MGB 1990
- Thread starter EAF602Whizz
- Start date
Same one in the Spitfire?
Have you got a link with some more info? (Google comes up with a lot of fancy graphs...)
Sounds like even more reason to go with the V8.
No. Either a V6 developed from the Rover V8, a developed version of the 6-cylinder engines from the Rover SD1, the stillborn "D-Series" developed / redesigned from the C-Series though lightened by 29% or a range of B-OHC/O/M/T-Series 6-cylinder engines that originate from the 80-115 bhp 2.4 B-Series "Blue Streak" 6-cylinder engine, with the latter (in 115 bhp form) even being fitted into an MGB prototype in the OTL at one point though unfortunately it did not enter production.
MG EX234 - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concepts/concepts-and-prototypes/sports-car-projects-mg-ex234/ : Would have loved to have driven a possible late-model 1.4 K-Series powered version styled as a coupe-bodied mini-RV8, assuming it had a long production run.
Using a V-6 developed from the V-8 used by Rover could lead to some rather interesting intellectual property issues, as such an engine existed IOTL (with an iron block) since 1962, in the form of the Buick V-6- IIRC, it weighs about 35 lb more than the V-8. However, if some sort of licensing arrangement can be worked out, it'd be a very solid & durable motor (GM continued to produce variants of the motor until 2008) capable of making some very good power & it'd likely fit in anything one could stick a Buick/Rover aluminum V-8 in.
Can see where you are coming from though I'd imagine any Rover V6 being aluminium and otherwise heading into a different evolutionary direction from the (Iron Block) Buick V6.
Fwiw, there is no relation between the Rover V8 and the V6 engine from the MG Metro 6R4 / Jaguar XJ220 / MG EX-E concept, which used some of the engine architecture of the Cosworth DFV albeit a 6-cylinder derivation.
Thx for this. Certainly options to choose from.Masked Grizzly said:
Thx for this, too. (Why it never occurred to me to look there...Masked Grizzly said:
)It could indeed. IMO, tho, there'd be no point to it. If there are V6s available without developing an in-house engine, why do it? IMO, better to spend the money getting the car right. Or developing the 3.5 liter (up to 5.2...?DD951 said:
), with better heads (swirl combustion? 4-valve?) & induction (EFI? 4x2-barrel?) & such.Thx for this. Certainly options to choose from.
Thx for this, too. (Why it never occurred to me to look there...
It could indeed. IMO, tho, there'd be no point to it. If there are V6s available without developing an in-house engine, why do it? IMO, better to spend the money getting the car right. Or developing the 3.5 liter (up to 5.2...?
I can imagine a scenario where the 2.4 "Blue Streak" B-Series (of Austin origin) and "D-Series" (of Morris origin) are used to power the MGB, with the former eventually evolving into a suitable replacement for the latter as it became the 6-cylinder B-OHC/O/M/T-Series engines despite not taking into account any similar potential advances for the "D-Series".
The Rover-Triumph SD1-Six would continue to power Triumphs (and possibly Rovers) though Rover itself would have the option of Rover V6, any issues regarding intellectual property could be solved by the Rover V6 taking a different evolutionary path from the related Buick unit as well as the only being sold in the UK and other European markets outside of the US.
There are plenty of suitable engine options available in the 1980s ready or almost ready to go into a production MGB. For example one of the successful modern transplants is the 1.8 turbo unit from the Triumph Acclaim. For me the mechanical aspects are already there just requiring assembling. Better brakes, modern suspension, a 5 speed gearbox, electronic ignition and a more up to date engine are all just sitting there in the 1980s and 1990s just waiting for the nod to go ahead. Lightening the car and updating the trim (or going full retro to appeal to buyer's who like that sort of heritage) are all that remain to make a fine and still competitive car within it's own niche. The niche that cars like the MX5 later occupied instead.
It just needs the right decisions made at board level and perhaps some good alliances. After that it's all clever marketing and you've got an MGB and GT that continues succesfully and mirrors the Rover mini for it's historic continuity.
The only question is Aston or Leyland or some sort of power sharing deal to make it happen?
It just needs the right decisions made at board level and perhaps some good alliances. After that it's all clever marketing and you've got an MGB and GT that continues succesfully and mirrors the Rover mini for it's historic continuity.
