For those interested in old cars.

[Hroth]

7 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Isn't that a description of a 1920s Bentley? ;)

 

4 minutes ago, PatB said:

Only if you're a rival manufacturer of equally lovely but significantly more fragile machinery.

 

Ettore Bugatti describing the 4.5 litre blower Bentleys which trounced his cars at Le Mans....

 

[Rugd1022]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

I saw an MGC GT yesterday. ISTR Motor Sport tested the soft-top version when new, with the headline "When is a sports car not a sports car? When it's an MGC!" That 3-litre lump evidently upset the handling significantly, they felt. 

 

I'm currently reading David Knowles' excellent book on the MGB/C and one of the reason's for the C's bad reviews was that the test cars used at the first press day all had the wrong tyre pressures, which upset the handling terribly. The reputation stuck unfortunately but all these years later a well set up C is a great touring car.

[alastairq]

Just now, Hobby said:

 

Isn't that a description of a 1920s Bentley? ;)

Nope..those Bentleys were an awful lot heavier * than the 3.5 tonne-7.5 tonne category, so I'd suggest they are actually Cat Cs....

 

*  On a 'felt-like' basis.......   :)

 

Oddly, as a 16 year old I had a 'goylefriend' whose Dad owned a 1930 Bentley..he was a bank manager, as it happened....and I recall getting taken for an outing in it on one occasion.  Not a blower, but I think it looked summat similar, maybe with a Vanden Plas body?  Certainly had no roof or boot,  but seated four comfortably, especially if berms were of a wide nature... This, located between Wylde Green and Sutton Coldfield..for those who might know?

 

Also, back in the 1960's....I had graduated to long trousers by then, too....

[alastairq]

Didn't the 'C' lump actually have an aluminium cylinder head?

 

I seem to recall it was a lot 'lighter' than the other BMC C series motors?

 

Again, I might be wrong there.....I am only recalling conversations with a school teacher I knew, who had a C GT.....[at Flamborough, if anyone recalls?}..at a time when I knew an awful lot more about VW aircooled stuff.....{Or, should I say, dropped valves?]

[alastairq]

7 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

 

Ettore Bugatti describing the 4.5 litre blower Bentleys which trounced his cars at Le Mans....

 

 

 I find the link below of interest, especially as Ivan Dutton is a Bugatti expert.

I like his style of 'shed' mechanics....Even if those he chats about must have very very very deep pockets?

 

https://www.youtube.com/@shed_racing

[PatB]

32 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Didn't the 'C' lump actually have an aluminium cylinder head?

 

I seem to recall it was a lot 'lighter' than the other BMC C series motors?

 

Again, I might be wrong there.....I am only recalling conversations with a school teacher I knew, who had a C GT.....[at Flamborough, if anyone recalls?}..at a time when I knew an awful lot more about VW aircooled stuff.....{Or, should I say, dropped valves?]

IIRC the MGC engine was an Australian creation, sharing bore and stroke, but nothing else, with the C-Series. I believe it's only other application was the Australian Leyland P76. I'm pretty sure it was still all iron, but took advantage of more modern foundry techniques to get the weight lower than the venerable Austin lump.

 

Mind you, Australia did a few interesting things with BMC/Leyland engines. They grafted an extra pair of pots onto the B-Series for a higher performance Mostin Oxbridge Farina variant. Then there was the RWD inline version of the Landcrab 2200 OHC lump that went into a Marina shell and, apparently, worked surprisingly well.

Edited August 14 by PatB

[alastairq]

36 minutes ago, PatB said:

Mind you, Australia did a few interesting things with BMC/Leyland engines.

 The Australians also did for Ford's inline six what Ford USA didn't want to pay for..... namely, making the inlet manifold a separate item, unlike Ford USA, who cast the inlet manifold with the cylinder head. This policy rathe stuck the Ford USA inline six with certain tuning limitations....Which was/is a pity as the US ford inline six [170, 200& 250 cu in]...had [from the 200 cu in] a very strong engine in itself...strangled somewhat by that integral manifold.

The Aussie version, which had a separate manifold, was a much better bet.

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, alastairq said:

To be fair...speaking as an inexperienced autobodgah, regarding that mini on NHS steroids.....I see such things as ideal methods of saving the planet!

 

After all, there must be loads of small cars that have failed their annual tests due to summat being wrong with their lower parts?

Yet, nothing 'wrong' with their interiors, or upper bodies?

 

In the same vein, those smaller, ex-Japanese [usually] off road/on road 4x4 capable  vehicles more often than not fail their annual tests due to body corrosion [especially within 30 cm of body mounts]....yet possess proper, stout, capable chassis!

SO, by marrying the two together one gives an new lease of life to what would normally be reduced to scrap [if only to encourage folk to buy new electric polluters]...with all the pollution that 'scrapping' cars brings...?

 

Could get another 25 years of life out of the underpinnings.....Seeing as the kitcar market doesn't seem to have much currently to sit on old Jap 4x4 chassis?  {AFAIK????}

I know a postman who use to re-cycle VW beetle chassis under all sorts of different, but unwanted or potentially, scrap, bodyshells...MGB GT, Reliant Scimitar, etc etc...He would complain abut the flak he received from the so-called aficionados in this regard, but, hey, would they rather see those scrap bodyshells...er...scrapped? Or, put to some good use for a while longer?

