I don’t think we’ve ever had a vintage review of the classic MGB, so this is a welcome look at how it was seen back in 1968, when it was already five years old. There was a reason to test it then: the gearbox was new and now fully synchronized. Progress!
That wasn’t the only change in 1968: the dash was completely new, in response to US safety regulations. And of course there were now emission controls. R&T suggested that an automatic transmission”will be along shortly”, but that thankfully did not come to pass.
The new gearbox came in for praise, being “wonderfully precise”, but still a bit stiff and notchy.
The ratios were better too, with first not being so unnecessarily short. And of course overdrive was optional, and recommended for those spending a lot of time on highways.
The engine’s specs were a bit changed due to the smog equipment and tuning, and resulted in that very annoying slow (9 seconds!) return to idle. But performance was very close to the earlier tested version.
Handling is “vintage”; as were both of the two types of available folding tops. Steering was heavy, due to lots of caster, and springing was stiff. Better than MGs of yore, but still in the British tradition.
The MGB was called “outdated”, but it was also quite affordable, and the options were limited, although the new Fiat 124 Sport was clearly an attractive alternative.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1967 MGB – To B Or Not To B
I’ve owned a ton of MGBs and MGB/GTs, but only the ’66 was pre-synchro It was a big improvement as the MGB gearbox is one of the best, bolt-action shifters I ever had., great mechanical feel. The “B” is one of the funest ever cars to drive, although not fast you can use 100% of it. If you’ve never driven a good one, do so, you’ll remember the experience fondly, guaranteed. I liked mine as a driver better than my ’69 E-Type, and that’s saying something. Here’s my last one, sold 5 yrs ago.
Reminds me of the old adage, “it’s more fun to drive a slow car fast, than to drive a fast car slow”.
The hoary, old Chevy Chevette catches all kinds of grief for being a generally bad car, but for a cheap RWD box that would be fun to beat the hell out of (especially in the snow), I thought they were okay.
BTW automatic did come to MGB and MGC in ’68 or so until 1973, but only about 5000 were sold, it was so contra to the whole idea of MG’s sporting nature. A Borg-Warner Type 35 iirc. I drove a “C”/GT with one once at Hemphill’s Healy Haven in Catonsville, and am pretty sure Gary had a ‘B automatic there that I saw at the same time. mid ’80s. I was quite put off them at the time but with my creaky knees nowadays I see the merits in an automatic! My ’68, restored by “Start Your Engines” in Beltsville:
“Mark II (Nov. 1967 to Oct. 1969)
From the outside they were visually identical to the Mark I cars, but under the skin featured a new, stronger, all-synchromesh gearbox (similar to that found in the MGC introduced at the same time). For the first time, an automatic gearbox was optional – a Borg Warner 35 that remained available until 1973. In order to cater for these transmission changes, a modified (wider) gearbox tunnel and narrower floors were fitted.”
Yes, much derision about the new dashboard, quickly nick named “The Abingdon Pillow” .
The BMC gearbox was only ‘notchy’ until it was run in in a few thousand miles ~ after that they were superb .
I really enjoyed my 1967 MGB GT MKI, the handling was why I eventually sold it on, it easily went faster than the car could hold the road and at the time it was my rally car .
-Nate
Do you know who wrote this review? It seems remarkably critical of an English car for Road & Track. The author expected a new MG for the seventies that never arrived. I don’t recall R&T reviewing even a rubber-baby-buggy-bumper MGB with the level of objectivity exhibited for this 1968 model, one which performed exceptionally well compared to the raised-ride-height, barbell-weighted, and underpowered MGBs that followed six years later.
Finally!
But Fiat, with it’s 124 Spyder, had done this much earlier.
The MGB models that I drove felt like coal carts compared to my FIats.
My Mother barely could drive a standard…though she learned on a semi-automatic, and my Dad’s first car (bought before he met her) was manual, and he owned other manuals (always as 2nd cars) she was never comfortable with them…I even took her out way back in ’98 when she was going to Eastern Europe with her brother (to visit relatives) to give her a refresher in a parking lot with my GTi…she wanted to be able to back him up as a driver, since it was only the 2 of them going, and odd things had happened to my Uncle on prior trips. She stopped driving last year, but struggled with driving standard off and on, mostly didn’t need to learn, so she never really did (my sisters were similar). I can’t imagine her trying to learn on a non sychro box, and I’ve really never done so either, despite not having owned an automatic in 42 years, I could probably learn, but even downshifting my Golf into 1st is often an exercise (could be because it is 22 years old).
Anyhow, I got to thinking about the year, in 1968 my Dad bought a new Renault R10, which was also a manual, but it seems that the prior year was kind of a weed out for some European cars in the US…such as the original Mini, and other cars no longer imported, I guess because of new emissions and safety requirements here. Of course a synchronized gear shift might not quite be in that category, but maybe changing market might have gotten them to make the cars more acceptable to some drivers, if not those who insisted on an automatic, at least trying to make manual more practical. Could this be at least part of the reason for putting in sychros in that year?