The only question is Aston or Leyland or some sort of power sharing deal to make it happen?
if you want to stick to the styling / dimensions of the B but make it fit for the 1980s , you've got a lot of the vehicle to change to bring up to date, arguably there is a in the later history of ARG and from the work going on elsewhere and the BL/ARG parts bin a variety of options
drivetrain wise you've got the rover SD1/ TR7/ Land rover main gear boxes and either Jaguar /SD1/ TR7 rear axle / suspension options ... O-series for the 4 cylinder ( bearing in mind that there will fairly soon be the MG tune versions for the Mestro and then the injection and turbo versions for later Monstros)the rover V8 as previously discussed
front suspension as above or none driven versions of what was being developed for LM10 /11 (the Monstro twins)
ride height may still be an issue, the rubber bumper nose could be readdressed ( after all the Alfa spider suffered a similar fate at that time and for the same reasons - but managed to look far tidier at the front, although the blunt tail big light rear was not a patch on the somewhat boat tailed original. )
drivetrain wise you've got the rover SD1/ TR7/ Land rover main gear boxes and either Jaguar /SD1/ TR7 rear axle / suspension options ... O-series for the 4 cylinder ( bearing in mind that there will fairly soon be the MG tune versions for the Mestro and then the injection and turbo versions for later Monstros)the rover V8 as previously discussed
front suspension as above or none driven versions of what was being developed for LM10 /11 (the Monstro twins)
ride height may still be an issue, the rubber bumper nose could be readdressed ( after all the Alfa spider suffered a similar fate at that time and for the same reasons - but managed to look far tidier at the front, although the blunt tail big light rear was not a patch on the somewhat boat tailed original. )
Those potential solutions for modernising the B from Austin Rover parts bins sound alright to me Zippy. The basic shell of the B is fine. It's strong enough. Some of the panels could be made lighter as I mentioned earlier using aluminium instead of steel and the bumpers could definitely have been redesigned to look nicer and weigh less. Maybe go with a body coloured bumper for a start, probably using a different material, although I don't know what other cars like the Maestros etc used in the 1980s.
All in all I think this discussion has shown that it's doable from engineering perspectives and it could probably be done economically at that. The big challenge would be marketing the car and could it be made to challenge the new crop of hot hatchbacks performance wise?
I find my own B fairly nippy even with a standard engine. A hotter production model could be serious fun.
All in all I think this discussion has shown that it's doable from engineering perspectives and it could probably be done economically at that. The big challenge would be marketing the car and could it be made to challenge the new crop of hot hatchbacks performance wise?
I find my own B fairly nippy even with a standard engine. A hotter production model could be serious fun.
The Triumph Acclaim received the 1335cc Honda engine, while only a limited edition 105 bhp known as the Triumph Avon Acclaim Turbo exists.
Even though it is a long shot considering the Hot Hatches ultimately killed off the affordable RWD coupes in Europe (like the Opel Manta, Ford Capri, etc), I suppose an MGB "Shooting Brake" bodystyle similar to the "study" below along the lines of the Reliant Scimitar GTE would be one way of challenging the Hot Hatches, yet that would mean the base model's performance needs to be at least in (4-cylinder non-turbo) Warm Hatch territory or roughly around 115+ bhp.
(Link - http://www.mgownersclub.co.uk/cgi-bin/gen5?runprog=mgoc&a=&mode=gallery_single&id=1158558970_9508)
Interesting conversion there maskedgrizzly. I'd seen that pic before I think on the upgrades4mgs website. Not sure if I like it but it works. The K series should easily provide 115 bhp and a significant weight saving. But that came a lot later. I think the crux is that the Golf, XR2, 205 GTi etc are going to appeal to a particular, and quite wide section of the public looking for a smart, practical up to date car, whereas a revamped 1980s MGB is going to appeal to a smaller group of enthusiasts, nostalgists and people with a retro style fetish.
It's going to sell a lot less than the Metro for example but people still bought minis. I think enough people would carry on buying Bs to make their production feasible, if on a smaller scale. Perhaps alongside Metro production. A 1980 revamp similar to the Aston proposal would keep it going until the mid 1980s, then perhaps a major rethink and relaunch of a 'new' B for the late 1980s with a hot engine/suspension/brakes set up. Can it compete with the MX5 in 1989?
I'd like to bring it to the point where the MGB is replaced in the same way that the Mini was replaced at the end of the century; by another Mini. I want the 21st century MGB to display it's own heritage in it's form.
