I once met a girl in a complicated and unfulffilling dream. But it was so vivid, that for years afterward, I had trouble remembering whether she had been a real girlfriend or a figment of my nocturnal imagination. Stumbling across this 1967 MGB-GT brings up the same confusion: did I actually own an identical “B”, or was it too just a dream?
If dreams are projections of our desires, the MG certainly fit that. Of course, I lusted after all kinds of cars as a kid, but the hunger for MG’s increased palpably after my older brother bought an MGA during his college years. I duly observed (and documented) his valiant but ultimately futile efforts fighting the triple dragons of rust, Lucas electrics and every other possible permutation of perpetual non-motion. His losing battle gave my MG desires pause, but then pauses by nature are transitory.
Anyway, my MG dreams were always for a B. Yes, a pristine A is cute and seductive, but after that curvaceous body inevitably rusts away, one confronts a frame, suspension and mechanicals only barely changed from its roaring twenties-evoking predecessors. The MGA was “transitionary”; but with the B, MG finally, sort of, entered the modern world, leaving Morgan to the died-in-castor-oil traditionalists.
Up until the B, the classic English approach to sports car design was a flexible-flyer ladder frame and very stiff suspension. Unintentionally (I presume), the frame functioned as a major suspension component. It was the exact opposite of the Porsche (or Lotus) approach. And it was not conducive to precise (or predictable) handling over anything but smooth roads. Fun, in a go-cart sort of way, but then go-carts usually stick to smooth tracks.
The semi-revolutionary B introduced a semi-stiff unibody, somewhat softer suspension (“heresy!”), a bigger engine, and disc brakes. But the icing on the cake was the styling. Rarely has a car achieved such timeless good looks. Good thing too, since the MGB stayed in production for almost twenty years—and then briefly resurrected as the mangled RV8 in 1993.
Sadly, the B got progressively uglier as time went on, until it was an abomination sporting giant black rubber bumpers, riding on stilts (jacked-up suspension), and with all of 79 (!) horsepower. At least in America; or is it the least?
Back in Britannia, the faithful were enjoying the MGB-GT V8, the ultimate B. Thanks to the “special relationship,” the MG finally had the engine it always deserved. The ex-Buick Rover V8 even weighed sixty pounds less than the stalwart 1.8-liter four. How (non-ferrous) ironic is that? The 3.5 V8 gave a new (lend)lease on life to a whole gaggle of rapidly aging English cars.
The MGB’s old-school B-block four had been its biggest liability, lusty torque aside. The long-stroke chuffer was more suitable for agricultural work, due to its poorly breathing cylinder head with siamesed ports.
At least it finally got five main bearings in 1965, and by 1967, a proper fully-synchronized transmission backed it up. That makes the ’67 the golden year for Americanized B’s. By 1968, the terminal decline due to safety and smog controls was already underway.
The real seed of my MGB-GT lust was the exquisiteness of Pininfarina’s deft hand. That roofline created a perfect wholeness to the B’s already good looks. I was already an avid collector of the Italian master’s work, in the form of numerous Peugeot 404s and a 403.
We were living in an apartment in Santa Monica with a gaggle of Peugeots, some of which were self-propelled, whereas others relied on foot power to move them each week for the street cleaner. The immovable 403 sat in our one garage parking space. But through some quirk, another space opened up. Time for a new addition to the fleet!
The late seventies in Southern California was a nirvana for young men with car lust. Every conceivable aging sports car or exotic was just waiting to be plucked (cheaply) from the weekend LA Times classifieds, the craigslist of the times. The back lot behind the tv station was a resurrection facility/dumping ground for all sorts of exotica. One of my more ambitious co-workers picked up a well-seasoned Aston DB-2 for small change. The fact that it was utterly rotten (not rusty though) had little to do with diminishing our youthful dreams. How hard can it be? (too hard, in the case of the A-M).
They might all have be afflicted with endless mechanical challenges, but rust, at least, wasn’t one of them,thanks to the climate. Maybe that’s what kept us going. Nothing like a fully-intact 25 year old English or Italian sports car body to keep spirits high. Or was it the spirits that kept us high?
