mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Midget vs. B (Was MG decision)

To: "MG List" <mgs@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Midget vs. B (Was MG decision)
From: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:40:30 -0800
OK, I think I've heard enough about how Midgets can "outcorner and 
outbrake" Bs. Let's look at some real test data.

*Road & Track Road Tests - All-Synchro MGB (July 1968), Midget III vs. 
Spitfire Mk. 3 (September 1967)

1968 MGB/1967 Midget
HP 92/65
Torque 110/72 
Test Wt. 2590/1911
0-30 3.9/4.3 sec
0-60 12.1/14.7
1/4mi. 18.7/19.9
Top spd. 104/86
RPM@60mph 3410/3896
80mph stop 0.72/0.81 G
Lateral G na/na
Slalom na/na

As one would expect, the more powerful B out-runs the Midget handily. The 
Midget pulls more Gs under hard braking, but R&T didn't do braking 
distance tests at the time. They also didn't do any sort of objective 
handling test, which is unfortunate. They describe the Midget as 
"handling very well", and the MGB as "vintage", but this may have more to 
do with differing expectations and the lapse of a year's time than with 
the car's individual qualities. The authors are already carping about the 
B being out-of-date! Little did they know...

Conclusion: about what you'd expect. Insufficient data for handling 
comparison.

These are the earliest more-or-less equivalent tests I have. Of course, 
earlier B's had slightly more HP, and earlier Midgets had smaller 
engines, so I would expect the B to do slightly better in, say, a 1965 
comparison.

*Road & Track Track Test - Back to Basics - 9 Showroom Stock Sports Cars 
- April 1973

1973 MGB/Midget
HP 79/55
Torque 94/67
Test Wt. 2590/1995
0-30 4.6/4.9 sec
0-60 13.7/15.5
1/4mi. 19.5/20.3
Top spd. 94/85 (at Riverside Raceway)
Lateral G 0.795/0.758
Braking 80-40 mph 296/306 ft
Square skidpad lap 13.1/13.5 sec
Lap time  55.2/57.3 (at Riverside Raceway)

Still close to "prime time" for the B, it beats the Midget in all 
categories, and actually won 2 categories overall in the test (the 
Midget's best finish was 4th in square skidpad). Here are R&T's 
summaries: "MGB - has more than tradition going for it. It feels harsh 
and clumsy but doesn't look that way on the clocks. The MGB's secret of 
success is that a driver can use everything the car has." "MG Midget - 
won nobody's heart. The lack of speed was expected but the stiff and 
vague steering, the roll oversteer, the mushy front end and the general 
feeling of cramped obsolescence were things we had forgotten. The Midget 
won't win races because it doesn't go fast."

Conclusion: pretty much a slam dunk for the B at this time. Interesting 
that they point out  that the B "feels" clumsy but is actually quick on 
the track... perhaps this explains the attitude of Midget owners -- they 
get into a B and it strikes them as clumsy. Just don't get into a match 
race with one!

*Road & Track Comparison Test - 6 Affordable Sports Cars - June 1976
This year is the "best case" scenario for the Midget (or, more precisely, 
the "worst case" for the B).

1976 MGB/Midget
HP 62.5/55.5
Torque 72/73 (!)
Test Wt. 2645/2170
0-30 5.5/4.8 sec
0-60 18.3/15.5
1/4mi. 21.5/20.1
Top spd. 90/83
RPM@60mph 3320/3700
60mph stop 177/189 ft
Lateral G 0.698/0.737
Slalom 53.0/50.1 mph

In this year the Midget has a better power-to-weight ratio, as shown by 
its superior acceleration, although it is also helped by its lower 
gearing. It (curiously) has inferior braking despite the B's almost 
500lb. weight penalty. And despite the Midget's higher G-rating and 
power-to-weight ratio, the B beats it decisively in the slalom. 
Basically, this test turns one's expectations upside-down.

Conclusion: In this time period, B owners would be well advised to avoid 
Midgets at stop lights... not to mention Plymouth Valiants, Datsun B210s, 
and just about anything with wheels. But through the cones, things are 
reversed. Go figure...

*1979 - Road & Track Road Tests - Sports & GT Cars Annual

1979 MGB/Midget
HP 62.5/50
Torque 88/67
Test Wt. 2506/2005
0-30 4.0/4.4 sec
0-60 13.9/14.3
1/4mi. 19.8/20.3
Top spd. na/na
RPM@60mph 3260/3360
60mph stop 177/189 ft
Lateral G 0.698/0.737
Slalom 53.0/50.1 mph         

Both cars have apparently benefited from a lighter test driver (actually, 
computerized timing equipment replaced the passenger). But where the B's 
torque has gone way up, with noticeable acceleration improvements, the 
poor Midget's HP and torque have gone down the tubes, and so has its 
advantage, the slight improvements attributable to the lower test weight. 
Its only bragging point is lateral G's. In the subjective ratings, well, 
I don't want to start a flame war, but the subtitle of the Midget article 
is, "Why would anyone want one?". To be fair, the B test is titled "We 
complain. BL makes money. Time stands still."

Conclusion: the last Midgets seem to have suffered some developmental 
neglect compared to their larger siblings, which actually improved from 
1976-1980. The Midget just went downhill.

Overall conclusion: owners of certain Midgets can claim some superiority 
over early rubber bumper Bs. Otherwise, though, they'd better watch the 
talk, because statistically, they can't walk the walk. Subjectively, the 
tests seem to bear out the Midget's impression of superior "nimbleness", 
but it doesn't seem to translate into objective performance. But if that 
nimbler feel is what toasts your crumpet, by all means, stand by your 
Midget. Just don't diss the B's braking and handling, because the 
stopwatch says you won't be able to back it up.

All set with Nomex underwear,
Max

P.S. BTW Larry, where do you get "Midgets are far less prone to rusting 
than a B"??? Is it that there's just less of them to rust?


Larry Macy had this to say:

>Boy am I glad you got both. I hadn't had a chance to chime in but you 
>didn't get a very good hearing from us Midget owners. The Midget is a 
>great car. The 1500 engine is very strong and reliable (at least mine 
>is). The ZS carb is a piece of crap but then again so is the ZS on a 
>later B. My personal preference is the rubber bumpered Midgets look 
>better than the chrome bumpered ones. Also Midgets are far less prone to 
>rusting than a B. In addition the Midget will out corner any stock B ever 
>made. Won't out run them but will more than make up for it in the 
>twisties. I much prefer the Midget to a tank like an MGB.
>
>Shields Up
>
>Larry
>


--

Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.


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