 

I know which I'd prefer....Does that make me oblivious to the sensibilities of others?  Or what?

There are several such cars running around, usually with Suzuki underpinnings. 100E/105E Fords, Austin A35's and Morris Minors and probably a few others.

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I saw an MGC GT yesterday. ISTR Motor Sport tested the soft-top version when new, with the headline "When is a sports car not a sports car? When it's an MGC!" That 3-litre lump evidently upset the handling significantly, they felt. 

Then along came the Rover all alloy V8 (courtesy of Buick) and the MGC was forgotten about.

[Dunsignalling]

42 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Then along came the Rover all alloy V8 (courtesy of Buick) and the MGC was forgotten about.

The 4-cylinder MGB is a well-balanced but rather bland affair that lacks the power to make the handling even remotely "interesting" on dry roads. 

 

By comparison, the MGC has 60% more power and more weight up-front, which allegedly wasn't fully considered in the early cars, thus acquiring a reputation as a bit of a handful if driven briskly. ISTR from magazines of the time that a dealership (in Cambridge, I think) tweaked spring rates and suspension settings and tamed them very successfully, with at least some of that finding its way into later production cars. 

 

The BV8 had the advantage that the alloy motor weighed almost the same as the iron 4-cylinder lump so the car gave existing B lovers a decent power boost without changing the balance they were used to.

 

I always thought it a bit odd that, despite not having all that much more in the b.h.p department than the C, the BV8 was not offered as a roadster. Too much torque for the open shell, perhaps? 

 

 

Edited August 14 by Dunsignalling

[alastairq]

I also found it 'disappointing' that the B concept wasn't also offered with the 2 litre OHC motor from the Maestro/Montego range?

[Moxy]

27 minutes ago, alastairq said:

I also found it 'disappointing' that the B concept wasn't also offered with the 2 litre OHC motor from the Maestro/Montego range?

 

Had production of the MG B not ceased before the Maestro/Montego 2 litre OHC motor was introduced? 

[Martino]

Knew a guy in the early/mid ‘70s who had an MGB GT that Maranello Concessionaires in Egham had got hold of. They fitted some Ferrari engine.  It was a nice conversion with Ferrari badges front and rear and went very well. It was badged MG -GTC. 

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Moxy said:

 

Had production of the MG B not ceased before the Maestro/Montego 2 litre OHC motor was introduced? 

Indeed, I think the B lasted until 1980....with the MG maestro 2 litre coming on line in 1984?

Not a great deal in it, if it had been thought of?

 

[doilum]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The 4-cylinder MGB is a well-balanced but rather bland affair that lacks the power to make the handling even remotely "interesting" on dry roads. 

 

By comparison, the MGC has 60% more power and more weight up-front, which allegedly wasn't fully considered in the early cars, thus acquiring a reputation as a bit of a handful if driven briskly. ISTR from magazines of the time that a dealership (in Cambridge, I think) tweaked spring rates and suspension settings and tamed them very successfully, with at least some of that finding its way into later production cars. 

 

The BV8 had the advantage that the alloy motor weighed almost the same as the iron 4-cylinder lump so the car gave existing B lovers a decent power boost without changing the balance they were used to.

 

I always thought it a bit odd that, despite not having all that much more in the b.h.p department than the C, the BV8 was not offered as a roadster. Too much torque for the open shell, perhaps? 

 

 

The general opinion in MG circles is that it was more to do with internal politics and an inability to satisfy production demands for the V8 in the rangerover and saloons. Whilst 90bhp doesn't sound much today it was sufficient to warrant group5 insurance. Skinny tyres (165x14 ) made for an entertaining back road experience and a significant number of young hoorays ended up in ditches/ wrapped around trees/ through hedges as limited experience met limit of adhesion. It is possible that the consequences of giving 150bhp in an open car wasn't worth the risk to the reputation of a company built on a motto of "safety fast".

The MGC "problem" was that the extra forward weight of the engine ensured inherent understeer. It was never going to match the B or midget on the back roads and was damned by journalists who never gave it the chance to excel at what it was intended to do. It wasn't designed to be a lairy rally car like the big Healeys but rather as a more refined long distant tourer .

[johnlambert]

On the MGC (from memory, mostly).

 

The engine in the MGC is not a C-series as found in the Austin Healey 3000 and Austin Westminster, although it is a development. It went from four main bearings to seven, which seemed to cause more problems than they cured. As far as I'm aware, the engine was only used in the MGC and equally (if not more) ill-fated Austin 3-litre. I know the Australians had their own BMC six-cylinder motors, but I don't think these were related to what was found in the MGC.

 

As far as weight distribution goes, this is what the MG owners club has to say:

"In the end the weight distribution suffered to the extent of 55.7% in the front and 44.3% in the rear against the MGB's 52.5% front; 47.5% rear."

