|
Although launched to the public
on 18 October 1967, the first day of the Earl’s Court
Motor Show, production quantities of the MGC did not
start until July / August 1968. Despite road tests in
magazines in November 1967, only 230 MGCs were finished
before the end of 1967. The MGC was firmly based on the
MGB and was intended as a replacement for the
Austin-Healey 3000 which, by the time the MGC was
announced in 1967, had had its day. It was powered by an
in-line, six-cylinder, pushrod, OHV engine of 2912cc
capacity that was said to be capable of developing
150bhp. The bodyshell was essentially a basic MGB unit. Both roadster and GT versions
of the MGC were available, but the car was not received
well by the press, despite the fact that it had a top
speed approaching 120mph. They complained that its
handling and acceleration were poor, and that it looked
too much like the MGB. It was, however, a very good,
long-legged touring car. The MGC should have been one of
the best-selling sports cars of all time, because in
concept it offered a much improved performance over the
MGB on which it was based, at a similarly low price. But
sadly the MGC was to be very short lived, for in 1969 it
was dropped from the MG range. No doubt that its poor
reception by the press had affected sales and by then MG
had come within the British Leyland group where Triumph
products were looked upon with favour and the MGC could
have made life difficult for the Triumph TR6. Engine and
Suspension Differences
By the time the MGC was
introduced, Abingdon had lost control of engine design
to other sectors of the vast empire which was British
Leyland. The MGC’s new six-cylinder in-line engine
turned out to be around 25kg too heavy, and the precious
balance of the car – the foundation of every MG’s fine
handling characteristics – was destroyed. The car meant
to replace the Austin-Healey 3000 had lost the Abingdon
touch, but its other qualities have ensured that it is
still much sought after today. MG did it’s best with the
weighty problem of fitting the C-series engine into the
MGB body shell. The main problem was that they were
unable to place the engine as far back in the car as
they would have liked to maintain the weight balance of
the car, as it had to be able to accommodate the
relatively bulky automatic transmission for the American
market. Hence, the engine had to sit well forward in the
engine space, which made the MGC nose-heavy. Although it
is interesting to note that the relative weight
distribution is similar to that of the Jaguar Mk2, a car
whose handling is often praised for the period. To accommodate the engine, some
changes had to be made to the body shell and mechanics
of the MGB. From the outside, the most obvious changes
were the bulge in the bonnet and the 15 inch road
wheels. The bonnet bulge was essential to clear the top
of the long tall engine, and the larger radiator which
it required. It was also found necessary to
remove the MGB front crossmember, upon which the
suspension and engine were mounted in the MGB, to clear
the bottom of the engine, in particular the oil sump.
This meant revising the front suspension from the
original coil spring set-up of the MGB to one which used
torsion bars as the springing medium. These ran back
longitudinally, to a mounting point below the floor, to
transfer the suspension stresses back to the centre of
the reinforced body shell. The rear suspension was
essentially the same as the MGB, but a stronger rear
axle had to be fitted to accommodate the increase in
power and the spring rates had to be increased both
front and rear to accommodate the extra power and
weight. There was also a new stronger, all synchromesh
transmission for the same reason, and as with the B an
optional automatic transmission.
The basic MGC engine code is
29G for Europe and 29GA for the US. It was also shared
by Europe’s 3-litre Austin saloon of 1967 – the Austin
29AA engine. There were some variations of that engine
from the MGC engine, however and they’re rarer than MGC
engines. Despite many references
elsewhere, the MGC engine was not developed from the
Australian Blue Streak engine. BMC Australia
created the Blue Streak motor by adding another 2
cylinders to a 1622 motor (making it 2433cc), then
putting that motor into Austin Freeways, which sold well
in Australia, and also into the more expensive Wolseley
24/80. According to sources read by Dennis
Hensby (Canberra, Australia), a single Blue Streak
engine was imported from Australia and tried out in an
MGB mule, but was soon discounted. The MGC motor was developed at
Longbridge to be the replacement for the engine used in
many 6 cylinder BMC cars, including the AH 100/6.
Because the MGC motor shares some basic design features
with the older B series engine (not very imaginative,
the Longbridge lot), it is therefore also similar
looking to the Blue Streak. Although the two
engines are similar in style, they are substantially
different in many details (Source: Dennis Hensby). C owner Ian Statham adds
“According to Graham Robson’s book, ‘MGC Abingdons Grand
Tourer’, use of the BMC Australia engine was considered
but abandoned due to practical and economic
difficulties. Other engines were also looked at,
including a refined version of the 4 cylinder 2.4 litre
engine used in the original Austin-Healey, and the
4-litre Rolls-Royce Princess R engine. Eventually, BMC
settled on an extensive redesign (by Morris Engines) of
the old 3-litre C-Series engine, using the latest
casting techniques to place the cylinders closer
together, thereby saving weight and space.
