To update the MGCGT

you can get 300 hp with some work out of a jeep inline 6. Yeah its heavy and fairly large but so are most of the engines being mentioned. And it still has a non-cross flow head design to look the period. The engine can be had for a song most of the time, and can be stroked. One nice thing is the engine (in one form or another) was actually around when the car was made.

chiliredDX, sounds like you'd already decided on the Nissan engine. C'mon, somebody create a twisted lineage for that

A MGB GT with a Fast Cars or custom suspension would probably do the trick. If you can fit a bent eight in a B, then there should be room for a straight six.

I drove a rover-engined GT on track once. All mouth and no trousers - despite the noise, I think a stock 1990 Miata would have taken it in a straight line and it would have been no contest in the corners. But that's what got me started on my project...

The Rover engines aren't that powerful and if it was the wrong base engine (like the early Range Rover jobbie with 130bhp) then pretty much anything would be faster. The GT inlet tract is also very much suboptimal if you want to keep the original bonnet - Costello (who were the first to build a V8 GT, before MG did) used to modify the bonnet so you could get a decent inlet onto the engine.

Over here in the UK the Rover V8 is considered by some to be a cheap way to get 170-200bhp and an expensive way to get 300.

From 1954 to 1972, Datsun produced cars with the Austin (MG) B-series engine built under license (http://www.acmefluid.com.au/larry/austinnissan.html)

In 1954 the President of Nissan proudly announced that it had reached agreement to produce Austin products under license in Japan. Apart from the Austin 7 connection this wasn’t the first time Nissan had sought overseas assistance, as back in 1935 a technical agreement had been reached with US manufacturer Graham-Paige which involved the shipping of an entire production line to Japan. Austin/Nissan A40 The arrangement was extremely generous with Austin provide every assistance possible including materials, drawings, specifications and importantly patented technology that the Japanese company was able to use in its other products. From then until 1960 Nissan produced 21,589 A40 and A50 saloons and Cambridge station wagons using the BMC ‘B’ Series engine design. While doing so Nissan gradually built up local content. No doubt a lot of us remember the sixties and closely looking at the range of small-engined Datsun vehicles at the time and noticed the similarity between the engines and BMC ‘B’ series engine. Back then I didn’t realise the connection. Nissan actually continued to produce cars with the ‘B’ Series based engine right up to 1972.

So it's not THAT much of a stretch.

As for the Rover-engined BGT, stock factory ones did 0-60 in 7.7 seconds. Pretty good for 1973, but no match for most Miatas. The factory V8s only managed 137 HP.

V8s pretty fairly easily in a B, as it was originally designed with a V configuration in mind. BMC was looking at a V4, but nevertheless V6s drop in easily, and V8s without much trouble (especially on the later cars).

Sixes, however, are a real shoehorn, as the CGT shows.

aeronca65t wrote: If you had buckets of money, the best thing would be to put in one of those Australian-built ~Aluminum Healey Engines~.

Yee gads, reading this thread I was thinking about those Aussie aluminium blocks, I'd read about them years ago when it was still a one off, I had no idea they were in production now. But 16,500 AUD is $13,838USD!! Add shipping and duty and your probably back over $15,000USD

Also, if I recall correctly the AH block is both longer and taller than the block used in the C. It may not fit.

Yes, the AH 3 liter is different from the MGC engine (but it looks really similar), so I was thinking it would at least look right.

I can certainly understand why the Brits use the Rover V8. I've often referred to it as the "small block Chevy of Britain". But in the US, why not use the small block Chevy of the US? So that's what I'm going. 300 hp? Pshaw.

The Rover-engined car I drove was a swap. Pretty nice air intake pulling from the fresh air inlet at the base of the bonnet, but the home-built headers were like drinking straws and some of the homebrew bends (fill with sand, bend on tree) looked a bit pinched. I think there was some extra power available.

But that's not the exercise presented to us. We're looking for a (preferably British) straight six to build a modern MGC.

There were only something like 7,000 Cs built - about 1/2 million Bs. For carving things up - Bs are expendable, Cs a little less so. +1 on a fast cars or fabbed crossmember/front suspension. I vote supra motor if you're set on a 6. Otherwise lsx (my sbf was challenge-friendly on price).

