BIG SIX
Many historians assume the MGC was just an MGB with the engine from the Austin-Healey 3000, but it was not that simple. Although the MGC’s inline six had the same bore and stroke as the big Healey, it was essentially a new engine, similar (though not identical) to the one developed for the Austin 3-litre sedan.
Besides the MGC, the only other user of the redesigned C-series six was the short-lived Austin 3-litre sedan. The 3-litre, launched in 1967, was a rear-drive executive car, based on BMC’s front-wheel-drive ADO 17 (Austin/Morris/Wolseley 1800), but with the big six and self-leveling Hydrolastic suspension. BMC had high hopes for the 3-litre, but unpopular styling and too-obvious kinship with the cheaper Austin 1800 made it a commercial failure. Fewer than 10,000 units were sold between 1967 and 1971. The engines in the 3-litre and MGC share the same displacement and architecture, but there are many minor differences; the two engines are not identical. (Photo: “Austin 3-Litre at Glamis” © 2009 Letdorf, edited 2009 (to remove part of an adjacent car) by Charles01; resized 2010 by Aaron Severson and used under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license)
The main problem with the earlier C-series, which dated back to 1954, was its prodigious bulk. The big six was a sizable lump of iron weighing about 610 lb (277 kg) — more than a small-block Chevrolet V8. It was also considerably undersquare (the stroke exceeded the bore) and had only four main bearings. Syd Enever pushed for an extensive modernization of the C-series, including different bore and stroke dimensions, but BMC technical director Alec Issigonis overruled him on cost grounds. However, Issigonis did approve the development of a new seven-main-bearing crankshaft. Engineers at BMC’s Coventry Engines Branch also redesigned the engine to reduce its exterior dimensions and take advantage of the latest thinwall casting techniques.
Unfortunately, these efforts were not quite as successful as anticipated. Coventry Engines had hoped to bring the big six’s dry weight under 500 lb (227 kg), but even with all the changes, the engine still weighed a hefty 567 lb (257 kg), 209 lb (95 kg) more than the 1.8-liter (110 cu. in.) B-series four. The redesigned engine was a useful 1.75 inches (45 mm) shorter than its predecessor, but the six remained a tight squeeze for the MGB’s engine bay, especially since budget restrictions prohibited any alterations to the monocoque structure or the firewall. Even after pushing the radiator well forward and adding a deeper U-shaped front crossmember, the MGC’s hood had to be bulged to clear the six’s valve cover and a second, smaller bulge was needed to accommodate the carburetors.
Like the Austin-Healey 3000, the MGC’s engine has a bore of 3.28 inches (83.3 mm) and a stroke of 3.50 inches (88.9 mm), giving a total displacement of 2,912 cc (178 cu. in.). French cars had a smaller bore, reducing displacement to less than 2,800 cc (171 cu. in.) and the far less expensive 15 CV tax bracket. All MGCs had 9.0:1 compression and two 1.75-inch (45mm) S.U. HS6 carburetors. North American cars had an air-injection pump to meet federal emissions standards, with a small thermostatically controlled carburetor cooling fan added to manage the extra heat. It appears the air-injection system has been removed on this car. (author photo)
The new crossmember precluded the use of the MGB’s coil springs and lever-action dampers (which also served as the upper control arms), so the MGC got a new front suspension with tubular shock absorbers and torsion bars. A new vacuum-assisted Girling brake system replaced the MGB’s Lockheed brakes and 15-inch wheels with five-lug hubs replaced the B’s four-lug 14-inch wheels. To keep steering effort manageable with the bigger wheels and greater front-end weight, the steering ratio was increased (numerically) by more than 15% while the driveshaft and rear axle were beefed up to withstand the six’s torque. The standard transmission was essentially the new fully synchronized four-speed from the MGB Mk 2, albeit with different ratios. As with the Mk 2 MGB, both Laycock de Normanville overdrive and a three-speed Borg-Warner Model 35 automatic were optional.
All of these changes made the MGC roughly 400 lb (180 kg) heavier than a comparable MGB — and more than 20% more expensive to boot. Inevitably, the six-cylinder car also cost more to run than its four-cylinder sibling. Fuel consumption was around 10% higher and the big six made the MGC a costly proposition in European nations that based vehicle taxes on engine displacement.
