When the engineers first thought of it, the MGC probably sounded like a great idea: To take the place of the recently departed Austin-Healey 3000, how about shoving an inline-six inside the adored MGB? Of course, the MGC wasn’t a sales hit–it only survived two model years–but it did follow the much-loved formula of putting a big engine inside a …
In reply to the staff of Motorsport Marketing:
I drove one in the mid 70's and remember that my MGB had been much better balanced car. The big 3.0 made it front heavy and it handled badly. The aluminium Rover 3.5 V8 in the MGBGT was a much better balance. But obviously you're talking about investment value rather than technical issues.
The factory screwed up the suspension on the MGC. A bump in front sway bar size makes a substantial difference in handling.
Anyone wanting a really good deal on an older restoration should get in touch with me.
BTW, Donald Healey declined to put his name on the new 6 cylinder car. It became in instant orphan when the merger between BMH and Leyland took place in 1968 and the new bosses, almost exclusively from the Leyland/Triumph side, quickly swept the model under the carpet and tried to forget about it, in favour of it's own Triumph 6 cylinder sports car, the TR-6, also released in 1968.
Never has an existing model been such an embarrassment since Rootes sold out to Chrysler, who found themselves the new owners of a sports car using a Ford motor (and none of their V8s would fit).
You'll need to log in to post.