The C is a funny car to restore. A simple missing item like a brake booster almost makes it uneconomical to restore one. Some of the other bits are almost as scarce and expensive. If the car is not either complete or already a driver, best to use for parts or hot-rod in my opinion.

I would be curious to know how much of a head start the C provides in a straight six swap, since I was impressed with the swap in the video.

The C is worth preserving as is, but the MGB front crossmember almost precludes the use of an I6 unless you want to ecess it back into the car and lose the heater area.

As for British I6 engines, frankly anything affordable is either too big, too heavy or plain garbage (the TVR ain't affordable).

You'd be far better off using a Japanese engine like the Toyota I6 DOHC used in the turbo Supras. There is an MGC drag race video that was kicking around Youtube showing the thing blowing off muscle cars.

I saw the GT with the 1JZ supra engine on you tube.

As for already deciding to go with the Nissan powerplant, that was my initial choice, but wanted to go back an look at other options since a RB25 w/ transmission will run around $5k. But then again, that is a drop in the bucket when I talk about my entire goal.

Thanks for all the information thus far.

And as for the Alpine Tiger, i do believe the Mk1s had the Ford 260 and the Mk2s had the Ford 289. Then the line was discontinued when the company was purchased by either Chrysler or Chevrolet (I cant recall offhand) since the distributor cap would have been located right next to the firewall.

chiliredDX wrote: And as for the Alpine Tiger, i do believe the Mk1s had the Ford 260 and the Mk2s had the Ford 289. Then the line was discontinued when the company was purchased by either Chrysler or Chevrolet (I cant recall offhand) since the distributor cap would have been located right next to the firewall.

Chrysler bought Sunbeam (the manufacturer of the Alpine and Tigers) and discontinued the Tiger for the simple reason that they didn't like selling a Ford engined car.

FWIW, a local guy has done an absolutely beautiful conversion on an MGC GT using a 302 Ford. Had to adjust the torsion bars to account for the lower weight of the V8!

When I started a project to recreate the famous MGC GTS RMO 699F two years ago, I wanted the car to look totally correct outside, but have the most modern suspension and rear end, and to keep the straight six theme. I chose the Toyota double turbo Supra engine and transmission from 1990 because it was cheap ($2000 shipped) light as a 302 V8 and puts out almost 300hp at the rear wheels using an APEX PowerFC ECU and modest boost. We moved the engine back about 10" by fabricating a totally new firewall. This car will be raced in time trials and hill climbs starting in August at NJ Motorsports Lightning track. The build is documented in British V8 under projects, and also at the DENTSPORT GARAGE web site. For the money, the Supra engine is the best choice for this car!!

My suggestions are, 2jz (supra, aristo motor), 1jz (Toyota Soarer, MKIII Supra), VG30ET/VG30DETT (300zx), RB25/26/30, or maybe a 2/3rz (Toyota Tacoma) with a turbo they make decent power.

Since it's back from the dead. I will say use a 2011 Ford Mustang V6 engine and transmission. It will not get the 31mpg it gets in the Mustang because of the rear gear ratio but I bet it will check off every box you could ever need checked!

Reviving again from the dead...I would have to concur that the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 would be a good choice, if you are referring to the eco-boost w/ the twin turbo option.

Now that I am married, any project like this is on hold until i can sell my '92 civic hatch. With that being said though, will most likely be purchasing a '58 MGA from my father for a complete rebuild. But this will most likely not occur for several more years.

chiliredDX wrote: Reviving again from the dead...I would have to concur that the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 would be a good choice, if you are referring to the eco-boost w/ the twin turbo option.

Good luck. That motor doesn't exist in the Mustang yet.

In reply to red5_02:

I doubt it will either......too easy to make the ecoboost 3.5L more powerful than a stock/decently modded new GT.

If you're going the RB route, I'd say get whichever of the three was the most affordable(rb20, 25, 26) If you get an rb20, rev it to the moon and back.

wspohn wrote: FWIW, a local guy has done an absolutely beautiful conversion on an MGC GT using a 302 Ford. Had to adjust the torsion bars to account for the lower weight of the V8!

Since this thread started, I got my MG BGT together. With the LS1, big fat T56, a bunch of beefy chassis reinforcements, 4" wider track, upgraded brakes, giant radiator, dual exhaust and no attempts to save weight - it weighs the same as it did as a four cylinder.