Touted as a successor to the charismatic Austin-Healey 3000, the six-cylinder MGC was roundly criticised right from the start – but was the MGC really as bad as contemporary road-testers made it out to be?
I have several friends who really don’t see the point of a classic car. While they may admire the drop-dead looks of a Ferrari 250GTO, the aggressive stance of a Big Healey, the sumptuous, leather and walnut wrapped interior of a Mk2 Jaguar or the sheer grunt of a big-block Corvette, they simply can’t understand why anyone would want to drive an antique car totally bereft of modern conveniences and driver aids. In a world where even the lowest cost, modern Korean car features anti-lock braking, electronic stability control and a multitude of potentially life-saving airbags, some view classic cars as something of an anachronism. And, whilst they may respect the abilities and persistence of those who choose to drive and restore old cars, they tend to see classic car owners as being somewhat masochistic.
And, for younger car enthusiasts – those who were born well outside the recognized classic era – performance and handling is also an issue. Why put up with stuff like an ancient, overhead valve engine, worm and sector steering, drum brakes and oddball overdrive gearboxes when, for minimal outlay, it is possible to purchase a modern, twin-cam Japanese performance car; one that goes round corners, brakes efficiently and, in some cases, can be modified to out-perform even the most powerful of the traditional classics.
Look closely at the world of today and those attitudes are understandable. The modern world is all about instant gratification – whatever you want, if you’ve got the cash, is available right now, anywhere in the world, on the internet. Why, for instance, advertise something for sale in the traditional print media – with all its attendant publication date delays – when you can make it happen right now on a web-based buying/selling site? Couple that with the declining attention spans of the MTV generation and it’s easy to see why many are simply not up to the challenge offered by a car which doesn’t deliver modern conveniences. It’s just too hard – too much time is required to alter driving techniques that have already been acquired on modern cars.
So, why do some of us still prefer to drive a classic car?
Missing the Point
Driving a modern car, to me, is rather like operating a dish-washer or a refrigerator – they all do the job they were designed for efficiently, but very little personal involvement is required. Turn it on, drop it into gear and you’re on the way to your destination.
But, as the old saying goes, sometimes it’s the journey, not the destination that counts.
That’s why I like classic cars so much. Paradoxically, it’s also why I choose not to use a classic car as my everyday transport. I’ve always admired those who do use their classic cars as primary transport – NZCC columnist, Greg Price, is a good example – he hates driving modern cars. However, I prefer to ration myself and am always afraid that if I use a classic car for every trip – including dull, grid-locked treks into the city – the pleasure will diminish. As a result, every time I step into my Lotus it’s almost like a new experience each time.
And it’s an experience that is there to be savoured to the full – a world away from the gadget-strewn environment of merely modern transport.
However, for me it’s not just a question of dialling into the characteristics of the car and the satisfaction of getting everything right whilst driving – it’s also the feelings that a classic car evokes in me.
Another Age
As a case in point, driving our featured MGCGT brought back a flood of memories associated with driving in the late ’60s and early ’70s. It was a less complex period when everyone seemed to have more than enough time to reach their destination, a period long before the modern day’s rush-everywhere attitude. Drivers stuck to safe following distances, were not intent on overtaking everything in sight, and didn’t indulge in dangerous, late-braking manoeuvres. As a result, driving was a much more pleasurable, lower pressure activity.
I still remember all-day trips, with my father at the wheel, from Manchester to North Wales in the family car – a sit-up-and-beg Anglia – during the early ’60s. Forty years later that same trip would take three hours, but the modern traveller wouldn’t have time to make stopovers en-route at Chester, indulge in a leisurely picnic alongside the Swallow Falls at Betws-y-Coed or check out the supposed resting place of Prince Llewelyn’s faithful hound, Gelert, at Beddgelert.
Driving cars that were built in the ’60s always bring back such memories – I suppose that’s just a measure of my advancing age.
Hidden Pleasures
It’s been over 30 years since I last got behind the wheel of a six-cylinder MGC but, once I’d settled into the MG’s soft, leather seats, I was instantly transported back to the ’60s – a pleasurable experience in itself and surely one of the major benefits of owning and driving a classic car?
Twist the ignition key and the big, six-cylinder lump up front burst into rude life. It didn’t sound especially sporty, but the rumble of the engine sent a ripple of vibration through the car, which can be felt by fingers on the steering wheel.
Slot the gear lever into first, clutch out and the MG powered away. The heavy steering was at first a little disconcerting, but quickly became more comfortable once on the move. Driving more briskly, the MG revealed hidden pleasures – such as selecting fresh gear ratios with the simply flick of an overdrive switch while storming through an uphill series of corners.