The small teardrop-shaped blister on the side of the MGC’s bonnet bulge was added to provide clearance for the front carburetor. The bulged hood (with its stainless steel trim strip), larger wheels, and badges are the only external differences between the MGC and the Mk 2 MGB. The hood itself was aluminum, although late in the 1969 model year, some MGCs may have had steel hoods, standardized on the MGB for the 1970 model year. (author photo)
THE COLD SHOULDER
Anyone expecting the MGC to be the first MG Supercar was to be sorely disappointed. The first warning sign was that the new six was actually less powerful than the outgoing Austin-Healey 3000 — rated output had fallen from 150 hp (112 kW) to a nominal 145 hp (108 kW). Although the rated torque output (variously quoted at 170 and 174 lb-ft (230 and 235 N-m)) was stout enough, testers soon found that the new head and manifold design had robbed the MGC of the big Healey’s robust low-end urge. Moreover, while the big six was smoother than the MGB’s four, restrictive breathing and a very heavy flywheel kept the new C-series engine from revving with any notable enthusiasm.
The MGB and MGC had nearly identical exterior dimensions — 152.3 inches (3,867 mm) long on a 91-inch (2,311mm) wheelbase — but the MGC was significantly heavier, weighing around 2,500 lb (1,135 kg) fully fueled. In the home market, an MGC tourer started at £1,102 with purchase tax (a bit under $3,100 at contemporary exchange rates), £153 more than the MGB roadster. In the U.S., the starting price of an MGC roadster was around $3,200, over $500 more than an MGB. (author photo)
The MGC was indeed faster than the MGB: An MGC roadster with manual shift was capable of 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) in about 10 seconds and a top speed of nearly 120 mph (193 km/h) — not as fast as the last Austin-Healey 3000 or the six-cylinder Triumph TR5 PI, but highly respectable for a British sports car of this era. However, the MGC was neither as quick nor as effortless as its displacement and rated output suggested, and testers felt that it demanded too much effort for too little return.
As dissatisfied as the automotive press may have been with the engine, they reserved the real critical brickbats for the MGC’s handling. The MGC rode better than the B — no bad thing — but its higher center of gravity, inadequate roll control, and greater front weight bias induced substantial understeer, exacerbated on early press cars by improper tire pressures. Reviewers also complained that the slower steering and larger turning radius made the MGC feel cumbersome in low-speed maneuvers, a sensation alien to the MGB. American testers were disappointed while British critics reviled the MGC as something less than a sports car.
Although it has the same exterior dimensions as the MGB, the MGC has a noticeably larger turning radius than do its four-cylinder brothers, a consequence of the revised steering rack and something that annoyed contemporary reviewers to no end. All MGCs had 15-inch wheels and radial tires — still optional on the MGB at the time. Wire wheels were optional, albeit very common, on UK cars, but it appears they may have been standard on North American cars. (author photo)
(We must qualify those scathing reviews by noting that the early MGB was considered one of the best-handling production cars of its era. Its controls were heavy and the ride sometimes bordered on the abusive, but it had sharp, accurate steering and a pleasing directness that won it many fans. In comparison, the heavier, softer MGC could hardly avoid being seen as a retrograde step.)
Between the higher prices and the dismal notices, buyers shied away. MGC sales were dismal — even in the U.S., which had far fewer barriers to big-engine cars. Worldwide sales for the 1968 model year totaled only about 5,000 units, including both roadsters and GTs. Despite its generally frosty reception, the six-cylinder car did find at least one friend in high places: HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, selected a 1968 MGC GT coupe as his first car. Curiously, BMC’s press office did not really publicize that fact. Their discretion was admirable, but the MGC needed all the help it could get.
A home-market MGC GT had a starting price of £1,249 with purchase tax, £155 more than the MGB GT; in the U.S., its base price was around $3,700. The owner of this car has substituted stiffer suspension bushings, which he says makes the handling much more more precise (though we presume ride harshness suffers). Note the curious mirror placement, one on the fender, one on the door; odd as it seems, this was the stock arrangement. (author photo)
Glad to have you back! Just when I think you might be starting to run out of topics you bust out with an entire marque I had forgotten about.
What where the common pitfalls of the MGC engine that gave the car a poor rating?
The general complaints included (a) that the engine was simply too heavy and throws off the car’s balance (the engine is about 200 pounds heavier than the MGB’s normal B-series four); (b) that the engine was reluctant to rev; and (c) that the six didn’t feel as powerful as its rated output suggested.