Unfortunately, the weight saving turned out to be only
20 lbs and the power output (145 bhp claimed) some
5 bhp less than the original (due to a combination of a
7 bearing crankshaft and lower emissions). The rest is
history.” The Demise
of the MGC
When the first road test
reports on the MGC appeared, MG engineers could not
believe that the press had been driving the same cars
which they had. The general handling of the car was
panned by the press, it was said to suffer from terminal
understeer and to be an unworthy successor to the
Austin-Healey, which had by now been discontinued. The
press did not like the fact that it was so very similar
to the MGB, and felt that it should have been a little
more modern in its interior appointments. However, there are few MGC’s
which would actually fail to get round a corner – the
understeer is not “terminal”. Looking at the weight
balance of the car (53 : 47), will show that there is
obviously a preponderance of weight at the front of the
car but this is less than most saloon cars of that
period and of most pseudo-sports cars. It is likely that two factors
contributed to the contemporary feeling that the car was
nose-heavy. Firstly, the car looked like an MGB, and it
was expected that everything else would be like the
smaller car. Secondly, it is likely that the press were
lulled into a false sense of security by the quiet and
smooth running of the car, which was at a far better
level than any other sports car to that date. These two
points combined and drivers found that they were
travelling faster than they thought they were, with the
result that the next corner would not have been “on” in
any car! The poor reception the press
gave the MGC undoubtedly shortened its production life.
Its introduction was soon followed by the formation of
the British Leyland group, and the fact that the MGC and
Triumph TR6 were competing for the same sector of the
sports car market. There was considerable feeling
against anything emanating from the old BMC part of the
group at the time, and it took only a month or so for
the board to make a decision on the future of the model.
The MGC was dropped from the range in 1969, while the
TR6 continued until 1976.
Production Period
1967/69 PRODUCTION NUMBERS
Total Production 8,999 even
though the above actually totals 9,002. The above
details have not been verified against BMC records,
unlike the Production Numbers below which are split in a
different way
Information from “MGC
Abingdon’s Grand Tourer” by Graham Robson ISBN 0
9519423 which is a more authoritative source. Graham
also notes that according to Chassis numbers, with the
last MGC built carrying the number 9102, there should
have therefore been 9002 MGCs but in fact there were
just 8999 made (the first Chassis was number 100). He
suggests this is a mass production quirk.
Does anyone have any up
to date figures of the number of surviving cars in the
UK and / or worldwide and how many of those are
actually on the road? Is it as few as 1,300 surviving
cars and just 300 “live” cars? Fuel consumption and Speed
0-60 10 secs Overall fuel
consumption 19.3 mpg Top Speed 118 -120mph (~193kph) Chassis
Unit Construction body, welded
steel construction, all suspension mounts frame. Wheelbase: 7ft 7in Track Front:
4ft 1.00in Rear: 4 ft 1.25in Steering
Cam Gears rack & pinion
system. Turning circle: 34ft Grade of
oil: SAE 90 Brakes
Disc front, drum rear. Disk size front: 11.06in Drum
size rear: 10inMethod of operation: Hydraulic, vacuum
servo assisted as standard. Dual system for USA. Girling
manufacture. Cable operated parking brake. Wheels
Either steel disc bolt-on, or
Rudge type wire spoked. Rim size: 5J * 15 Tyre Size:
165 * 15 Tyre pressure: 21psi front, 24 psi rear (Note—see
Tyres section) Engine
6 cylinder in line, pushrod
ohv. Bore: 83.36mm Stroke: 78.90mm
Cubic capacity: 2912cc Power output: 150bhp @ 5250rpm
Oil pressure: Approx. 60psi. 20psi at idle Grade of oil:
SAE 20/50 Oil Capacity: 6.8 litres without filter, 7.3
litres with filter. Ignition Timing
20 deg @ 1000rpm (Note—this is
standard spec as originally manufactured—my setting for
example is 14 degrees at 1000rpm) Distributor points gap: 0.015in
Sparking plugs: N9YC Gap: 0.025in Carburettor Type
Twin SU HS6—SU Part number
AUD150 Jet size, main: 0.100 Needle
recommendation: ST. (Spring loaded type: BAD) Clutch
Borg & Beck Single dry
plate Material: Ferodo Number of
springs: Single Diaphragm Gearbox
Four speed manual, synchromesh
on all gears. Overdrive optional extra. Borg Warner 35
automatic gearbox was also available. Ratios: Manual, Overdrive, B-W
Auto Overdrive (where fitted): 0.820
Top: 1.000, 1.000, 1.00-2.2 Third o/d (where fitted):
1.072 Third: 1.307, 1.307 Second: 2.058, 2.058, 1.45-3.1
First: 2.98, 2.98, 2.39-5.5 Reverse: 2.679, 2.679,
2.09-4.598 Grade of oil: XL 20/50
Capacity: 5.25 pints or 6 pints with overdrive,
automatic gearbox capacity including oil cooler is 14.5
pints which includes 5 pints in the torque converter Prop Shaft
Open shaft, needle roller u/j
at each end. Final Drive
Live axle, hypoid bevel gears. Ratio: Manual 3.071, o/d &
auto 3.307 Later cars: Man 3.307, o/d 3.70 MPH/1000rpm:
Manual Top: 24, o/d: 27 Later cars: Top: 22.1, o/d: 24,
Auto: 22 Grade of oil: SAE 90EP Capacity: 1.5 pints Cooling System
Pressurised, thermostatic
control, pump assisted. Fuel Tank Capacity
Approx. 12 gallons. Tank
located at rear of car under boot floor. |