For contemporary road-testers, the MGC’s defining handling feature was understeer – unavoidable with that heavy, nose-mounted big six – but, I have to say, after a few kilometres this became less noticeable. Indeed, with the larger section tyres fitted to our test car (and the correct tyre pressures), understeer wasn’t a major factor in the car’s handling. Having said that, there is little doubt the MGC doesn’t respond to aggressive driving in the same manner as a four-cylinder MGB, or even a Big Healey. It feels less responsive, less chuckable. As well, the MGC’s six-cylinder engine doesn’t really feel like a traditional sports car powerplant.
However, treating these factors as perceived disabilities is rather missing the point of the MGC – quite simply it isn’t a sports car in the MGB or Austin-Healey mould, rather it should be seen as a grand routier in the traditional sense of the term.
Sales Disaster
The MGC doesn’t streak off the mark with any real sense of urgency but, once in its stride, it is an effortless cruiser and, as you dial into its handling style, it reveals itself as being capable of very rapid point-to-point driving.
To be sure, the MGC is not about to set the performance world alight in the manner of the car which it was originally intended to replace – the Austin-Healey 3000 – yet, in many respects, the MG is far more pleasant to drive than the Healey. The MG’s gearbox feels crisp, the steering – while heavy – is far more forgiving than that of the Healey, as is the car’s handling, and in the braking department the MG is much more efficient.
So, why was the MGC such as sales disaster?
Part of the answer must rest on the shoulders of BMC and its poor preparation of the original cars it passed out to the motoring press. The MGC earned a bad reputation for handling very early on partially as a result of that mistake, and early impressions are notoriously hard to eliminate. Another factor in the MGC’s relative failure has to be put down to the car’s overall styling – in effect, the MGC looks exactly what it is; a re-engined MGB. It was not sufficiently different in looks to the four-banger MG and, of course, how was BMC ever going to follow a car as good-looking as the Healey?
Quite simply, the MGC was hamstrung right from the start – it was designed on a shoe-string, compromised at every juncture during its subsequent development, and was expected to replace a much-loved, highly charismatic sports car. That final factor was a little like the reception you’d expect if Milli Vanilli followed the Rolling Stones!
And that’s a real pity because, with all those time-honoured prejudices removed and judged upon its own merits, the MGC is actually a very good car. I certainly enjoyed our day with the MGCGT – it transported me with some style back to my youth, and reminded me once again why I like classic cars so much.
Refurbished and Upgraded
Our featured MGCGT was originally imported into New Zealand in 1988 and carries a full service history – which includes a British Motor Industry Heritage certificate. During its time in New Zealand, this C has had two owners and has been extensively upgraded. Work included a complete engine overhaul within the last 3200km, and receipts are available for rings, bearings and pistons. In order to tighten up and improve the MG’s handling, the car’s refurbished suspension now features nolathane bushes, an upgraded anti-roll bar and new Bilstein shock absorbers. The MG’s original, 15-inch wire wheels have also been respoked and now wear 195/60 tyres.
On the purely cosmetic side, the MG’s interior has been extensively refurbished and now boasts beautiful, tan leather upholstery and brand new carpets. The car’s original, massive 16-inch steering wheel has long ago been replaced with a smaller diameter, Mountney sports wheel. Additionally, the car is fitted with a quality CD player, Aston Martin-like town and country horn and front-mounted driving lights.
This MGCGT has now covered 77,000 miles (123,919km).
Replacing a Legend
In 1957, when Austin-Healey became part of the MG family, the ensuing integration of the two marques hinted at some interesting possibilities – one of which was the possibility of a six-cylinder MG. Of course, there had been several six-cylinder MGs in previous years – the K3 Magnette being a notable example – and, indeed, MG’s Syd Enever had even postulated a modern, six-cylinder MG in the same year that Austin-Healey joined the MG fold.
After initial surveys of a Healey ‘big four’-powered MG, the scene was soon set for a dual project. ADO51 was to be an Austin-Healey, while ADO52 was marked up as a six-cylinder MG – the ‘C’ designation being applied right from the start. Intended as a direct replacement for the aging Austin-Healey 3000, these two new cars were developed in tandem – presumably the best one would reach production.
Unwilling to use the powerful, but heavy C-series engine of the Big Healey, MG’s engineers toyed with the idea of using the Australian-developed Blue Streak engine – a 2433cc six-cylinder unit that would see service in the Australian-built Austin Freeway and Wolseley 24/80. This engine was considerably lighter than the C-series but, alas, Morris Engines was reluctant to invest time and money into building the engine in the UK, and the cost of importing engines from Australia was out of the question. Instead, BMC decided to redesign the venerable C-series engine with seven bearings instead of four. Although MG would suggest several further modifications to the new engine, Alex Issigonis – who was in charge of the project – refused to alter the specifications.