There isn’t much to be done about the first point, but owners have tried various things to mitigate the latter two points, including installing a lighter flywheel and tinkering with carburetion and manifolding.
I have one, and it drives like mad, but than I have the overdrive!
The engine is so reliable and strong that you can pull up from stand still in fourth gear without any problems.
There are only two problems the car have:
1. a really heavy machine with gear, making turning corners into heavy duty weight lifting.
2. When your driving over 100 mph (and you can easily make this speed) you tends to loose grip on the steering.
Are the braided hoses in the engine compartment of the blue MGC factory, or aftermarket?
I believe the mounting block is factory, but I think the braided hoses are not — photos I’ve seen of stock engines have rubber hoses.
Excellent article on the MGC. The spin on oil filter and braided hoses are aftermarket item. Originally the MGC was equipped with a cloth filter inside a canister. A small drain plug was provided in the canister base to help prevent oil from running down the side of the block to the floor. No matter what, changing a filter was a messy affair.
The original equipment oil cooler lines are rubber as are the fuel lines and radiator overflow hose.
The carburetor cooling fan and emissions system items have been removed from this engine, a common thing to do, cleaning up the appearance of the stock engine.
Thanks for the clarifications. It looked like the air pump had been removed, but I wasn’t clear enough on the stock items to be certain, and I didn’t think to ask the owner.
Another outstanding, well researched article…you guys are the best.
[quote=Administrator]I think it also depends on what you’re comparing them to. If you compare the MGC’s handling to the Mark II MGB, the C comes out badly. If you compare it to a contemporary Mustang or Camaro (not unreasonable, since their prices were roughly comparable), it would probably fare better. [/quote]
I’d think the MGC and the Mustang/Camaro would appeal to different buyers, even if they were in the same ballpark in price.
For the most part, I would imagine that MG fans and pony car lovers would turn up their noses at one another, but the MGC does make an interesting comparison with the contemporary American sporty cars. Although the magazines (and modern collectors) love the hotter big blocks, Boss 302s, and Z/28s, that’s not what most people bought, and a comparison between the C and a workaday Mustang or Camaro would be instructive. By the numbers, straight-line performance is actually pretty similar (and would be more so if the MGC hadn’t lost the big Healey’s low-end torque), and I suspect the C would handle better, unless the pony car had the heavy-duty suspension (which was generally pretty rare).
The MGC left the building just as the Datsun 240Z was entering it, but you’d need to REALLY have a thing for British cars to choose an MGC-GT over a Z.
At least in the U.S., where the 240Z was around $200 less than an MGC GT. (My understanding is that in Britain, import duties made the Z a lot more expensive than it was here, so that might be a different story.)
I’m pretty sure BMC was unaware of the Z when the MGC was launched, although the Z was definitely on the radar when MG introduced the B GT V8 in 1973; the ads for it make that clear. Alas, the very limited production of the V8 (and BLMC’s decision not to federalize it) made it something of a moot point.
I’ve scoured the site, glad to have fresh material!
Ive owned fully restored standard bgt & cgt. Handling wise theres very little in it. You have to be an experienced classic driver to get the best from the cgt and if you are, then the c is faster all round and better fun. The bgt has nimbler handling and is more forgiving, but lacks the power in the corners to use its potential. The front end set up on the c is what the b should have had in the first place and then it would have been exceptional, especially when tuned. The b needed a better engine but never really got it until the v8 and then the B s front end suspension was inadequate, again losing everything you gained. There all great in there own right, for me the c edges it on rareity smoothness and everyone wants to talk about it.
Good article and good to see a well written description of the MGC.
Having had 2 MGC GTs, 2 Big Healeys (and a 240Z) I think I can add quite a bit to this: The problems with the MGC were mostly BMC problems. Mainly money and control. MG was not given control over the engine and had a minimal development budget. Morris Engines Branch delivered an engine that was at least 100 lbs heavier than the MG engineers were told it was going to be. They just turned up the torsion bars to level the car, but as they were from another BMC model the spring rate was terribly inadequate for the job with no budget or time to develop the right parts. Add to this the fact that the front suspension has all rubber bushings instead of half metal like the MGB or Healeys, the car rolls in turns and the suspension distorts far from ideal alignment for cornering grip. This results in the C turning into a corner and then the wheel needing to be turned some more to stay on a chosen line. Benign understeer to the max.
