Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Still an amateur-- what is an MG?

2»

Comments

  • burdawgburdawg Member Posts: 1,524
    I'd go for an earlier model if you can, say a later 60's. The most important thing to consider is rust. Check underneath real good. MGB's are unibody, once rust starts around the rear spring mounts your in for trouble.
    I have always been partial to the 1970, I like the split rear bumper, only available that year.
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    Personally, I like the early to mid 60's models.
    There are kits now to convert them from positive ground to negative ground and they really aren't that expensive.

    The early 70 models started to see the emissions garbage of the 70s and have several problems.

    One thing to keep in mind when looking, the dual carb set ups of the mid 60s were a bear to get set up correctly without the proper tools.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    To set the carbs, you'll need a "Uni-Syn" tool and a small wrench. Most MGs don't run right because the carbs are all worn out by the time you get them...the throttle shafts are loose and suck air into the mixture and screw it up. But SUs, once rebuilt, are very simple inside. I think there are 3 parts total in there. You can buy a book on how to take care of them.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,707
    Those SUs sound like older motorcycle carbs - any similarities?
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    Almost all MG parts are easily available. I'm rebuilding the SUs in my MG right now...Moss Motors and Victoria British offered everything I needed.

    I like the 1971-1974 MGs...lower ride height and fewer emission controls. And in the case of the Midget (my MG), it has the better engine than in later or earlier years.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah, slide type with a tapered needle jet...

    That's right, you can get just about any part imaginable for an MGB. There's a fabulous aftermarket parts network. No waiting! Aside from a VW, I can't think of any other foreign car where so much is available so easily. You can even order an entire new body for the car!!
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    You can even order an entire new body for the car!!
    It's true...even the body. Except for the 1970-1974 Midget, which has a prettier, albeit less crash friendly, rear fender design. But if you have an early or late Midget or any (I believe it's the same for all years) B, the rear unibody is available brand new!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think on the B you can order (perhaps in pieces) the entire body shell and doors, hood and fenders, complete. That's pretty amazing.

    And to think, they killed MG for the TR7. No wonder they almost lost World War II.
    :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,140
    And they did lose their auto industry :sick:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    And their motorcycle industry :sick:
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    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 Member Posts: 10,707
    How many special (non-US or metric) tools would I need to work on a, say, 1970 MGB?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    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 Member Posts: 10,707
    Good - I was wondering if it was infested with those 'quaint' English fasteners - Whitworth, or something like that?
  • burdawgburdawg Member 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.
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    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:
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    If I am correct, about half of the RV8s ended up in Japan.
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    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.
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    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:
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    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 Member Posts: 57,140
    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The new Peugeot turbo-diesels are pretty fantastic little cars. I can see why he likes them. I was *very* impressed.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    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 Member 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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    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.
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    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.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    What do you think of this?

    Combined with this story

    or do you think that is all BS or a stupid idea entirely?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    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.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    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...
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    You know if you were going to reprise a Triumph model could you do better then TR-6?

    It fits with BMWs tendency to use alpha numerics and BMW already has the best inline 6 cylinders in the world.

    I personally always liked the name Stag but I don't see it making a come back either.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    There was a car madein the USA called the American Moosehead. I always thought that would be a great name for a big SUV.

    This constant reaching back to the past smacks of desperation doesn't it?

    They'll never be another MG. It's still possible to evoke the past in a new car---Porsche and Ferrari both do that---their 2007 cars DO FEEL like the old cars in some ways...there's a definite connection in sound, driving position, even in styling....but a "new" MG? How could that possibly be re-created? Is someone really going to build a torquey pushrod 4 cylinder engine and mate it to a dogsled suspension? I don't THINK so.

    Ferrari and Porsche were sophisticated cars in 1965. MG certainly was not. It had more in common with 1925 than 2005.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    There was a car madein the USA called the American Moosehead. I always thought that would be a great name for a big SUV.


    That would be a good name althought it almost sounds Canyoneroish.

    image

    Completely off topic but that reminded me of this. If you ever get over to my side of the country you have to stop by the Golden Age of Trucking museum. My Wife's aunt, Aunt In-Law I guess, runs it along with another woman.

    Golden Age of Trucking

    I had my wedding there and it is a freaking cool place. They have some really cool old trucks there including some pre-war stuff from local makes.

    Partial list of trucks on hand They get new stuff all the time. When I was there for my wedding they had a collection of WWII era armor there.

    image

    That is one of my favorites. 1928 Pierce Arrow.
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    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...

    But Mini "was a very humble little car when it first came out" as well.

    I can't imagine that BMW would launch a "BMW Spitfire" but a new Triumph Spitfire wouldn't have any negative connection to BMW. Nobody seems to have a problem with the ultimate British icons (Rolls-Royce and Bentley) being owned by their former rivals the Germans.

    BMW has done an excellent job of promoting its newer brands. Rolls-Royce has returned to its position as the top car to be driven in. Mini has established a subcompact as a premium brand. And none of this has seemed to lessen the impact of BMW's image.

    My dual loves of Triumph's rival MG (Triumph-powered MG Midgets were NOT as good as MG-powered ones) and off-brand vehicles in general are at odds. I would rather see MG become a global brand again (preferably not under Chinese control, though) than a revival of Triumph, but I also would like to see more niche brands revived. It's such a conundrum!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well humble in original form but also developed into a world-class butt-kicker. The MINI Cooper S gave bigger faster cars FITS in racing on tight tracks and in the Monte Carlo rally (and others). You can still view old film footage of MINIS eating up Corvettes at Lime Rock (back when Corvettes had maximum power and minimum brakes). The racing MINIS were formidable and highly respected cars.

    Spitfires share none of this world-class glory IMO. It's a car you bought when you couldn't afford an MGB and when you couldn't bring yourself to drive a Triumph Herald.
  • hudsonthedoghudsonthedog Member Posts: 552
    Spitfires share none of this world-class glory IMO. It's a car you bought when you couldn't afford an MGB and when you couldn't bring yourself to drive a Triumph Herald.

    Again, I'm an MG fan so I find it difficult to defend Triumph. BUT...

    I would imagine that a revived Triumph would start with the TR-Series before they'd relaunch any other model name. I, personally, would rather see a revived Dolomite hitting the market to compete with the RWD tuner cars that the Japanese car fans seem to want from Toyota/Nissan.

    But make a TR9 and I'll be there to check it out.
  • starrow68starrow68 Member Posts: 1,142
    "Spitfires share none of this world-class glory IMO. ..."

    I'm sure you are correct, but in the world of sports car
    racing I seem to have read about several well tuned spitfires
    that did a lot in SCCA lower classes for several decades.
    Seems the car could be put in shape to compete at that level.
    BTW, I owned a B from '72 to '85 so was always partial
    to B's over any Triumph model.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'm sure a Spitfire won a race or two but we never heard about it in the outside world. MG had a lot more visibility in America at least, and certainly a more substantial pre-war reputation; also victories with Stirling Moss, etc. And of course, we had the MG TC which really was responsible for introducing the foreign sports car to America, with the returning US soldiers who brought them home after WW II.

    Triumph was, is, and always will be the also-ran of MG, and that's just the way it is, fair or not.
  • starrow68starrow68 Member Posts: 1,142
    Guess that is the one advantage about not having followed it
    at the time. I only know about what they dredge up for the
    classic motorsports reviews of the past. I will say that
    I've seen two spitfires at track events in the past 4+years
    and no MGB's. Although the B's do seem to have a few entries
    at the Historic events.
    Randy
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah I don't think contemporary vintage racing reflects the actual spread or performance of the cars at the time of their manufacture...but I'm sure people raced their Triumphs back in the day. But I don't think Spitfires made much of a name for themselves back then.

    It's a pretty slender hook upon which to hang a reputation, is my point. It's a rather obscure car for a "heritage".
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    Guys, Fascinating forum. If you have a look at UK Google and search under UK CAR CLUBS you'll find a plethora of sites devoted to all sorts of marques, (some of which even this old Btit isn't really familiar with). One site lists them all, A - Z, incl non-UK marques. Hours of fun seeing what the folks of this nostalgic island are still getting up to. It's amazing to realise what is still alive and kicking.......and still being raced. :)

    BMW Spitfire ? No thanks; it would just be a re-hash of the awful Z4. I'd trust Mazda to build one, though. They understand the real "spirit" of small sports cars : MX-5 is the true successor to lots of them; B's, Elan's, Spridgets, (later A H Sprite & MG Midget were just about interchangeable), Healey's etc. You don't need huge power outputs, just power and chassis balance plus a brush to get the flies out of your teeth.

    TVR rather lost the plot, IMO, and just kept on adding power. Wonderful but not to be used if there was rain within about 50 miles. (Now that's going to get me in trouble).

    We still have some small-volume builders; Morgan, Aerial and Noble are three that spring to mind. Caparo is, (probably), the latest but that's a truly mental motor car at an eye-wateringly high price. :D
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Some companies evolve their "vision", others seem to really lose it.

    The idea of the Brits killing off the MG so that they could divert all capital to the TR7 still makes me overheat (appropriately enough).

    How ironic that Mazda has remained so pure to original intent. We do not have the V-10 Mazda with 9-speed paddle shifting and computer suspension costing $65,000, and hopefully I've never have to suffer looking at one.
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    Kas Kastner, Bob Tullius, and all of the Group 44 drivers from the mid to late '60s would beg to differ on the role of the Spit and TRs success on the SCCA circuit. The Spits "cleaned many MG clocks" in G and F Production. And, the TRs did the same in C, D, and E Production classes.

    I had the "pleasure" - if you can call it that - to own a number of Brit cars during the late '50s into the '60s, and early '70s. No need for any rehashed BMW versions here, as I owned the originals. Been there, and done that for sure . . . I will stick to the modern cars I drive today, albeit they don't mark their parking spots as all of my Brit cars did.

    With all the emphasis on curtain and lumbar side airbags, plus all of the other safety equipment available today, I shudder to think of being T-Boned in my 1960 Triumph TR-3A. Beautiful to look at, but deadly in an accident. Sometimes, I really feel lucky to be alive after having spent so many hours in the cockpit of those cars!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well gee how's an MG going to race against a TR6? With an MGC?---hahahahaha....

    My point/opinion (once again...ahem...) is that Spitfire has no heritage in the American buyers' memory but MG does. If Americans remember anything about Triumph, it's the TR3 or the TR6 (or the TR250, my favoritest British sports car of the 1960s!!!)

    Ergo, marketing a new Spitfire in America would drop like a ball of lead from a clock tower.
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    The TR250 was a nice TR4A with the 2.5L Inline 6 from the Vittese and Triumph 2000 sedan, but the TR5 was much nicer, with petrol injection (albeit Lucas) rather than the Stromberg CDSE carbs. Of course, the TR5 wasn't officially imported into the USA.

    The Inline 6 in the TR250 was only marginally more powerful than the Vanguard 4 in the TR4A, due to the Zenith-Stromberg carbs, milder cam, and somewhat retarded ignition advance curve. The TR250 was only produced for 15 months (late '67 and '68), and was an interim model between the TR4A and the TR6. I still have very vivid memories of a BRG TR250 sitting on the dealer's showroom floor when I bought my GT6. A '68 TR250 and a '68 E-Type Coupe both on the showroom floor, and I can still remember the sticker price on the E-Type to this day: $6,800.

    Many econo cars of today would out handle either the TR6 or MGC which really isn't saying much is it? Especially the MGC - it could go fine in a straight line, but when you wanted to turn, ah, it was a different story.

    Hardly anyone today remembers the Spitfire, either the car or the plane that saved Britain's bacon in 1940. Sad really, but true . . .

    P.S. In mentioning the TR4A, I am always amazed at what Triumph engineers did when converting the live rear axle of the TR4 to an IRS configuration used in 75% of the production of the TR4A, and all of the production of the TR5, TR250, and TR6. The axle shafts run above the frame rails - amazing, only in England would they consider this. You can always easily pick out and IRS equipped TR, as it squats significantly under acceleration or load.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh yes, the Stromberg "vacuum depression" carburetors. Kind of a nuisance, very tedious to adjust. The SUs were much easier to work on, and more economical by a long shot.

    If you got the Strombergs set up right (bought the jet tools, etc) and rebuilt them, I'd have to admit they ran stronger than SUs through the rev range.

    I think the TR5 with the Lucas injection would not have been a success in America. Maserati used that same system to no good result.

    Alfa's SPICA was better.

    I guess MG did finally bow to Stromberg when the pathetic rubber bumper MGBs came out with a SINGLE Stromberg. I remember how the exhaust manifolds would glow red at night on those cars.

    Top speed was an alleged 73 mph.
  • mattandimattandi Member Posts: 588
    My first car was a '72 MGB. Kept it through my first couple of years in college in the Appalachian mountains of NC. What a blast on those roads. Used to just laugh at Florida expatriates in their RV's.

    Two six volts in the back "seat." Three wipers. Fussy webers that just never got just right (could either idle or run flat out, but not both)

    Most invaluable features were aftermarket ad-ons - a Chilton manual and a basic toolkit. ;)

    I keep threatening my wife that I am going to find another one.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Now's the time while they are still reasonably cheap and while the aftermarket parts are plentiful.

    Yes, avoid Webers on an MGB if you can. Too much carburetion for that engine.
  • mjgoulbournmjgoulbourn Member Posts: 1
    I am thinking about buying a '54 or '55 MG TF, but I am concerned about value. In the recession, prices went down, but as we recover I am a little doubtful that prices will rebound. Any ideas out there? I can only afford to buy one classic car and do not want to blow it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    MG TFs are charming cars and I think they are the best of the "T" series. The 1955 model with the 1500 engine is the rarest of the TFs, and somewhat more valuable than 53-54s, so the best appreciation will be the 1500. I don't see these cars ever going down in value.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles