Blogads button

blog advertising is good for you
Longlife Button Banner

Editorials and Commentary

Find Us on Facebook

Sponsor icon
Customize you car with magnetic signs

Admin Login



Auto Parts Nerd

Search Ate Up With Motor

FTC Disclosure Notice


Paid advertising and sponsored links on Ate Up With Motor are identified with the words "Sponsor," "Sponsors," or "Sponsored Links." In the event we receive any other compensation or consideration for any content herein, the nature of that compensation will be disclosed on the final page of the article or content, or otherwise adjacent to it. See the Terms of Use for important additional information regarding Ate Up With Motor's advertising and commercial endorsements.


Designed by
SiteGround web hosting Joomla Templates
All the Way from A to B: The History of the MGB, Part Two Print E-mail

Tags: 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | BMC | British cars | British Leyland | Mazda | MG Cars | MG RV8 | MGB | MX-5 Miata | Pininfarina | Rover

Written by Aaron Severson   
Saturday, 16 October 2010 00:00

As we saw in our first installment, by the mid-sixties, the MGB had become one of the world's best-selling sports cars. Not even its most loyal fans, however, would have imagined that it would survive for 18 years -- or that it would rise again, barely a decade after its demise.

This week, we present the second half of our history of the MGB, including the MGB GT, V8, and MG RV8.

1974 MGB GT badge

POOR MAN'S ASTON

Considering that the MGB was originally inspired by the Aston Martin DB2/4, it took the factory a curiously long time to develop a fixed-roof version of the B. Indeed, from 1963 to 1965, BMC's Competitions Department was obliged to fit the MGB roadster with an accessory hardtop in order to race in the GT classes. It seemed that MG was missing an obvious opportunity.

It was not for lack of trying. The Abingdon design office had started work on an MGB coupe, designated EX227, months before the roadster even went into production, but none of their efforts had borne fruit. Engineer Roy Brocklehurst told historian F. Wilson McComb that the primary obstacle was the determination to retain the roadster's windshield (presumably for cost reasons, although Brocklehurst didn't specify). Because the B's windshield was so low, it proved very difficult to design a good-looking roof that would still provide adequate headroom. The tacked-on roof of the previous MGA coupe was no solution; it looked like an afterthought, and chief body engineer Jim O'Neill, among others, had never liked it. MG chief engineer Syd Enever explored various design concepts for a fixed-head MGB, but none was satisfactory, and the project dragged on for almost two years.

1967 MGB GT red front 3q
The GT's windshield is about four inches (101 mm) taller than that of the roadster, while the side windows are about 1.5 inches (38 mm) higher; the front fenders were reshaped to maintain its proportions. The GT had the same engine as the roadster, a 1,798 cc (110 cu. in.) B-series four making 98 hp (73 kW) and 110 lb-ft (149 N-m), but the coupe's extra weight makes it a bit more than a second slower to 60 mph (97 km/h). Note this LHD car's single fender-mounted mirror -- when dual mirrors were ordered, the driver's side mirror was mounted on the door, the passenger-side mirror on the fender.

Evidently growing impatient, BMC chairman George Harriman commissioned Italy's Pininfarina to build a prototype -- much to the dismay of Syd Enever, who saw it as a vote of no confidence. In the fall of 1963, Abingdon shipped a gray MGB roadster to Turin. Pininfarina returned it the follow spring, now painted metallic green and sporting an attractive hatchback roof. This new design sliced the Gordian knot that had stymied MG's designers: by raising the windshield about four inches (100 mm), with a commensurately larger greenhouse, the Pininfarina car combined reasonable headroom and fine proportions. It also had superior aerodynamics, despite its greater frontal area.

Exactly who was responsible for the decision to raise the windshield and enlarge greenhouse is still a matter of some debate. MG managing director John Thornley credited the designers in Turin, but MG designer Jim Stimson told author David Knowles that he and Syd Enever had decided to give the coupe a taller greenhouse before Pininfarina was even hired. Stimson said the Italians had largely followed his scale drawings, and that Pininfarina's principal contributions were frameless door glass (which didn't make production) and the distinctive crease along each side of the coupe's roof.

Complicating the issue even further, the greenhouse of the finished product bears a noteworthy resemblance to a 1962 concept car built (though not designed) by Pininfarina, a one-off coupe based on the Austin-Healey 3000 platform, developed by design students Michael Contrad, Pio Manzù, and Henner Werner for an Automobile Year contest. That concept had been exhibited at the 1962 Earls Court show in London, so BMC was definitely aware of it. In fact, chairman George Harriman subsequently acquired the rights to the design, which was developed for several years as a possible E-type Jaguar competitor, the ADO30. We don't know to what extent the ADO30 may have influenced the design of the fixed-head B, but we assume the designers in Abingdon would have seen it, whether at Earls Court or in Longbridge.

1967 MGB GT red rear 3q
There's no question that the B GT was heavier than the roadster, but estimates of how much heavier vary by as much as 80 lb (36 kg). We suspect the confusion is attributable to the curious contemporary practice of quoting curb weight with other than a full tank of fuel. The Motor in those days measured curb weight with just enough fuel for 50 miles (80 km) of driving, Autocar using half a tank; the difference in fuel weight would account for much of the discrepancy between the various published figures. In any event, the GT received an extra leaf in each semi-elliptical rear spring to compensate for the extra weight, along with a front anti-roll bar, to maintain its handling balance.

Whatever its origins, the Pininfarina prototype made an immediate hit with John Thornley, who thought it would appeal to a more upscale class of buyers -- it would at last be the affordable Aston Martin he had imagined back in 1957. After a few detail revisions, the coupe was approved for production, which commenced the following summer. Dubbed MGB GT, the coupe bowed at the London Motor Show in the fall of 1965.

Like the long-departed DB2/4, the GT was a 2+2, with a tiny rear bench into which a small child or medium-size dog could be crammed for short trips. Although a heater was still optional, extra sound insulation and a marginally less flinty ride made the GT more civilized than the roadster, although no one was likely to mistake it for a Cadillac. Since the GT was some 220 lb (100 kg) heavier than the open car and used the same powertrain, its acceleration suffered somewhat, but the coupe's lower drag made it just as fast as the roadster (if not faster) all out. The GT's handling was actually superior, thanks to better weight distribution, stiffer rear springs, and a standard front anti-roll bar, still optional on the open car.

1967 MGB GT red back seat
In pre-ISOFIX days, you might have been able to wedge two small children into the GT's rear seat, but it was best used for extra luggage space. The leatherette-upholstered bench folded down for that purpose.

Starting at £998 8s 9d with purchase tax (about $2,800 at the contemporary exchange rate), the GT cost about £143 (about $400) more than the roadster, but sales were strong. If it was less overtly sporting than the open car, the coupe was also more elegant, and obviously more practical. The arrival of the GT boosted the MGB's total sales volume by more than 40%, prompting BMC to expand production at Abingdon.

By the time the factory had built enough GTs for homologation, the MGB's competition heyday was winding down, but the coupe did achieve some racing success. An MGB GT driven by Andrew Hedges and Paddy Hopkirk won the GT class at the 1967 12 Hours of Sebring, while an aluminum-bodied GTS with a bored-out, 2,004 cc (122 cu. in.) engine (actually a prototype of the still-gestating six-cylinder MGC GTS) ran in the 1967 Targa Florio. In 1969, another B GT, driven by Americans Logan Blackburn and Jerry Truitt, took fourth in class at Sebring. As with the roadster, private GTs continued to race in major events as late as 1978.

1969 MGC GT cargo area
The GT's cargo area was not generously sized, but it was substantially more commodious than the roadster's boot; with the seat folded down, it was adequate for a couple's weekend luggage. This is actually a 1969 MGC, but the cargo area is almost identical to the Mark II MGB GT.