It's going to sell a lot less than the Metro for example but people still bought minis. I think enough people would carry on buying Bs to make their production feasible, if on a smaller scale. Perhaps alongside Metro production. A 1980 revamp similar to the Aston proposal would keep it going until the mid 1980s, then perhaps a major rethink and relaunch of a 'new' B for the late 1980s with a hot engine/suspension/brakes set up. Can it compete with the MX5 in 1989?
I'd like to bring it to the point where the MGB is replaced in the same way that the Mini was replaced at the end of the century; by another Mini. I want the 21st century MGB to display it's own heritage in it's form.
I think personally that by the time the MX5 comes along though the alternate updated / modernized MGB would probably reach similar Iconic status to the original Mini, it would be in need of replacing by then anyway.
Even the MG EX234 Midget would have to be replaced by the AR6-based MG Midget in the mid/late-80s (albeit with better styling - http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concepts/concepts-and-prototypes/concepts-ar6-based-mg-midget/), there would also be the issue of whether the 21st century MGB would be mid-engined rwd like on the MGF or still be front-engined rwd and if the latter the question is then what rwd platform it would it use?
Assuming the B was not sold to Aston Martin and is still being produced by British Leyland / Rover Group / MG Rover that made similar bad choices overall as in the OTL, would the company still be collaborating with Honda and receving the platform for the fwd Honda Integra or would it still be owned by BMW and end up receiving the rwd platform for either the BMW 3-Series Compact or 1-Series as MGB replacements?
Compared to the rwd Capri and Manta, the fwd Probe and Calibra that replaced both were absolute dogs to drive despite their styling to the point where neither were replaced though given that the Honda Civic/Domani-based fwd MG ZS received favourable reviews in the press, I suppose a scenario where the MGB is replaced in the early/mid-90s by a Honda-based fwd MGB with similar settings to the later real-life MG ZS would be one possbility to consider given the lack of rwd platform (that would need to be shared with other cars to make it both viable and cost effective).
Fwiw, on page 174 in MG: The Untold Story, there are a pair of modern-looking William Town's sketches based on the MGB floorplan, sills and wheel arches that were intended to replace the facelifted Aston Martin built MGB. One was a 2+2 Coupe, another was a 2-seater hardtop / convertible while both were to later be joined by sports estate version.
Interesting points there. That's a book I should get hold of Masked Grizzly. Agreed that a modern MGB styled sports car would probably share a lot in common with the Rover derived MGZs, not sure about front wheel drive though.
TBH I don't know much about the moderns and I'm no skilled mechanic. Although I've got my hands dirty right up to my elbows with the B and other older cars anything more recent to me is just a big plastic shroud with 'hands off amateur' stamped across it.
TBH I don't know much about the moderns and I'm no skilled mechanic. Although I've got my hands dirty right up to my elbows with the B and other older cars anything more recent to me is just a big plastic shroud with 'hands off amateur' stamped across it.
Though one can understand the idea of not having the B replacement become front wheel drive, consider the following.
The interesting thing about the MG ZS was that it managed to receive very good reviews in the press despite being based on an otherwise outdated 9-10 year old fwd Honda Domani from around the time it was launched, were such a model launched in the early 1990s instead of early 2000s it would have probably been considered one of the greatest fwd platforms of the era both as a hot hatch as well as a coupe / convertible and thus be a worthy 90s replacement for the MGB (anyway the possibility also exists that the renowned Honda Integra may be distantly related to the Honda Domani / Rover 400 / Rover 45 / MG ZS).
It would be from that basis that a fwd MGB replacement could be developed to rival other great fwd cars of the era like the Honda Integra, VW Corrado, Lotus Elan S2, Ford Puma and Fiat Barchetta, while the related hot hatch would take the fight to fwd hot hatch greats of the era like the Renault Clio Williams, Peugeot 306 GTi-6 / Rallye and others.
4WD versions may also be possible, while alternate 6-cylinder T-Series and 2.0 4-cylinder T-Series Turbo engines (the latter capable of a reliable 275+ bhp) along with the alternate existing KV6 could be used for higher performance versions of the B replacement models.
The only scenarios where a rwd B replacement could exist were if British Leyland were successful to begin with, BMC and Leyland remaining seperate successful entities with little need to merge and if BMW ran Rover properly instead of hollowing it out / starving it of cash before throwing it away.
Last edited: