Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[Rick]

What are the memories and ownership experiences of members on here relating to the MGB, in closed and open-top form? Did you own one in the 1960s or 70s? or are you a recent convert??

(As a youth I was more of a Triumph fan myself, so over to you all...... )

RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[Salopian]

I hope we all are not too thin skinned on here but - I bought a chrome bumper roadster (1972) from a friend in Bridgnorth in 1985. I collected it and paid at 6pm one summer evening and drove back to Newport (Shropshire) and then on to visit an old school chum in Stafford. By the time I got there I was comatose - no performance indifferent handling and very much the drop top Austin Cambridge (Sorry Rick!) they have been called. The windscreen top rail also came right in my line of vision.
All was not lost however as calling at my local I ran into another friend who late that night made me an offer I could not refuse and bought it. I made I recall £250 and had owned it about 6 hours.
About 4 years later I was offered the car back but I had been telephoned by a dealer I knew slightly asking if I still had it so I was able to arrange its sale (at a higher price than I sold it for) to the dealer. My friend was so delighted I was given another £100!
In over 40 years that must be the only car I ever made a profit on.
I know people do like them although I fear the MX5 has hit their market and prices but I did find it a dull barge.
In the past I've had a TR3 TR4 TR6 that MGB MG TD (still got after 28 years) and a softop Jag E series 1.5. The B was the dullest the TR6 the rottenist the TD is cheap gutless fun (cost £150) and the E was horrible to work on but the early SU carbed TR4 was really my favourite.
Please nobody take offence its a personal view and we are all different- the great thing about MGs is spares availability clubs and the useability.
_________________
Jonathan Butler
Alvis SD 12/50 1928 MG TD 1950

[Jim.Walker]

I'm not too sure when the MGB was introduced, but at the time it was one of the first mass production "family" sports car.

I remember driving an almost new one shortly after introduction. My only real comparison was with the TR2. The TR2 might have been slightly faster (and maybe cheaper?), but in other ways there was no comparison. The MG was much more tractible in normal traffic, quite happy to cruise from 20 mph to a quite respectable maximum in top gear. The ride was less harsh and the appointments much superior.

Of course the TR series went on from Mark to Mark and presumably improved each time, though I have little experience of them, while the B soldiered on with very little change except to the bumpers for many years. Essentially the B was a 1950'60s car to the end, so it is perhaps unfair to compare it with later Triumphs etc. Perhaps it also went on too long?

I do remember a heart stopping time in a GT6 when it almost refused to cope with a corner the MGB in front had negotiated effortlessly!
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then!

[Salopian]

Jim
The TR2 came out in I recall 1953 competing with the MG TF I seem to remember the TR was £5 more and 20 or 30 mph faster. The MG was prettier but was not really a competitor to the TR - for club events etc it had to be the TR!
The MG B arrived in 1962 so was really selling against the TR4 which was a substantial improvement in comfort and looks (I think) over the TR2s and 3s. The TR4 still had a better performance than the B but I admit was not so sweet handling. I always thought the beam axle TR4 better than the in my view appalling swing axle affair foisted on the TR4A-6 series where the axle shaft passing over the chassis rail reduced articulation. The TR6 I had was the worst handling TR I owned as a result never mind the awful fuel consumption of the PI engine. As I said my favourite was the early SU carbed TR4 I owned (1600 WK and its still about I've just checked but its green now rather than blue).
As I said before - just my view others may differ - I was skint then and spent too much on cars the only thing that has changed is I am older!
_________________
Jonathan Butler
Alvis SD 12/50 1928 MG TD 1950

[peppiB]

I owned an MGB GT (1969) for 3 years in the mid 70's. Performance was not great - I had a Triumph 1500 (pre Dolomite) at the time and it had far more zip to it. It was 'interesting' driving in snow as the back end would step out of line very quickly indeed.

I part exchanged it in 1977. It was 8 years old and the drivers floor had fallen out

[Jim.Walker]

I must accept what has been written by people with more than my passing acquaintance with MGBs and TRs, but there is a bit of a conundrum. If the others were better and MGBs were rot boxes, why have so many more examples of MGBs than their competitors survived?
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then!