The GT never became as ubiquitous as the roadster, but it was a solid success, eventually selling more than 125,000 units. Although North America took more than half of all GT production, the coupe is less familiar to Americans today, in part because it was withdrawn from the U.S. market in early 1975. It remained available in Great Britain until the end; the last MGB to come off the line in 1980 was a GT.
blank2

SIDEBAR: The Coune Berlinette

While the factory was still struggling to come up with an MGB coupe, an independent coachbuilder decided to essay a fixed-roof B of his own. In 1963, Belgium's Jacques Coune Carrossier transformed an MGB roadster into a sleek, Ferrari-like semi-fastback coupe called the Coune Berlinette, which debuted at the 1964 Brussels Motor Show. The positive response led Coune to begin limited series production of the coupe for the European market.

Intrigued, BMC technical director Alec Issigonis met with Coune to discuss licensing the design for a production model. BMC arranged for one of its employees, Walter Oldfield, to purchase one of the cars privately for evaluation, but by the time it was ready in June 1964, Pininfarina had already completed the prototype of the MGB GT, which bore a stronger resemblance to the roadster than the Coune design, and promised to be much cheaper to build. Syd Enever and various top BMC officials test-drove Oldfield's car, but Alec Issigonis finally told Jacques Coune that they had decided not to license its design -- offering the rather disingenuous excuse that it was "too Italian!"

1964 Coune Berlinette NL 2 front 3q Nicolas Lecompte
At a glance, only the familiar grille and bumper suggest the Coune Berlinette's MGB origins; most of the upper body structure is different, including the A-pillars and windshield frame. Nicolas Lecompte, the owner of this car and a friend of Jacques Coune, says the windshield and backlight were borrowed from the contemporary Renault 8. The only mechanical change was an Abarth exhaust system -- Coune was also the Belgian Abarth distributor -- but the fiberglass-bodied Berlinette weighed about 125 lb (57 kg) less than a stock MGB roadster, and its sloping roof and Kamm tail gave it better aerodynamics. Claimed top speed was 112 mph (180 km/h). (Photo © 2008 Nicolas Lecompte; used with permission)

Not dissuaded, Coune continued to market the Berlinette himself, offering both turnkey cars and conversions of customer vehicles. Either way, all Berlinettes began life as fully assembled roadsters. (Author Anders Ditlev Clausager's speculation that the Berlinette was assembled from Belgian CKD kits was apparently incorrect, although it certainly would have made things easier!) With a base price of 300,000 Belgian francs FOB Antwerp (about $3,400), however, a new Berlinette cost nearly twice as much as an MGB roadster, which limited its appeal. Sales dried up after the arrival of the much cheaper MGB GT, and Coune ended production in 1966, although unsold cars lingered at dealerships for several years afterward.

Total production of the Coune Berlinette eventually came to 56 cars, the first six bodied in steel, the rest in fiberglass. Except for Walter Oldfield's car, all were left-hand drive. Most Berlinettes were sold in Belgium or the Netherlands, but at least two cars eventually made it to the U.S.



Comments (14)
  • Axel Volker  - Picture of the engine of my V8.

    Hello Aaron,

    let me first of all congatulate you with your fantastic website: it is very nice indeed!

    Secondly I am very pleased with the picture you put in it.

    For fun I also gave you the webadress to have a look on some more pictures of my car.

    Best regrds,

    Axel Volker
    Leusden, the Netherlands

  • Bob Wilson  - New MGB parts

    Excellent article ...as usual!!

    Interestingly, the MGB seems to never die! Nearly all new parts are still easily available at surprisingly reasonable cost from companies like Moss Motors.

  • Andrew Buc  - Lucas Jetronic

    I think Jetronic is a Bosch trademark--or did Lucas plan to take out a license from Bosch?

    Sounds like British Leyland had the same problem with the per-body fee for the B that Hudson did with the Jet.

  • Administrator
    Quote:
    I think Jetronic is a Bosch trademark--or did Lucas plan to take out a license from Bosch?

    They did. The system Lucas created for the O-series MGB was essentially one third of the system used in the contemporary Jaguar XJ-S V-12, which was a licensed version of Bosch's D-Jetronic.

    Quote:
    Sounds like British Leyland had the same problem with the per-body fee for the B that Hudson did with the Jet.

    Yup, a similar situation.

  • Anonymous  - re:
    Administrator wrote:
    The system Lucas created for the O-series MGB was essentially one third of the system used in the contemporary Jaguar XJ-S V-12, which was a licensed version of Bosch's D-Jetronic.


    Even this shows how sadly "behind" BL was. The original D-Jetronic system first appeared on the 1968 VW Type 3 cars, and by the mid-1970s was already on its way out. The much simpler electro-mechanical (as opposed to electronic) K-Jetronic system was in common use from 1975 onward, and even that was in the process of being replaced by the fully electronic L-Jetronic system by the time the O-series engine was intended to be released.

  • Administrator
    Quote:
    even that was in the process of being replaced by the fully electronic L-Jetronic system by the time the O-series engine was intended to be released.

    This is also true, although Andrew Bywater of AJ6 Engineering notes that part of the motivation in using the older system was probably a desire for greater reliability. If you're going to build something under license, I suppose it makes sense to choose a product that's a well-known quantity with a substantial service history. Bosch may also have offered a significantly better deal on the D-Jetronic system than their brand shiny new L-Jetronic, which would have been attractive to cash-strapped British Leyland.

  • Bob S  - Pressed Steel

    In another example of BL's horrendous management, Pressed Steel-Fisher, the MGB's body supplier, had been a wholly-owned subsidiary of BMC/BMH/BL since 1965. In fact, it was BMC control of Pressed Steel that pushed William Lyons into the BMH merger, fearing threatened by having Jaguar's bodies produced by a direct competitor in the luxury arena.

    All it would have taken was a few strokes of the accountant's pen to write off PSF's tooling investment and supply MG in a normal internal fashion. BL would have taken a small, immediate accounting charge, and the B would have been more profitable for the remainder of production. Either an example of a general lack of interest in MG versus Triumph, or total incompetence.

  • Administrator

    I talked a little about the Pressed Steel/Jaguar situation in a sidebar in the article on the E-type Jaguar. I don't know how threatened Sir William felt by BMC's buyout of Pressed Steel before Donald Stokes offered a merger with Standard-Triumph later that year. The number of BMC products that competed directly with Jaguar was still relatively limited -- the Vanden Plas Princess 4-litre R, perhaps the big Healeys -- but Sir William decided that if he merged with Standard-Triumph, BMC's principal rival, there was a strong chance of retaliation. According to Keith Adams, Sir William also looked at the merger craze spreading through the industry and realized that if Jaguar were acquired, it might not be by his choice. In that light, cozying up to BMC seemed prudent, and it certainly allowed Jaguar to retain more of its identity after the merger.

    I'm not an accountant, and my knowledge of British law is limited to the viewing of the odd BBC drama, so I have no idea what kind of fiscal implications would have been involved in restating or writing off the tooling costs; that probably would have been an additional concern.

    I suspect the real problem was finding someone in a position to actually authorize it. One of British Leyland's biggest problems was its sheer size -- more than a hundred different companies, with offices and factories scattered throughout the UK. (The fact that many of those companies had recently been bitter rivals certainly didn't help.) If something involved multiple divisions, it almost certainly had to be authorized and supported by someone quite high up the food chain; I assume neither MG, Austin-Morris, nor PS-F had the authority to make such a change. By most accounts, senior BL officials were often quite overwhelmed by the scope of their responsibilities, and it was easy for that kind of relatively minor accounting detail to be lost in the shuffle. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be a sign of either incompetence (except insofar as it reflected the inadequacies of BL's management systems) or favoritism. There are instances where the latter was clearly a primary factor (like Lord Stokes' instance that the winning Austin-Morris design in the corporate sports car competition should be built as a Triumph, not an MG), but I think the larger problem was that BL was so unwieldy and its executives spent so much time doing triage that the forest was often lost for the trees.

