similar lifestyles. Finally, I recall someone cautioning about
rust in the hatch of a GT: I have several GT's from the salt/rust belt, and can
attest that in at least one very bad case, a '74 , the hatch door was the only
part that was not rusty.
I'm not prejudice mind you, but my son said it best: everyone should own at
least
one of each. But no one should ever send one to the crusher.
Jim
Jim Boyd wrote:
> Hey Listers:
>
> I couldn't resist joining in on this one!
>
> I have 3 GTs ('67, 70, 70)and 1 GT (69) parts cars. The '67 was my first
> lbc and I've owned it for almost 10 years. It came to me with a 5 main
> engine and o/d trans in place. It was a bare metal sheetmetal/interior
> restoration, as the engine has worked flawlessly all these years!
>
> The car initially had a lot of sex appeal, with the ww and worn leather
> interior! I appreciate the taller windscreen (I'm 6'2") and the ample
> legroom. As a travelling medical sales rep, I drove this car 25K in one
> year, through all kinds of weather to prove a point to my boss that the car
> was reliable! The mileage $$ that I received from the company paid for my
> restoration costs and the car never broke down once (amazing, isn't it!!)
>
> The car was hot in the summer, cold in the winter, leaks water into the
> cockpit where you least expect it, garners diminished respect from roadster
> owners and is a JOY to drive!!
>
> FWIW, the two '70 GTs have almost proven impossible to sell. They are both
> rust-free CA cars, licensed, driveable and priced @$1300.00 each. I have
> been trying to sell for 2 years with NO interest. It looks like the
> engine/trans will be pulled and the cars sent to the crusher early next
> year if no one steps forward! Any thoughts from list members?
>
> Cheers,
> Jim Boyd
> International Sportscar Components
> Paradise, CA www.BritishPartsandCars.com
> >In a message dated 11/23/99 3:38:17 AM, oldcars@newt.vallnet.com writes:
> >
> ><< I have always liked the looks of hte GT series B's but never really
> >considered buying one until the last few weeks. I guess I have a couple
> >of questions since I have never owned a GT
> >
> >1) For anyone owning one or having owned one, what are the pros and cons
> >verses the roadster (except the obvious of course). Anything in
> >particular I need to look for on a GT verses a roadster (prone problem
> >areas, etc)?
> >
> >2) I knw the GT are not as sought after as the roadster and of course do
> >not demand the price but I have found a 73 that is fairly nice. Paint is
> >presentable but not prefect. The interior is real nice original that
> >looks very presentable. New tires on Rostyles. High mileage car but
> >engine rebuilt 20K miles ago. New tires, no rust, no O/D, all gaugaes and
> >lights work. Mechanically the car seems fine and the body is good but I
> >would probably want to repaint it in a couple of years. All chrome is
> >very presentable. I know it is very difficult to ascertain a value
> >without seeing the car but what would a ball park figure be for the value
> >of the car? Or maybe a range based upon the described condition?
> > >>
> >
> >The roadster is great for bombing around town. The GT is a real road car,
> >good for distance driving, quieter and more rain-proof. Therefore, a GT
> >without OD is a waste. The frame is stiffer than the roadster so it handles
> >better in corners, but it is heavier so a bit slower. My favorite is the
> one
> >I had for a decade, a 68, with full engine power and all-synchro tranny.
> >Price is a bit lower, say 10-20%, than an equivalent roadster.
> >To my knowledge there is no problem unique to the GT.
> >
> >Jay Donoghue
> >72 MGB
> >66 Mustang
> >
|