For you fellas that like this sort of thing A picture of an MG...
(http://i.imgbox.com/MqGk4yPY)
...
Nice! A very British-looking car to my eye.
Paul
Epitome of a sporty car. Always liked them.
I should have said that it is doing what an MG is renowned for - not running.
People are funny. Some folks like tinkering with things that others wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. Personally, I HATE messing around with cars. To me they're just "tools" for a specific purpose. On the other hand, I mess with firearms that MANY folks would just throw under a steam roller! To them, firearm are "just tools" for a specific purpose, not something one should have to "put up with".
When I was young, I had several friends that had various MGs. I swear to you that I traversed more miles PUSHING those !@#$%^&* things than I did riding in them! Nonetheless, I understand those that have a place in their hearts for them just as I do for "old guns".
Paul
That, is a pic of an MGA, I had the later MGB GT. Which actually wasn't that bad reliability wise. Rust, however, was a different kettle of fish !.
I also had a Lotus Elan +2 SE, that was MUCH more quirky !.
I don't think any British made car ( & many European ) was truly reliable until the Japs showed us the way, when we started importing stuff like the Datsun Cherry etc.
Same with the British Motorbike when the first Honda's were imported, it was a case of adapt or die, & the British bike industry had its head in the sand, & kind of died. :o
It`s not Twin Cam is it ?? VERY nice !
Excellent points jaeger88!
Paul
Don't think the MGA was a Twin cam, certainly the MGB wasn't.
Though they did do the V8, that had the 3.5 ltr Rover V8/small block Chevy shoe horned in. THAT was a different animal !.
3.5l Rover V8 was originally a Buick 215 small block - Linky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine)
Small block Chevy was common for the 'hot rodders'.
MG did produce an MGA TwinCam. To my knowledge they were all hard tops. Interesting motors however the valve train had `issues`. They do bring a premium price to MG collectors. This red car is drop dead gorgeous!
I especially like the Lucas Flame Thrower driving lights.
WOW!!! A 200 hp 215 cubic inch V8. Musta spun up real well!!! Reading about it now. Sounds like the cast iron block was "better" but maybe way too heavy for an MG.
I had a '71 CJ5 with a 225 Buick V6. Tons of torque!!! But it desperately need power steering.
RJ
I stand corrected JaDub, MG certainly did make a Twin Cam for the MGA !.
Wonder why it never made it into the MGB ?. Probably a "cost" thing.
As the MGB's 1800 engine only produced 95 bhp, where as the Twin Cam produced 100 bhp. ( De-tuned down from 108 bhp due to detonation problems ).
Well , MG did make the MGC which was an MGB with the Austin Healy 3000 six cylinder, but it was a bit nose heavy and not really an improvement. The improved torque was a nice thing but it completely upset the balance of the car. British Leyland dropped the car after a brief production run that failed to sell many of them. Triumph did come up with the TR8 , which was an interesting car but it too suffered weight distribution problems and underpowered brakes. Then Datsun came along and showed just how to engineer a light weight, powerful, user friendly sportscar with their 240-Z and then Porsche with the 914. It`s not a wonder they pretty much dominated the affordable , fun sports car market in the `70s.
That said , the brits did an incredible job of producing fun, affordable cars to the post WWII emergent sports car market.
MG's problems in the 1970's was a political one at British Leyland ............................ basically they wanted to Kill MG off hence to switch to Triumph for the competiton departments cars. The MGB had a British Leyland engine rather than the MG one.
I don't understand the reliabilty issues that many claim. Normal servicing stops most issues. As you lot know I run some British cars one has a Honda engine as it's from the Rover honda tie up period the others have K series engines. These are modern to me I started off with a 58 Ford 100E Prefect with is 1156cc Side valve engine and 3 speed manual gearbox. Jap cars in the UK literally fell apart with rust. Datsuns were very bad for it as I recall.
Yep.......... when you build cars using the Oragami method ( Japanese traditional paper folding ), water/ salt took its` toll on thin sheet metal.
I was never aware of the internal strife at British Leyland ( Triumph - MG ). I worked at an MG dealership in the early to mid `70s. I remember the MG Midgets coming in with 1500cc Triumph Spitfire engines. Once the MGs ( both Bs and Midgets ) started wearing one Zenith Stromberg carb (vs twin SUs ) and rubber bumpers, the marque was a dead indian over here. U.S. emissions became a real issue as well. When we were forced to sell Austin Marinas the end was in sight. The Marina, a very cheaply built sedan ( single carbed MGB engine ) was a total turd. Everything broke and nothing was worth saving.
The Marina and later Ital was in fact based upon the Minor and used the same torsion bar front suspension. The 1300cc engine fitted to both Marina and Ital was a lively little unit and was in fact quicker than the 1800 cc version. The 1800 was dropped from the Ital which instead got the 1700 cc OHC unit which I beleive was the "O" series engine. I had a 1980 Ital estate (Station Wagon) with the 1.7L OHC engine and it was an OK car. Of course it was over 10 years old when I got it. Bright orange paint on it.
The swallowing up of the car makers by British Leyland was the wrong thing to do but they ahd this idea that bigger was better however this was prooved to be false in time although they don't seem to have learnt.
Have also wondered for a long time if it was not the emission equipment fitted for the US sales that caused issues as out home market cars didn't have them and did not seem to have the same problems that US cars did?