  • rick bradner

    Coming to this a bit late(!) via an article on "Hooniverse"

    I think the claims that the design was mostly internally derived (Stimson said the Italians had largely followed his scale drawings, and that Pininfarina's principal contributions were frameless door glass (which didn't make production) and the distinctive crease along each side of the coupe's roof) is more than a little suspect

    I had to do a little research on this but had vague recollections of the B-GT being derived from an earlier project on a Healey 3000
    by Pio Manzù

    1962 : Premier prix au concours internationale de l’Année Automobile. Son projet est réalisé par Pininfarina sur base d’Austin Healey 3000 - Austin-Healey 3000 “Pininfarina”

    here's a link with photos; decide for yourself--

    link: http://www.blenheimgang.com

  • Administrator

    Interesting -- yes, the roof and sail panels of the Austin-Healey 3000 'Pininfarina' do look a great deal like those of the MGB-GT, except with frameless door glass.

    That said, I'm reluctant to dismiss the accounts of people actually involved in the development out of hand (except perhaps where they just don't make logical sense), especially without knowing all the facts. I haven't seen the drawings to which Stimson referred, so I don't know what was presented to Pininfarina. It's also not necessarily an either/or proposition -- even if the greenhouse was lifted virtually intact from the early concept, that adaptation may only have been possible because Stimson and Enever had previously decided to use a larger windscreen.

    Complicating things further, I would assume that Messrs Stimson and Enever had seen the Manzù concept. In general, I think it's safe to assume that if a concept has been shown publicly, other automakers are probably well aware of it. Given that the big Healey was built in Abingdon, it's possible that the MG designers were aware of the Manzù concept even before it was exhibited publicly.

    Anyway, I agree that the B-GT looks enough like the earlier Healey concept to raise questions, but I would need more information about the circumstances (including, ideally, asking Jim Stimson about it) before concluding that one or the other version was suspect. Still, very interesting -- thanks!

  • Administrator

    Rick -- I just found an interesting piece on AROnline.co.uk about the origins of the Manzù design. I hadn't realized that BMC bought the rights and tried to develop it as the ADO30, even contemplating it as a possible Bentley (!).

  • Anonymous

    It's an odd coincidence that I happened to check here so shortly after you posted about AROnline.
    thanks for this; it fills in a lot of gaps in my memory.

    I hadn't noticed how closely the design resembles the later Lamborghini Iserlo from the side until I saw the wooden body buck with the extra little kink in the C-pillar...

  • Mike Arnot  - O series MGB

    Hi and thanks for a very interesting read. I read about the MGb O series a little while ago and was lucky enough to get my hands on an O series engine complete with twin carbs from an SD1. After a little fettling I mated it to a standard B box. The car pulls extremely well and is very capable against modern cars. If I could do it with just a few hobby tools and a small workshop then why on earth BL did not try it is beyond me. Thanks again Mike.

  • Administrator

    In some ways, swapping an engine into a single car is simpler, because you can just keep fiddling until it works properly. Certainly, there's a lot less paperwork! It wasn't that fitting the O-series was a great technical challenge, it's that it required a commitment of engineering resources, including adapting the Lucas Jetronic injection system for the U.S. cars and going through the various certifications for crash testing and federal and California emissions standards, including the EPA's 50,000 mile (80,000 km) durability tests. The irony is that BL did ultimately do much of that work, only to cancel it at the last minute anyway.

Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Please do not post copyrighted content or images you don't own!

User comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Ate Up With Motor, and we accept no responsibility for their content. Publication of a comment does not constitute Ate Up With Motor's endorsement of any opinion, product, or service. Please click here to read our Comment Policy.