As a result, the new 3.0-litre Austin engine was only 20kg lighter than the outgoing C-series.
Compromise
Additionally, BMC did not have the funds for a clean-sheet design, so the new MGC would have to be developed from the MGB. With the new 3.0-litre engine, it quickly became apparent that several major changes would be needed to make it fit into the standard MGB body-shell. These changes included a completely new front suspension cross-member (although, fortunately, much of the work on a new cross member had already been completed when MG had built a Blue Streak-engined prototype), plus a revised bonnet which would include a large, overall bulge to accommodate the engine’s height and a lesser bulge to cover the leading SU carburettor. As well, in order to save space in the reworked inner arch areas, torsion bar front suspension was also necessary. Larger, 15-inch wheels were specified to replace the MGB’s 14-inch units.
Just to make things even more difficult for the MG design team, BMC insisted that there also be space for possible fitment of the bulky Borg-Warner BW35 auto transmission. Life would have been much simpler if the engineers had been allowed to develop a new front firewall pressing, which would have allowed them to shift the engine location further into the car’s wheelbase, but this was deemed as being too expensive.
Meanwhile, Austin-Healey’s project was looking more and more like the MG. A prototype Austin-Healey MkIV was produced – but it was simply a six-cylinder MG with a few extra bits of trim and a Healey-like front grille. Not surprisingly, Donald Healey pulled the plug on the whole deal and, in 1966, washed his hands of the MG project – firmly determining not to put his name to the new creation. Instead, he widened a MkIII by 102mm and dropped in the Rolls-Royce 4.0-litre six as used in the Vanden Plas Princess. It seemed like a good idea, but the BMC/Jaguar merger of 1966 scotched that car – there was no way William Lyons was going to be privy to a car that would challenge his E-Type.
So with only the MG project remaining work continued apace, with the first working MGC prototypes being built from November 1966 to July 1967 – the new car making its debut appearance at the 1967 Earls Court Motor Show.
Hostile Reception
The initial reception from the motoring press was remarkably hostile – almost everyone disliked the car, complaining of dreadful understeer, sluggish engine characteristics and uncomfortable seats. Amazingly, BMC had under-inflated all the front tyres on its press cars, which exacerbated the MGC’s natural tendency towards understeer – an inevitable consequence of the overly heavy engine.
Suitably chastened, BMC went back to drawing board and added better, reclining, seats to the car, a close-ratio gearbox and revised final drive ratio, and they upgraded the car’s trim to differentiate it from the cheaper MGB.
These modifications didn’t exactly turn the tide, and the MGC remained largely unloved throughout its short production life.
By the time of the 1968 formation of British Leyland, the writing on the wall was clearly evident as far as the MGC was concerned. With Lord Stokes at the top, MG as on a sticky wicket anyway – as the man in charge, Stokes showed a distinct bias towards Triumph, indicating that the recently launched TR5 was his preference for a corporate six-cylinder sports car. And as far as Stokes was concerned, the Triumph Stag – then under development – represented the sporting future of British Leyland.
The clock was ticking and the final MGC was completed on September 18, 1969 – although, further indicating the MGC’s lack of popularity, the final car didn’t leave Abingdon until March 1970.
As a sign of what might have been, around 150 MGCs were purchased by London-based MG dealer, University Motors, in 1969. These cars were considerably modified – some even receiving Downton Engineering tuning conversions (the top-of the-line conversion, complete with triple SU HS6 carburettors, was claimed to be good for 130kW (174bhp). With their upgraded interiors, the University Motors’ cars delivered what had previously only been promised – but by then it was too late for the MGC.
1969 MGCGT – Specifications
Engine Six, in-line
Capacity 2912cc
Bore/ stroke 83.36 x 88.90mm
Comp ratio 9.00:1
Valves ohv
Max power 108kW (145bhp) at 5250rpm
Max torque 230Nm at 3400rpm
Fuel system Two SU HS6 carburettors
Transmission Four-speed manual/ overdrive
Suspension (F/R)
F: Independent via torsion bars, wishbones and anti-roll bar R: Live axle, semi-elliptic leaf springs
Steering Rack and pinion
Brakes Disc/disc
Wheels 15-inch wire
Tyres Dunlop SP41 165-15
Dimensions:
Wheelbase 2311mm
Overall length 3893mm
Width 1524mm
Height 1276mm
Track F/R 1251mm
Weight 1116kg
Performance:
Top Speed 192kph (120mph)
0-60mph 10 seconds
Standing ¼ 17.7 seconds
Economy 14.1l/100km (20mpg – approx)
Production:
1967-’69 8999
(4542 roadsters, 4457 coupés)
Words Allan Walton, photos Dan Wakelin
Loading ...