And so one Saturday morning, instead of taking a mind-clearing run on the beach eight blocks away, I was seduced by that fat wad of paper, opened it the classifieds, and stumbled upon a 1967 MGB-GT in need of a valve job. Its seller was obviously a slightly older and wiser young man getting rid of his one-third finished project. It ran just enough to limp home on two and a half cylinders. And there it sat, and sat, and . . . sat. Bad timing: right after I got it, I received a double promotion: to fatherhood and management.
A couple of years later, I had to get rid of it because we were moving. I had a (younger, dumber and single) buyer, but the deal was for a running car (maybe he wasn’t quite so dumb after all). I finally took the cylinder head to the machine shop, put things back together, it started right up and ran well enough. It’s not like it was an Aston Martin, thankfully! But I did ask myself why I didn’t do these two years earlier. The moment I had been imagining for so long finally arrived: I got in and drove it to his house. Only then did I realize that my six foot-four frame was not a size B, and the noisy and rough drive otherwise was rather underwhelming. I was happy enough to wake up and know that the dream was over.
Postscript: this car is a daily driver owned by a woman who lives a few blocks from me. She’s rather petite. And she’s proven that’s it’s easy enough to keep a B going.
Yes, it is easy enough to keep a B going, provided you have time, patience and a hefty Visa limit.
I never understood the MGB, especially in my younger years when gasoline was all of 25 cents a litre. Even then among 16 year olds, it was common knowledge that the MG was a troublesome thing prone to conking out at the worst possible moment. There were in fact loads of them around in late 1970’s Vancouver Island, which was, in those days, a little England. Mostly they were owned by middle aged women. Boys my age were more interested in Firebirds and Mustang. When gas is that cheap, who wouldn’t be? I mean, a 70 hp MG or a 300 hp Camaro? The choice for a young man is obvious.
In the context of Englishmen, I do sort of understand the MG; the need to punish one’s self with automotive flagellation has long been a characteristic of the English. Still is, too.
Hmm, in the early 70s, gas was all of 29 cents a gallon, and the B was a blast. Smog controls were sucking the heart out of the bigger engines, and the little B engine only had to move 1800 pounds worth of car.
My most memorable experience (well, aside from the two sets of brake failures*) was trying to smoke a new 911 off the line. Of course he beat me, but he had to work at it. That was a moral victory.
* It was not common knowledge in 1970s Illinois that DOT 3 brake fluid was an excellent solvent for the natural rubber brake seals in Britcars. Oops. They waited until it was rather cold before dying.
Smog controls meant diddly-squat in my parts of Soviet Canuckistan, namely Vancouver Island. Cars don’t rust due to mild winters and there was no pollution testing. We’d buy old Mustangs and Camaros and then hotrod the engines ourselves. It was very, very easy to bolt on an extra 75 hp on a 350. Just took a cam, intake, headers and dual exhaust. Pretty soon your 170hp LM1 was 245hp and reliable as the sun. We did just that on a 1978 Z-28 my buddy bought for $1500 in 1984 and it dynoed at 300 lb/ft. Total cost was $700 in those days. Didn’t even need to pull the engine.
That 245 hp pulled the 3000 lb Camaro right smartly.
I think a lot of it — self-flagellation aside — had to do with the no-nonsense driving feel. Most American sedans of the time tried really hard to be insulated as possible in every way, from steering feel to ride quality. Even the pony cars and Supercars were pretty sedanish unless you modified them or got clever with the special order options list. An MGB or TR4 might have a jarring ride and a tendency to leave trails of oil wherever it went, but it felt like a real car, not a rolling sofa. When you twisted the wheel, you felt the front wheels move, and when you moved the shifter you felt gears engage.