Off the line the MGB can get to 35 or 40 mph faster, but on the open highway the MGC will pass it and be gone. Cruising at 70, 80 or more is easy in a C. Much taller gearing and more relaxed at modern Interstate speeds. A lighter flywheel (the MGCs is 32 lbs, the Healeys was 28) will help and the 1969 gearing is not as tall as the 1968.
Suspension improvements that will make the C equal to a B include Up-rated torsion bars, polyurethane front suspension bushings, better shocks, better tires (at least 185/70HR15) with proper inflation, and stiffer front and added rear anti-roll bars.
With these the MGC can be made to be a very good car. (My local Club doesn’t like me to lead tours in my GT!) It is the most modern MG we have in the States, the front suspension is fully adjustable and it is great for long trips.
Yes it will not perform like a Z-car, but the MGC was already discontinued by the time the Z came along.
American MGC Register, Tech Editor
The photo of the MGC fitted with 3 by 1/34″ SU’s is an aftermarket kit with cast alloy horizontal inlet manifolds.
The correct Downton inlet manifolds are specially jigged fabricated mild steel units which curve down slightly from the carby then curve up to the inlet ports. The carbies are inclined inward at about 10* or so. I haven’t measured the angle.
It is the specific design of the inlet manifolds that give the much improved gas flow into the head resulting in very good low down torque and much improved economy as well as a substantial power and torque increase from idle up to 6,000 RPM.
There are very few Downton Stage 3 [Kit 45] cars worldwide. I only know of 3 in the UK and my car in Australia. There may be some in Europe and North America. University Motors did sell a few Stage 2 [Kit 43] cars towards the end but as far as I know no Stage 3 cars. Most of the Stage 3 cars were modified by their owners or were taken to Downton Engineering to be converted early in the models life.
The copies of the Downton dual exhaust system ,headers, mufflers and pipes are readily available and follow the design of Downton fairly accurately. Moss I think sell a copy.
The dual exhaust system gives about 20 BHP of the Kit 45 performance, as advised by Downton in 1970.
The MGC was quoted in the UK as exceeding 130 MPH when fitted with stage 2.
My car with stage 3 has been timed at 128 MPH on a circuit with a very long straight. It never got anywhere near the claimed UK figures. The standard car as delivered with 3.307:1 diff reached 120 MPH in both 4th. and Overdrive.
Years ago in the UK 2 MGC’s over 10 years old were tested from 30 to 100 MPH in 4th. gear on a level test road. The early car with 3.307:1 diff. took 40 seconds. The later [1969] car with 3.7:1 diff. took 30 seconds. The early cars were overgeared as we all knew.
On the MGCC Queensland website “Tech Talk” pages is an article on Airconditioning the MGC.
With our Sub Tropical climate this has been great all year round, fitted in 2006.
Bruce,
I’ll bow to your familiarity with the Downton conversions — the owner identified it as a Downton conversion, but he admitted he wasn’t that familiar with the details. I’ve amended the text accordingly.
Another excellent article. In the last few years the C’s value have really started to come up. The average age of the average British car enthusiast climbs I suspect they are more drawn to the C’s GT style assets of the more raw B sports car.
I suspect an equally important factor, as far as collector value goes, is simply rarity. Except for the MGB GT V8, there aren’t many Bs that qualify as rare, and those that are don’t necessarily have greater collector value (the early 1974 North American cars with the chrome bumpers and big rubber overriders, for instance). The C also has value just as a conversation piece. Even at a show full of jaded MGB fans, it stands out, and I’m sure some people find that appealing.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of both MGBs and MGCs, and at the end of the day I think there’s no question that the B is the better all-around car. By going with the B, you essentially sacrifice higher-speed touring ability and sweet six-cylinder sound for the benefit of a significantly better-handling and probably faster all-around package. That said, I think folks need to be honest with themselves about how they’re planning on using these cars. If you’re a Sunday driver that scarcely exceeds the speed limit–not uncommon when it comes to MG owners–the added smoothness and rarity of the C might outweigh the B’s balance and at-the-limit performance potential. Fortunately, though, they’re both cheap enough that if you’re a nut, you can get one of each.
