Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Still an amateur-- what is an MG?

124

Comments

  • british_roverbritish_rover Posts: 8,476
    I am trying to get one of my British Buddies to find a DVD of "Who Killed the British Car Industry?" but so far no luck.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    How many special (non-US or metric) tools would I need to work on a, say, 1970 MGB?
  • None...SAE + Metric should handle everything except a few special tools that have nothing to do with size of the opening....to be honest, an adjustable wrench, a vise grip, some screw drivers and a fishing tackle box are about all you need to fix an MGB. We are talking 1915 technology here.

    Of course, I'm not recommending you use such tools---but you could get away with it in a pinch. Well maybe not for head bolts :P
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    Good - I was wondering if it was infested with those 'quaint' English fasteners - Whitworth, or something like that?
  • burdawgburdawg Posts: 1,524
    Unless you really get into it you don't need any special tools I can think of. There are special reamers that are used for front end work (MG's are king pin front ends, believe it or not) but most people just buy rebuilt swivel assemblies if needed and don't do the reaming themselves. I have done lots of work on my MGB and don't recall needing anything out of the ordinary.
    One thing most MG owners don't realize is that you can change rod bearings while the engine is in the car, since the oil pan can be removed without removing the engine. I don't know how many times I have heard of people having the little 1.8 rebuilt because of a loose rod bearing. It's not always necessary, as long as the crankpin is in good condition.
  • no-one seems to have mentioned the MG RV8 which was the spiritual re-incarnation of the old MG-B. 3.9 Ltr V8, 5-spd, 0-60 in 5.9secs. Quite nice in an olde wolde sort of way. Maybe they didn't make it over the pond (?) Go here for a look.

    www.mgcars.org.uk/rv8.html

    Of course, Rover were badging all sorts of dire things as MG's. Most of them ghastly but the MG ZT260 did have the 4.6 Ltr V8 from the Mustang, (honest) and is now something of a collectable item. Links to that, and the MG SV - a truly horrific "supercar" that was a rebadged Italian something are below. :lemon: The SV was truly bad and one of the motoring magazine's road test cars broke down repeatedly. Mostly, bits just kept falling off. You could, if you were brave, or stupid, enough specify a factory NOS kit for your SV. Aaaaaaarrrggghhh.

    www.mgsv-club.co.uk/

    Apologies for being late to this thread. Many excuses; mostly boring. :blush:
  • If I am correct, about half of the RV8s ended up in Japan.
  • no-one seems to have mentioned the MG RV8...
    You mentioned the reason why it wasn't mentioned...Americans last saw a new MG in 1980. We were not given access to the MG Metro (which I would have liked), Maestro, RV8, ZR, ZS, ZT, or the SV (which was actually designed to meet US specs). The 1979 Midget and 1980 MGB were the last MG-badged vehicles sold in the US.

    The RWD ZT-260 would have been a nice addition to the US marketplace, and I would have even liked the standard FWD versions of the ZT. The SV was sold in the US in its previous incarnation as the Qvale Mangusta...of which you can probably still find an unregistered one around for not too much money.
  • Rather thought that's why the RV8 didn't hit your shores. The Metro, Maestro, (and Montego), weren't actually that good but the Maestro was quick for it's day. Remember driving the whole range at a trade track day at Brands Hatch, (those were the days). Kept waiting for the turbo to kick-in on the Metro - it never seemed to and the Montego shed a drive shaft midway through a bend. :surprise: Not an experience I'd like to repeat in a FWD car. Best fun of the day was from a) a standard Rover 820i which was just so precise and chuckable and b) a Rover SD1 Vitesse V8 which was huge fun in the bends and had that lovely V8 rumble from the ex-Buick lump which went on to be fitted into just about everything from Range Rovers to TVR's. Good SD1's ones are now hard to find.

    The ZS, ZR and ZT were/are, of course, re-badged Rovers. The ZT was actually a Rover 75 - lots of badge snobs decried it but it was, and still is, a b****y good motor car and lots of testers said the ride was better than Rolls Royce. Ever so cheap now. Yes, you're absolutely correct, the SV was of course the Qvale but I couldn't bring that name to mind. In MG form it was a real hairy disaster...............Lada quality for Porsche money; not a good combination. :lemon:
  • The Qvale Mangusta wasn't a great car either. Qvale is an American company that made a deal with deTomaso to make the Mangusta, but legal issue arose and Qvale absorbed the whole operation before selling it to MG Rover.

    America did have the Rover 3500 (you call it the SD1) for a couple of years during Rover's second attempt on the States. I've found a few 3500's around and thought about buying each and every one. Even thought about buying a Sterling 825 (Rover 825 to you) in the early 1990s. But the Sterling was creaked and rattled so bad that I decided not to spend the money on it.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,909
    Funny...a friend of mine who travels to the UK often is in love with the Rover 75. He'd bring one over to NA if he could.

    From the rental cars he has had, he also likes Peugeot diesels.
  • The new Peugeot turbo-diesels are pretty fantastic little cars. I can see why he likes them. I was *very* impressed.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Posts: 1,704
    I was wondering- if I ever got a late '70s MG (Midget or B) would it be possible to chuck the junk stock Zenith carb and install dual SUs on the motor? Would that work even with all the emissions garbage?
  • burdawgburdawg Posts: 1,524
    You can do it, but it won't pass emissions in a lot of places. On an MGB the integrated intake/exhaust manifold will need to be replaced with the older style separate manifolds, carbs, etc. Downdraft Webers and headers are a popular option. I know shifty doesn't agree, but it's the way a lot of people go.
    I'm not sure on a Midget, but I think it's about the same.
  • Yeah, you could do it but the earlier Midgets are so cheap that why would you bother? As for the late 70s Bs, those are cheaper than the earlier cars but you're stuck with the rubber bumpers and the jacked-up suspension--which takes a LOT to correct.

    You can put a Weber on if you want to waste gas and gain about 1/2 a horsepower (front half or rear?), but there's nothing like a pair of SUs. They work the best.

    I'd have to check but I think you could take a late 70s Midget engine, put on an earlier head, manifold and twin SUs, replace the exhaust system, etc. But then you can't pass smog and couldn't re-sell the car in many states.

    I know a guy who modified a 1980 MGB with vastly better suspension and an earlier engine and it runs and drives just great...but it still looks like a 1980 MGB--and he has to re-install the old engine every two years for smog check.
  • Re. one of Shifty's old posts . . . I would agree the overall quality of the MG was better than Triumph, but having owned a number of both, I disagree in one area - engines.

    My experience with both marques from 1959 thru 1968 models, including a Magnette, MGB, MGB GT, TR3A, TR4, GT6, and a TR6, I feel that Triumph made the better engine. Not only were they stronger and more torquey, both the Vanguard I4 and the Vittese-based Inline 6, but longer-lived than the MG. The basic problem with Triumph was the entire package - many times, not well-executed. All but 3 were bought new, and really had an excellent time learning about cars during my early years as a driver and car owner.
  • What do you think of this?

    Combined with this story

    or do you think that is all BS or a stupid idea entirely?
  • Sounds like a classic case of corporate blundering into expansion for no good reason into areas in which they have no business. (can you VW Phaeton?)

    RE: Triumph vs. MG -- you'd get no strong argument from me that Triumph made a better engine than MG...Triumphs were always a touch faster and MGs seemed to handle better and were better-built.

    RE: A new BMW "Spitfire". I think the name "Spitfire" on a German product would not be good PR, even 67 years after the "Great Unpleasantness". If the UK still takes the time to do Spitfire fly-overs at memorial ceremonies I don't think they would much appreciate BMWs stealing the name. I mean, would you drive a Honda "USS Arizona"?

    I am told that names of soldiers and airmen killed in both WWI and WWII are published on the anniversary of certain battles, to this day.
  • I agree for the most part. I think BMW has sort of lost their way like Mercedes has.

    I think the backlash if they came out with a model called the Spitfire would be felt even over in the states.

    Some of the small town papers in my neck of the woods do publish the names of the dead from certain battles. One of the local shops in the town over from where my dealership is has a little section with various articles from old newspapers when someone was killed in battle. Many of them go all the way back to WWI. Whenever a veteran from the town dies they add his obituary to the wall.
  • One would think (if one were thinking) that to reprise a model name, one would pick a model name that had some glory, fame, mythology, etc attached to it....SILVER GHOST...CHARGER....MINI...MUSTANG....CAMARO....2002...540K...300SL

    but "spitfire"?

    I mean, this was a very humble little car when it first came out...
Sign In or Register to comment.