[victor 101]

I have never owned a 'B' but have driven a few over the years and enjoyed the experience and always thought they were a good looking car in chrome bumper guise, and I like that unique 'B' exhaust note.

[Salopian]

Jim
There are lots of the others surviving as well but I suspect the three reasons many Bs are still seen are possibly -

1. An awful of a lot of MGBs were made - half a million I recall both roadsters and GTs. I don't know the exact figures but that is somewhere around the figure for all of the TR types before the TR7 which I will not include.
2.They were and are available affordable and reasonably cheap to fix due no doubt to the size of spares market.
3. The unrivalled club support for MGs and their owners.

We have not mentioned the MGA - a delightful pretty and well balanced car one of which I would prefer to a B or even the 1275 cc Sprite/Midget which easily would see off a B and was a real dodgem to drive.
_________________
Jonathan Butler
Alvis SD 12/50 1928 MG TD 1950

[Rich5ltr]

I was a confirmed MG chap in my early years, first car was an MG ZA Magnette, followed by an MGA 1600 and an MGA Twin Cam, my brother had a Sprite followed by an MGA 1600 and an MGB and I later bought an MGC GT (when our first son was born) and no doubt between friends etc I drove other MGBs, MGB GTs and MGB GT V8s. I would agree that for purity of handling balanced with engine power the MGA was about right. It cornered well with the right amount of oversteer and was quick enough for a 1950’s car. I always felt the TRs with their bigger engines were a degree more up market and in the end I’d have compared the TR4a, TR5 & TR6 with the Big Healeys rather than the MGs. I always felt the MGBs were basically an MGA that was a little soft! I liked my MGC GT but I know the press hated them and most people’s opinion of them is based on that rather then real life experience. If I was buying an MG I’d go for a well fettled MGA 1600 but the early 3 bearing Bs (more freely reving than the 5 bearing block) are good everyday classics for a Sunday drive out.

[badhuis]

Ten years ago I was looking for a Mk1 BGT and found one (1967). These are the most pretty, always with (non-chromed of course) wire wheels and leather seats. Lovely car, owned if for about three years and then got an offer I could not refuse. Although the B conv has good lines, I think it maybe is a bit too common. Lines of the BGT are really good, I think it is one of the best looking Coupes ever.
Good as the BGT was, it just didn't do it for me. I have always loved Triumphs and the B was a try out. I prefer the TR4 I have owned for 15 years now. This car is a bit more raw, more vintage feel. Will never sell the TR4.

[Rusty]

I grew up and later returned to the familys farm in the Australian country, about 100 miles east of the city and one of my school friends up here had a 68 MGB while I was working down in the city. He used to give that car heaps, it got driven very hard over long distances , his family had 2 farms about 140 miles apart and he used to drive the "B" flat out between them over country gravel roads that were rougher than anything the car was ever intended for and it didn't give a lot of trouble. I remember 5 of us cramming into it and going to the drive in pictures in it, top down with some folding chairs, great fun that the younger generation won't ever know. He kept the MG for about 5 years and had to do the engine up once and I think did the head gasket a second time which considering the treatment it got is excelent reliability, I think the only other problem he had with it was the splines in the wire wheels wearing and not being able to remove the rear wheels when he needed to.

[mikeC]

I have only a little experience of the MGB - I too was more of a Triumph man - but I have enjoyed three trips to the Angouleme race meeting in recent years in a late rubber-bumpered BGT, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised at how competent it was under long distance touring conditions. When a similar spec Roadster was offered to me at a very reasonable price I bought it. It was not a concours machine, but totally solid and very presentable, and I enjoyed it for a couple of years, but when I was approached with a reasonable offer, it went with no real regrets, which I suppose says it all.
As Salopian said, it is very much an Austin Cambridge 2-seater tourer, pleasant enough, but it didn't stir my soul. It was perhaps unfortunate to follow my Lancia Appia Coupe, which was an absolute cracker, but that's another story