I think it also depends on what you’re comparing them to. If you compare the MGC’s handling to the Mark II MGB, the C comes out badly. If you compare it to a contemporary Mustang or Camaro (not unreasonable, since their prices were roughly comparable), it would probably fare better.
I have letters from Daniel Richmond of Downton giving all the details of the factory engine [on Abingdon’s Dyno] and his data for Kit 43 [stage 2] and Kit 45 [stage 3] engines.
Factory engine produced 123.7 BHP at the flywheel with open dyno exhaust.
Kit 45 produced 174.6 BHP at the flwwheel with the Downton twin exhaust system. This is what made the difference.
Go to the MGCCQueensland website [Website in contact block] and scroll down to "Tech Talk".
Look for an article on developing the MGC for Modern day use [or whatever I called it] here you will get "Chapter and Verse" development of the car from delivery up to about 2009. I have since added John Hoyle’s IRS to replace the cart springs.
I have to go out now but will send you a lot more info later.
Cheers,
Bruce Ibbotson. [1968 MGC-GT]
Bruce,
I did read your document at length in putting together the article — if you look through the sources (some daunting blocks of text, I admit), you’ll see it there. It was very useful, although inevitably some of its details went a little beyond the scope. (I rounded 174.6 bhp up to 175, as is my customary practice.) Most of all, it illustrated how much better the factory MGC could have been, with just a little more effort.
As a British owner of an MGC roadster, I would concur with most of the comments made on your forum. The handling can be improved by fitting 185 x 15 tyres and replacing the stock shocks with modern adjustable ones (I have fitted Spax ) this certainly will improve the situation and understeer can all but eliminated if the rear side lever shocks are replaced with teles.
I’ve owned and driven an MGCGT for 26 years and as standard, as you say in your comments, the handling is not great. However with some gas shockers and a thicker roll bar, take off the carb air filters,and add some ram tubes you’ll gain up to 10hp and some grunt.
I’ve done the Monte Carlo Ralle Historique twice in the ‘C.’ The power on the mountains was a joy in mainly third gear useing the overdrive as a gear change it creamed most of the other muscle cars on the rally. Every hairpin on the coles were powered around just drifting the rear, no problem with a standard steering wheel and rack.
I love the NGCGT.
I am an original owner of an MGC roadster with 4 speed transmission and overdrive. I purchased it new June 21, 1969 and have loved and enjoyed it since new. Presently. I am restoring it for the first time in 46 years. My restoration is a complete nut, bolt, screw, and rivet task. I hope to have it completed by June 2016 for the MG International meet in Louisville, KY. I have spent 4 years working on it, but not seriously until this year.
Hope to see some of you in Louisville next June.
Dale
An intriguing question comes to mind regarding the MGC, was the FB60 engine intended for the Austin-Healey 4000 ever fitted to an MGB / MGC?
Not to my knowledge, although I imagine it would be a tough squeeze. I don’t think I’ve ever seen exterior dimensions for the FB60, but even the redesigned C-series barely fit in the MGB’s engine bay without modifying the firewall, so the F-head engine might just not fit. (The Austin-Healey 4000 used a modified 3000 body, which had more space up front.
Thank you I thought for a minute I was crazy I remember when I was a kid my brother and his friend got out of the Navy and his friend brought home a brand new mgc, my dad was a Machanic, and he had to show it of I remember it had a 6 in it and the hood had a bump on it for that reason I think
While Donald Healey rejected ADO51 on the basis of both its heavy engine and too closely resembling the MGB/MGC, do any counter proposals by Healey exist as to how he wanted ADO51 to progress and differ from the MGC in terms of styling before outright rejecting it?
Would ADO51 have been better off with something along the lines of the front-end from the Coune MGB Berlinette with the “Healey” grille from the ADO51 prototype as a starting point?
On the engine front while the 142-178 hp 2.5 version of the 2660cc 4-cylinder is one route (along a 200 + hp 2.5 Coventry Climax CFA V8), would Healey have quickly dismissed the redesigned 2.9 C-Series engine had it reached its original weight reduction target of 175 lbs / 80kg (instead of 45 lbs / 20kg) that the later motorsport MGC GTS achieved together with the 175 hp Downton upgrade?
Anyway as for the 2.4 B-Series Blue Streak engine it apparently uprated to put out as much as 115 hp in MGB prototypes.
In the Big Healey article, I talked about some of the alternative ideas that were considered, at least one of which was a fixed-head coupe (not related to or particularly resembling the Coune Berlinette, however).