People put up with a lot of infirmities to get those sensations because what alternatives did they have? The only things made in America in the mid-sixties that had that kind of feeling were probably the GT-350 and Cobra, which were substantially more expensive than an MGB or TR. You could get a Fiat Spider or some other small Italian car, but those had their own issues. Nissan had the Datsun Fairlady, which was probably more mechanically dependable, but was kind of odd-looking and hadn’t yet sorted out the whole business of suspension tuning. That’s why people kept buying MGBs, even with the black bumpers and anemic engines.
“I think a lot of it — self-flagellation aside — had to do with the no-nonsense driving feel.”
Exactly.
You can’t really compare an old muscle car to an old MGB – they have a completely different set of virtues and vices. I’ve still got a 1972 MGB I picked up in the ’80s to replace a worn out big block Charger. Both cars have their charms, but they are completely different and one is not really a replacement for the other.
I’ve still got the MG, it mostly sleeps in the garage but I drive it a bit in Summer and usually take it on a couple of long trips per year – Glacier Park in Montana, the Kootenay region of BC, etc.
My neighbour was kind enough to let me take his 1969 Firebird convertible with a 400 big block and 4MT for a spin a while back. It is a *very* cool car, and makes great power – but the steering and brakes feel very “vague and disconnected”. The MG is slow and, as Paul says, agricultural, but everything feels very “direct and connected”. About the only thing the two cars have in common is that they are both old convertibles with shiny chrome bumpers.
I don’t find the MG particularly hard to keep running – certainly no worse than any other old car. It is an extremely simple vehicle, and the basic body structure and mechanicals are sound. Any problems due to poor assembly quality have been sorted out long ago, and weak spots like the wiring are well understood and easily worked around. Parts are reasonably cheap, and most repairs are simple enough. That said, it does take more effort to keep running than a modern car – but even Japanese cars weren’t particularly until the mid to late ’80s when carburettors and distributors went away. They call it the “Malaise Era” for a reason!
I’m surprised that you weren’t that comfortable in the B-GT. I’m 6’3″ and found my Midget to be pretty OK and that was near microscopic compared to the B.
I suppose I was, actually. Probably rationalizing the fact that I never really had a chance to have fun with this car.
I get it. I’ve done that a few times.
Not that I’ve done the comparison personally (no Midget experience) but the Midget is supposed to be a good deal roomier.
I don’t know if this also held true for the GT, but the legroom in my 64 roadster was substantially greater than one in the early 70s. I’m 6-2 and I could leave the 64 seat forward one notch while that wasn’t doable later.
The seats in the later cars were more complex, and might have been moved forwards for seatbelt/shoulder harness hard points and such.
PauI: yes, I remember the 70’s L.A. car scene quite well: you could buy a decent Mini Cooper for a thousand bucks, or an “old” Porsche 356 for $3000! Hard to believe, looking at what they sell for nowadays, in Hemmings.
We lived in Santa Monica, on the corner of 25th and Georgina (the house later owned by Book of Lists author David Wallechinsky). Amazing, all the cool cars we saw at the Brentwood Country Mart: Steve McQueen in his Mini, Paul Newman in his Porsche-powered VW, and the occasional 300SL or Ferrari.
As for our family: Dad owned a 1963 XK-E coupe. My brother owned an Austin Healey, the girl across the street owned an MGB, her brother owned a Triumph TR-4, and my brother’s best friend owned a Midget!
Of course, Scott Smith, the rebel, went out and bought a ’68 Camaro (his mom was a wealthy widow and he was an only child), so there were many impromtu drag races: US Iron vs Brit Style & Coolness.
As you said: perusing the L.A. Times classified was a car lover’s dream… now, it all seems so unreal. But time moves on: Los Angeles has devolved from being a sunny, beach boys paradise, into drug-ridden gangbanger town. And most of the tax paying middle class has moved to Oregon!
> US Iron vs Brit Style & Coolness.
Priceless. 🙂
I wonder who won those drag races, considering the 68 Camaro Iron is not exactly short on style and/or coolness, while being otherwise more endowed…
P.S. speaking of middle class fleeing to Oregon: in a week, we sign the final escrow papers on a house in Veneta… my wife is an aging hippy from Wisconsin, and I am a former SoCal surfer who needs a change… Hope to run into you, one of these days, at Cafe Yum or Eugene Coffee Company…
Welcome to Oregon. If she’s an aging hippie, she’ll really feel at home here. Veneta: home of the Oregon Country Fair.
Look me up sometime when you get settled in.
Another Californian heading north. Please remember to leave any bit of Californian behavior in your ex-state. Oregon and Washington are wonderful places. They don’t need to become North California.
I hate to break it to you all but Oregon has a more than passing resemblance, to British Columbia, that most hippesque and Bolshevik are of Soviet Canuckistan.
We can only hope Rick Santorum becomes President, stops the rot and finally invades Canada. The GOP needs a war it can actually win.
Agreed. Western Washington may be pretty left leaning but it doesn’t need to become another Marin County. I like the 206 and 425 area codes the way they are.
Remember cars that look better without bumpers? This is one of them. The front bumper and grille are fugly. And were the headlights this anti-aerodynamic on purpose or the victim of stupid U.S. legislation? I would like to shoot the designer if he deliberately `forgot’ to put nacelles on the headlights. Classic proportions, but bonnet length looks like it was made to accept an inline six, so in the faker category, unfortunately. Long bonnet sports car==6cyl or V12. 4s and V8s are just not enough…
As for the drivetrain/electrical issues, nothing a RWD Suzuki transplant can’t solve. 😉
OK. I found a picture on Wikipedia that looks like what I would prefer (but in fixed roof form, I have no love for convertibles).
The headlights looked like that as early as 64, You wanted aero headlight covers, you went Jaguar.
Fair enough. Now I just need a gun and a time machine…
Funny, when MG put a six-cylinder engine in the B (to create the MGC), almost nobody bought it.
Funny. Perhaps the six was even worse than the four?
The MGC was a total disaster; that big old 3 liter six weighed some 650 lbs, totally destroying the MGB’s intrinsic balanced and lithe handling. It was universally panned in the press, and wasn’t nearly as fast as one might have expected for the times.
The had to completely redesign the front of the car: new torion bar suspension, changed steering, bigger brakes and 15″ wheels, ugly bulge on the bonnet, etc.
They should have just made a deal with Rover from the get-go to buy the 3.5 ex-Buick V8, or?? But shoehorning in the BMC 3 liter six was not the smart choice.
OK. My desire for a six did not include the BMC boat anchor! Thanks for the info. They could also have designed a new aluminium six… MMing now.
Or they coulda used the OHC O series 6 but that engine was rubbish still better off with the V8
Interestingly, British period reviews weren’t all that kind to the BGT V8, either.
From a CAR 1974 comparison test (against the Capri and Elan +2: “Really, once you’ve driven all three cars the poor old MG has nowhere near the appeal of the other two. Its main attributes are its very good performance, big, lazy and smooth engine… No mean set of virtues, but the driver appeal simply isn’t there to back it all up.”
I’d like to think of the V8 as a sort of mini-Aston Martin, but suspect the experience from the driver’s seat may be as deflating as expecting great things from other Bs.
The age of the MGB by that stage would have a lot to do with it!
Brings back memories of a guy I used to autocross with, named Lance. He’s had a couple of late 60’s B’s, both roadster and GT. The GT was stock drivetrain but with a massively massaged suspension and wheels that really belonged on a 30 years later Lamborghini. The rims were 7″ wide, and I’ve got no idea what tyres he had mounted on it. Fenders were flared to match the tyres (SCCA rules in the class insisted on full fender coverage) and it had a full roll cage with his 8-track deck mounted in the ceiling off the roll cage. Back, with the “Lance” logo (as in crackers) painted on the hatch. That car looked incredibly mean for 1973.
Unfortunately Lance died in ’75. Rolled his B roadster on a back road the night before an autocross, testing out a new suspension setting. He was buried with the MG octagon in his casket – my first experience of someone taking their colors to the grave. First time, far from the last.
The MGB was originally supposed to have rear coil springs and trailing arms to give it better axle location without concrete-hard springs, but they had a lot of problems working out the geometry and with reinforcing the unibody so that the Panhard rod wouldn’t damage the tail. They finally gave up and went back to leaf springs. Of course, the B still had lever-action front shocks, too…
Open the boot on an MGB & you may notice that the wheelwells have an odd shape. They’re wider on the top, in case the wheels angle up & down, as on a swing axle.
I guess I’m in a minority, but I really like the look of the rubber-bumper models… I love the overall MGB design (coupe or roadster), and like the chrome bumper/grille ones too, but the rubber bumpers are my favourite. To me, they moved the basic design out of the 60s and almost into the 80s. But maybe that’s just me, marching to the beat of a different drum!
In terms of shape, they’re not bad — I think the problem was that they were always matte black. They would probably have worked much better (and been less derided) if BL had had the technology for body-colored bumper covers, like those used on some early seventies Chryslers. They tried to come up with flexible paint, but they couldn’t get anything they were comfortable warrantying.
The 1980 LE cars look particularly sharp – the black bumpers blend right in with the body work, as on a modern car.
Good point, I didn’t think of why they weren’t body-colour. That would have made them even better!
I always liked the looks of the rubber bumper models, too – if (and a big if) you replaced the springs with the previous version, getting the body back to the proper height above the pavement. It was the ‘4×4’ look of the last B’s that really killed them.
I was car shopping in 1975. At the time, Sunnyvale British Motors had a handful of 74 B’s in Deep Purple and a stash of 75s in some slightly less hideous color. They also had TR7s, but those left me cold.
The Bs were mildly interesting (though they reminded me of the hotrod Valiant from highschool that had a 6″ lift kit), but SVBM thought they were worth a whole lot more than I did. I ended up with a 75 Celica GT. Not much legroom (the legroom adapter worked, kinda, but you lost the adjustment), but it was a good car.
Later, I got a 60 TR3A–my 30 mile car (the distance I was willing to pay for a tow. Never needed the tow, but it was close).
Add me to the rubber bumper loving crowd. The photo was on a link marked `progressively uglier’! If only they were body coloured. Or if the car was matte black.
My god!! I’ve never know that there were more than three people in the world who loved the rubber bumpers, and they’re all here at the same time. Heresy!!
The marvel of google found me this photo (and plenty more). Makes the bumpers look even better:
There is a fairly healthy race crowd running MG’s out here, but quick guys with the V8 models have them approaching GT3 pace
Never really liked these things. If I wanted a 70’s classic that was relatively entertaining to run and drive and not Porsche expensive to keep on the road, I’d go with a Datsun 240Z or a BMW 2002 with an M20 2.5 liter swap.
You’re right the 240Z it is! Not so much the 2002 uncle-mobile, but better than MGB. Of course, an aircooled Porsche is unbeatable for sheer Awesome, but the pockets appear too shallow for it. 🙂
Saw one of these propped up high in a junkyard which gave me the opportunity to look at the suspension close-up.
I was immediately put off by the kingpin (no ball joints) front suspension. These cars were introduced in 1962, a time when the only cars that still used kingpins were old designs from prior decades. And Traction Avant Citroens had them in the 1930’s.
The mystique went right out the window when I saw that. To put out a car that was outdated at introduction is ridiculous. True, other manufacturers have done the same, and I don’t drive their products, either.
This was a niche product, so not directly comparable to other autos, just like Morgan cars are today. However, they were not particularly *good* cars, even niche ones, unlike Morgans.
“However, they were not particularly *good* cars, even niche ones, unlike Morgans.”
Not particularly good in what way?
As noted in my post above, *all* cars built before the mid to late ’80s weren’t particularly good by modern standards. Like most “malaise era” car makers, MG took a big step backwards trying to comply with rapidly changing US pollution and crash safety standards.
I’m obviously biased, but I think the earlier ‘Bs did a pretty good job of filling their intended niche. I can see how others might not like them, but I have a hard time trying to imagine how someone would think that MGs were bad and Morgans were good since to me they both have the same kind of appeal.
