Tell me about MGB GTs

I very nearly bought one of these, went for a Midget instead

Pros
B-Series engine sounds amazing
Looks nice
Waterproof
Fun to drive, you feel very 'involved' and it makes nice mechanical noises
Very easy to find spares
Very easy to modify for power, handling, reliability, economy
Other MG owners give you a wave when you pass them
Pretty comfortable and not bad on the motorway either

Cons
Rust - check sills, floor, around headlamp bowls, suspension
A tad slow, weight of the GT roof, but modifications are cheap and easy
Can still only fit two people in there, three at an absolute most, and not much carrying capability (more than the roadster though!)
A bit common (that's why values are falling a bit)
Values are falling a bit! But if you take car of it, you'll get back what you pay for it
Not great MPG, around 30 if you're sensible, but modifications can improve this somewhat
Unreliable - but modifications can definitely improve this
A bit of an old man's car... but modifications can improve this!

The new 'flat cap on crack' look ;D

Cheers for the lowdown

MGB-GT's are fun, simple cars... a GREAT platform for modifications!

I've had mine twenty-one years. IMHO they're much better than the MGB tourer, in terms of both appearance and chassis strength. (I've had both.) Since about 1992, my GT has been powered by a Buick 215, which has been absolutely reliable. In July, I'll drive it from Colorado to Wisconsin and back and average about 27mpg (in U.S. gallons, which are smaller...)

Specs:
www.britishv8.org/MG/CurtisJacobson.htm

Recent pictures:











---

There are LITERALLY a couple thousand more photos of hot-rodded MGB's on my website. Check them out here: www.britishv8.org

Some examples:

www.britishv8.org/MG/TerrySchulte.htm







www.britishv8.org/MG/LorenzHassenstein.htm







www.britishv8.org/MG/LarryShimp.htm





www.britishv8.org/MG/RobertMilner.htm





www.britishv8.org/MG/DarrenJones.htm

Wow those pics are a lot of reasons to want a B!

For: look cool as hell with a little work
Against: slow as standard!

Early rubber-bumper B's (74-76) had no anti-roll bar and handled like a greased pig on ice. Later ones (post-'76) were much better.

Avoid 'handling kits' like the plague, my dad's '76 Roadster has them and it destroys the ride. His also has a full stainless LCB/single-box system that sounds awesome.

My choice would be a '69-'73 GT with the single hoop grille and BLMC badges, on Rostyles....the ones the flat-cappers like least.

captainwow wrote: "Just don't get a rubber bumper one"

But converting from rubber to chrome bumpers is do-able. In fact, the blue GT shown above is a 1979 rubber-bumper model. Big weight reduction. Some welding required.

briandamaged wrote: "Early rubber-bumper B's (74-76) had no anti-roll bar..."

True, but it only takes an hour to fix that and with any luck a previous owner will already have taken care of it for you.

simes wrote: "Get an MGC GT and be different!"

Now you're talking! An MGC-GT can be tremendously improved with V8 power, and doing so creates a car that's very "different".

The MGC engine was horribly overweight (as was the B-series four-banger.) A Ford 302 with stock iron block and aftermarket alloy heads weighs about 460lbs, versus 650lbs for the original MGC engine. The MGC crossmember suits the Ford oil pan perfectly! (Incidentally, big Toyota brake calipers bolt right on to an MGC as shown below.)

You have to wonder why MG didn't work with Ford to put their V8 in the MGC to begin with. Ford had already been providing the engine to Sunbeam for the Tiger (so the idea should have been obvious), and Chrysler had recently bought Sunbeam (and the rest of Rootes Group,) so the Tiger was obviously destined to disappear and leave Ford without any conflict-of-interest.

Of course if you like the MGC look, you could simply fit an MGC bonnet onto an MGB. The bonnets are still available new, or you can get a fibreglass one.

Anyway, check out this authentic 1969 MGC GT with Ford V8: www.britishv8.org/MG/BobElwin.htm

You've got the timing all wrong. MG didn't have access to the Rover V8 when they were developing the MGC. Rover hadn't even licensed the design from GM yet. Besides that, Rover was still independent. Shortly after Rover licensed the aluminum V8, Rover was acquired by Leyland. The big BMC / Leyland merger happened still later. Thus, the MGB GT V8 (with Rover V8) wasn't released until October 1973... which was quite a long time too late.

If anything, the Rover / GM deal supports my argument. It's another example of successful British/American cooperation.

MG engineers did build a prototype with a Daimler V8 in the mid 60's, so obviously they were thinking about engines from outside of the BMC umbrella.

The Triumph (Stag) V8 hadn't been developed yet... besides, (a) it was a horrible engine and (b) there was no chance Triumph would have permitted its use in an MG.

The question boils down to "how much autonomy did MG have within BMC?" because clearly MG and Ford had almost no overlap in their customer-base at all. (Sure, this wouldn't have been true with BMC's other divisions in the UK market.) But in the late 60's, the Ford V8 would have tremendously helped MG sell cars in the North American market... and that was actually a bigger market for MG than all of UK and Europe combined.

Ford's perspective? Selling engines to Rootes (and to Shelby for the Cobra) was cool with Ford, even for sports cars sold in the North American market. They had nothing to lose, and they had some engine/parts business and good publicity to gain. Ford's real competition was GM and Chrysler.