I think the Healeys’ basic concern was not the the styling or the weight of the engine (although their conclusion that the ADO51/52 was a dynamic mess certainly didn’t help), but rather that the ADO51 would have been a difficult sell in any form BMC was willing to consider. The 3000 and Hundred had always been a clear step up from the MGA and MGB in terms of price and performance; in the U.S., the difference between an MGB tourer and a mid-sixties BJ7 was close to $900, which was a lot of money. The ADO51 would probably have been priced similarly, but because it would have looked so much like the MGB, there was a real danger that a potential buyer would assume the ADO51 was a rebadged MGB rather than a 3000 successor. It’s not difficult to imagine a customer walking into a showroom, balking at the $3,500+ price tag, and walking out again without ever raising the bonnet or asking about the specs.
I suspect the Healeys would have had less of a problem with the similarity between the ADO51 and ADO52 had BMC been willing to further differentiate both cars from the MGB. Similarly, had it been possible to continue the BJ7 for a few more years, I doubt the Healeys would have objected overmuch to substituting the redesigned C-series engine (although once BMC asked them to look at the Rolls-Royce FB60, they might have argued for using that instead, since it provided much better performance). The Healeys were realists and they’d worked with BMC for a decade or so at that point, so it’s not like they didn’t understand the economic considerations involved. I think they simply concluded that there was no way to make ADO51 a viable commercial proposition within the parameters BMC had set for it, and they were likely correct.
It seems in Jon Pressenell’s book on Austin-Healey a 2-litre (2011-2012cc?) version was also considered alongside the 142-178 hp 2.5-litre / 2520cc 4-cylinder Twin-Cam version of the 2199-2660cc Austin 4-cylinder engines, with the stroke reduced from 111.10mm to 101.6mm yet how feasible would it have been for the 2-litre’s 79.37-79.4mm bore to have been further reduced to around 79.1-79.13mm to create a 1997-1999cc engine?
Reducing bore size, especially by such a small amount, is usually a trivial matter, and automakers routinely do stuff like that to stay below certain tax-sensitive or racing-pertinent displacement thresholds. (Increasing bore size can be a bigger issue if an engine is already close to its limits.)
Past owner of an MG TC or 25 years, which I sold as I could not decide which of my three sons should have the car.
I have purchased a 1974 MGB GT which I am happy with but I have decided to sell and purchase a MGCGT with a Doug Smith conversion stage 2 with three weber carbs light flywheel and downton exhaust.
I am concern about the handling as my wife will drive the Gee now and then. Any suggestion about improving the handling would be appreciated
Thank you
David
David,
I can’t advise you on how to modify your car, although there are various resources available if you were so inclined. I don’t think there’s anything dangerous or treacherous about the MGC’s handling. The complaints about it tended to be that it was comparatively stodgy and understeer-prone, but that’s a question of degree and some would tell you understeer is safer. Of course, any old car requires a certain adjustment for a modern driver accustomed to the higher limits of modern suspensions and tires, but in that regard, the MGC is no worse than any American sedan of its era. If you’re planning to autocross or something, that might be a different story, but for Sunday drives, I don’t know that you need to tinker with it.
Heavy steering has always been a stock criticism of the “C” . As a 2 time owner, my present C has been fitted with kingpin needle roller bearings. These replace the bronze bushes fitted originally to the top of the trunnions and take the weight of the front of the car. The result has been a huge success and other than at very low speeds, a marked improvement is evident and well worth the time and effort.
Hi Michael, I’m glad to hear your assessment of the roller bearings. I’m in the process of restoring my C GT (a long ways to go) but purchased a set. When I get to that stage I’ll get it on the road as stock and convert to the roller bearings to have the comparison to know that was a good choice!
When I was in Vietnam in 1969 I ordered a MGC convertible . When I got home and the car they had for me was an auto! So I did not buy it. Fast forward 20 years and I found a restored one and bought it. A lovely car, the torque and smoothness of the motor was beautiful! A teriffic car.
I since sold it, but looking around again. For a casual driver, long trips on country roads there is none better!
Interesting article and discussion. I own an MGB with the Blue Streak B series six engine, an Australian prototype replica, complete with the triple carbs and headers made for it. A very quick car and the engine being lighter than the C does not seem to affect the handling too much, tho front end has modified shocks. That Blue streak fitted in the car without all the front end redesign, pity it was not used as the engine was regarded as not standard enough for worldwide release. Only other change for mine was the fitting of a Nissan Skyline 5 speed gearbox. This is a very satisfying car to drive and no one can pick the engine from its great noise.
hi mike
i have a mgb with a weber and extractors and a wolseley 24/80 with hi compression big valve head and twin mgb s u carbs.
both have lumenition and big bore exhausts, uprated handling etc.
i would love to see your engine installation!
I owned a car that was titled as a MGCU. It was a ’69 and a convertible. I know some of the GT’s came with autos, but not the sort top. Never seen one again. I was only 15 at the time and had to get rid of it when I lost storage. Am I crazy, or was this a MGCU? Thanks
I found in the USA an MGC roadster with an engine from Rover V8 3.5cc can be original from factory
Regards
British Leyland built a bit less than 3000 MGB-GT models with the Buick/Rover V8 engine between 1973-76. A British entrepenuer named Ken Costello first started fitting this engine in MGB bodies, he may well have done the same with a few MGC’s.
But no MGC left the Abingdon factory with this engine
Also, the MGB GT V8 (covered in the MGB article) was never officially exported to the U.S., although British Leyland took the initial steps to certify it for such. (Indeed, we even lost the MGB GT during the production run of the V8 car due to concerns that it would undermine interest in the Triumph TR7.)
Looking for some insite on a engine that was found,the tag say mgC but can I use it as a AH 3000 engine? What would be involved and benifits As I already own it, and would like to rebuild. I also own a AH 3000 I was hoping to build a Spare engine?
Thanks in advance cheers
I am not qualified to advise you on what would be involved in putting the engine in a Big Healey, but you should be aware that the MGC engine has some significant external differences from the stock Healey engine. It’s related to the Austin-Healey 3000’s earlier C-series six, but it’s sort of a cousin: BMC made many changes to it to try to make it smaller, which might lead to some frustrating issues trying to fit it in the earlier car. The engine you found would probably be of more immediate value to an MGC owner.
Agreed I found that mgC used a Healey not a Healey use in a mgC in the end Healey removed his name…thanks I have listed it as is where is. A great history lesson.
The 2.4 litre 6 cyl Blue Streak engine was a developement of the 1600cc 4 cyl BMC ‘B’ series engine but with 2 additional cylinders and was only manufactured in Australia and fitted to the Austin Freeway and Wolseley 24/80.
This engine definitely only had 4 main bearings and not 7 as stated. When this engine was designed the 5 bearing BMC ‘B’ engine was not in existence and hence was based directly on and extended 3 main bearing 1600cc engine.
Interestingly, and I have done this, the larger capacity oil pump (Holburn Eaton type) from the 6 cyl Blue Streak engine fits directly into the 4 cyl MGB engine. They are almost impossible to find these days though
Thanks for the correction, Greg. I looked back through my notes and found that point attributed to Anders Ditlev Clausager’s Original MGB (With MBC and MGB GT V8): The Restorer’s Guide to all Roadster and GT models 1962-80, which I don’t have at hand (I had checked it out from the library), but I most likely either misread something or garbled it in my notes. I’ve amended the text accordingly.
As a kid in New Zealand, I used to occasionally buy a UK motorsports newspaper, a weekly (as I recall) tabloid, although I can’t remember its title. It had a great classified section and I recall drooling over the specs of an ex-works MGC GT that was offered (around 1970) for something in the region of 3K pounds. It listed alloy block and head, triple Webers, aluminium and composite bodywork, magnesium Minilites, lots of spares. Memorable, even 50-some years later.
I purchased a British Green 1969 MGC new after getting out of the Navy from a dealer in Sodus NY .
It was a fun car but very unreliable. It would cook your feet on a summer day . I traded the C for a 1970 Cuda 340 in NJ in 1971.
I always thought that a MGC would be a great sports car if a GM LS engine was installed along with upgrades in the brakes .
The V8 would decrease the front weight and easily increase power x 4. It would be interesting to see a MGC that has been upgraded to a V8
Essentially a modernized MGB GT V8 at that point. The V8 GT, which substituted the Buick/Rover 3.5-liter V8, didn’t really provide an increase in power, but it was much quicker than the MGC and eliminated the nose-heaviness.