 

There are more factors at play than just the percentage of weight on each axle, such as polar moment of inertia. Imagine a 20kg kettlebell and a dumbbell of equal mass (call it 44lb, if you don't like metric). The dumbbell has a higher moment of inertia as the mass is at the ends of a bar, where a kettlebell's mass is all in one place. The MGC in this analogy is more like the dumbbell, and would feel more ponderous when asked to change direction quickly. The fact about tyre pressures is also true as far as I'm aware and that sort of thing will make a big difference. It also says something (not good) about the competence of an organisation that can't set up its press demonstrator cars correctly, but that may be a different discussion.

 

I'd love to drive an MGC, I'm fairly familiar with the Austin Healey 3000 and with the MGB, so I think it would be interesting to see how the C compares.

[Northmoor]

22 minutes ago, johnlambert said:

The fact about tyre pressures is also true as far as I'm aware and that sort of thing will make a big difference. It also says something (not good) about the competence of an organisation that can't set up its press demonstrator cars correctly, but that may be a different discussion.

 

Although it was also due to having (IIRC) unmodifed Minor front suspension, I've thought much the same for the Marina.  Here was the basis of a very good car which like the contemporary Cortina, being mechanically simple should have been reliable.  The fact that BL managed to make something with so little to go wrong, unreliable, shows just how dreadful their build quality was at the time.  Their naivety at promotion can also be deduced from their attitude to providing cars to the producers of "The Professionals".  

[monkeysarefun]

11 hours ago, alastairq said:

The Aussie version, which had a separate manifold, was a much better bet.

In post 2002 DOHC form the Barra is one of the great unsung motors - and I'm a Holden guy!  Taxis would clock up literally millions of km without any dramas.  Only issue was valve springs were prone to  failure but this was remedied very early on and since then they have been pretty well bullet proof.

It can handle huge power-ups, and 600kW is quite a realistic target with a weekends work. By adding stronger valve springs, a huge turbo, and an electronic tune,, big numbers have been produced on stock bottom ends. 

Ramp up to a fully built  bottom end, reduce the compression ratio and the sky’s the limit. 

There's one  Dyno Queen that  puts out over 2000 HP and thats at the rear wheels. Not bad from an inline 6. 

No longer produced due to Ford Australia dropping off the perch but there is a healthy demand for second hand motors by performance fans in the US and elsewhere - "Barra UK" for instance is based in Barnstaple and is an importer and Barra performance specialist.

 

 

 

Edited August 14 by monkeysarefun

[Hobby]

11 hours ago, alastairq said:

Indeed, I think the B lasted until 1980....with the MG maestro 2 litre coming on line in 1984?

Not a great deal in it, if it had been thought of?

 

The O series was around before the Maestro/Monty, it was fitted in the Marina in 1978 and the Princess later, but neither of them were "tuned" versions, they came much later, in the mid 80s.

 

https://www.aronline.co.uk/engines/o-series/

[alastairq]

I once owned an MG MAestro...2 litre fuel infected...It was indeed a decently pokey beast. [WHo needs more than a hundred bhp on today's roads anyway?  Austin Sevens make less than 20 bhp, yet keep up with, or even, outpace, today's clumsy poke-n-go-can't-stop traffic.]

 

After I had trimmed up all the valves with shims [putting right a professional head job's co##-up] I found it indeed a useful motor...capable of towing prodigious weights up air balloon hill in the cotswolds....

A pity the tailgate caught fire...and the last Ex poked the rear window out with a dead fridge!

[Hobby]

I had several of the diesel versions of the 2.0l O series, a little smokey by todays standards but tremendous torque and economy.

[Rugd1022]

A rather nice MGC turned up at our local pub meet last night...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rugd1022]

Also attending last night...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[russ p]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

I once owned an MG MAestro...2 litre fuel infected...It was indeed a decently pokey beast. [WHo needs more than a hundred bhp on today's roads anyway?  Austin Sevens make less than 20 bhp, yet keep up with, or even, outpace, today's clumsy poke-n-go-can't-stop traffic.]

 

After I had trimmed up all the valves with shims [putting right a professional head job's co##-up] I found it indeed a useful motor...capable of towing prodigious weights up air balloon hill in the cotswolds....

A pity the tailgate caught fire...and the last Ex poked the rear window out with a dead fridge!

 

Now my EFi is run in and a couple of thousand miles on , it's now settled down to be a fantastic car, weekend before last I drove to the MGOC northern national show at Pateley Bridge.  I more than kept up with modern traffic it amazes me how fast it is . It has a few minor modifications so is probably about 130bhp and now has spax dampers so handles absolutely fantastic now. It was doing over 36mpg so I can see why I've had so many of these over the years as daily drivers

Was really shocked for it to awarded best post 1980 MG and best saloon in show. Really didn't expect that

[russ p]

Went to a car show at bure Valley railway last night,  was a really good show. Picture was taken as people were leaving.  Model shop was open as was buffed and BBQ . 

We also had a drive of a steam loco for a tenner

Mate I went with is an LSL driver was quite funny when BVR driver asked him if he'd ever driven a steam loco before and he said its my day job!

One thing that had the ability to spoil things was some w@nker in a Sierra doing massive wheel screeches when leaving.  Gearboxes never explode when you want them to