Just to note, I’m comparing Morgan of today with the-then MG, in terms of market niche occupied, i.e., a self-confessed retro sports car. Neither Morgan nor MG could design a powertrain if their life depended upon it (MG’s life *did* depend on it), and that’s MG’s Achilles’ heel. Morgan at least has the smarts to source a complete powertrain from someone who actually can build ’em well. Morgan cars over the years have retained similar old-fashioned chassis and body construction, with mechanical and electrical upgrades. MG were the reverse, new body with obsolete mechanicals, and a gutless rough BMC engine. I agree with Paul that they should’ve got the Rover V8 earlier.
That said, I like MG cars as well, especially the T series, but I also admit they’re not very practical cars at all. MGBs are better, but still not very good in power, speed, comfort, reliability, ease of maintenance, you name it, and that’s compared to contemporary cars like the Fairlady ( a Japanese knockoff, sure, but a better car). Looks are the only thing its got going for it. Its easy to repair if you’ve got spares though. I haven’t, so my opinion is also biased.
Spares are easy to get for MGBs every single Austin 1800 was created for that 1 purpose engine spares The rest of it is contained in every Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford laying around including the Indian Hindustan Ambassadors. British sports cars always have basic sedans built as spare parts caches thats why they are so easy and simple to keep going.
60s BMC cars are not easily available, if at all, so spares from them are out of the question, and the HM Ambassador shares almost nothing with its British forebears: apart from the body, it has had an almost complete Isuzu drivetrain since long. Spares for the older mechanicals are getting more and more difficult to come by, and more importantly, are of progressively inferior quality. Of course, the MGB is a fun car to own and drive, and reasonably cheap to maintain and repair, but the amount of time and money needed to restore one to enjoyable condition is more than the cost of a new car, so the only realistic way is to get one in good condition in the first place, but that is more like finding a needle in a haystack. Most of these cars here have been thoroughly raped by successive owners. 🙂 I’d still like to own one though, but a Suzuki RWD transplant is not out of the question.
Geez, Paul. Seems like you and I are leading parallel lives in some respects. I was just starting Santa Monica college in the fall of 1969 when i fell in love with MGB-GT’s. It was a sports car – and a STATION WAGON all in one (was and still am a wagon fiend). Not being full of pocket money, I of course could never afford a GT, but that didn’t stop me from oogling them, and even visiting Beverly Hills Motoring Accessories to scope out their Halda Tripcomputers and whatever else was required for the newby rally driver. As thoughts often do, mine got sidetracked shortly thereafter by my next car-of-the-month, whatever that was. I do still get a wisp of nostalgia though when I see a nice MGB-GT – last time a few months ago in Bend.
We’ll have to swap stories sometime at Shari’s……
Marshall
I owned a 1970 MGB GT recently, an automatic with the BW35 slush box, surprisingly a model never exported to the US. It was slower than a very slow thing, but I too had been seduced by the Pininfarina styling and long had it on my bucket list.
When the MGB was released, all us knowledgable teenagers despised it. Here it was looking pretty, pretending to be the latest thing with its wind-up windows, yet underneath it was an antique, typical of the kind of penny pinching we were getting used to. Kingpins, trunnions, lever arm shocks all round, cart springs and an ancient over-weight engine. Of course these days all these factors make it desirable because its really easy to maintain, all you need’s a grease gun.
It wasn’t comparable to a Morgan. I had a 4/4 for a few years and that was the real thing, not trying to be anything else.
In its day the MGB was a hairdressers car, not bought by anyone who understood real sportscars. They bought a 6 cylinder TR or a Healey 3000.
With the BL merger the Triumph men took over and the MGB was ignored and left to die with no upgrades. It could have had the V8 years early, Costello conversions were very popular. BL always struggled to make enough V8s. The engine was originally sourced for the Land Rover but got snaffled for the saloon cars. It would have done wonders for the Landy too. The ‘what might have beens’ of the British car industry is a depressing story.