MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGB Technical - MGB GT Design

Does anyone know the names of the two (?) guys who designed the Austin healey 3000 fixed head coupe for the 1962 Automobile Year competition? The design for the hard top was copied for the MGB GT.
Bob Marshall

Don't know about the AH, but Pininfarina penned the roof of the GT.....

http://www.garage24.net/Mg-13.htm

HTH!
Rob Edwards

..and what a fantastic job they did! Compare it to the E-type coupe, for instance. That car looked magnificent when it was introduced and I was a boy. But look at it now! The MGB GT, on the other hand, is so basically harmonious and balanced, it looks even better as years pass.

The only reason I do not have on is - that it has a roof on it :-)

Tore
Tore

I have the pleasure of both, the GT being a V8. And I still marvel at how well the shallow curves and sharp edges of the GT roof go with the relatively bulbous body of the roadster.
Paul Hunt 2

And how artfully the transition is handled. Even today, few OEMs would try to tackle the GT shutline that starts off horizontal, wraps gently to vertical and then back to horizontal on the roof. On mine, all the gaps are tight and even, which is a testament to the body builders' and stampers' arts.
John Z

I always thought this was styled after the BGT and that this is hat it would look like today if still in production

http://www.chrysler.com/en/crossfire/features/exterior_styling.html

Dave (74 GT)
Dave B

It's interesting to look at the design from both an aesthetic point of view and an engineering point of view.

Compared to the Mini the wasted space is immense. 18" of unused (decorative) space in front of the radiator. With a different front cross member the engine could have been located further forward. -- or Mini "style" --an engine placed long ways instead of crossways.

Minimal rear interior space because of the area required by a live rear axle and a sloping hatch back design. The area behind the rear axle has very little utility because of the minimal height from the sloping hatch back design.

The low seating position results in the leg room being mostly horizontal and taking more space. A higher seat and more head room could squeeze out more passenger room - but not as sporty.

The car is about as narrow as it can be made and still comfortably accomodate two adults side by side. In that regard it is about as narrow as practical even by modern econobox standards.

I've seen opinions that the chassis/body construction was modern with it's unibody design - there is the issue of the car not being particularly light for it's size, even in comparison to contemporary designs. GM's corvair in 1960 had a unibody design that included more sophisticated concepts than the 1963 MGB. Albeit the tail heavy corvair required certain skills to drive fast with it's notorious oversteer.

The engine with it's siamese port head design was an economical engine to build that was "hotted up" with big carbs and a header to get acceptable performance. The trans had a crash first gear that was low enough for a small delivery vehicle to lug a load up a steep lane. Even the all synchro trans still had two too low geared 1st & 2nd gears for a sports car.

Volvo with its car produced a much nicer version of the concept. It was more expensive and less sporty and never was the commercial success of the MGB

The Volvo design was very pleasing at the time, but the MGB Gt still has the more classic look and has aged very well.

In the end it is an enduring classic look, strongly built - albeit with its many English "quirks" -- and fun to drive and susceptible to improvements for those who like to add their touch to the car.

An important issue is the number of cars sold and consequently, the number that are still around. The sales success of the MGB and the base of cars still being operated are key to the ready availibility of after market parts both stock and modified. The oldest "B"s are now well over 40 years old. The user base is not expanding. As a practical matter you've got to be at least 50 if not 60 to remember and appreciate the cars. In another 10 years the number of those who appreciate the GT will have substantially diminished

Barry
Barry Parkinson

Shorten the nose, move the engine forward, turn it sideways, raise the seats, taller roofline... I think this has been done already. It's a Mini! ;)
Steve Simmons

Dave - there's no getting away from it; that design is a nice tribute to the first mass-produced hatch-back.

We all have loved the Roadster but the factory should have gone on spending money on the GT. The RV8 was a low budget attempt (on the wrong model) but just think what F Porsche might have done.

Roger
RMW

I think that the MGB GT design has stood up very well over the years. I also think that the E type coupe is a classic that was always much better than the MG.

But then I also prefer the MGA coupe, on aesthetic grounds, not taking into consideration space utilisation etc.

It is also a classic design that has stood up quite well, and the closest thing I can think of to it is the XK 120/140 fixed head.

Bill Spohn

Barry-
You said: With a different front cross member the engine could have been located further forward." Why would a designer have wanted to do this? Moving the engine forward would also have moved the car's center of gravity forward as well, increasing steering effort, understeer, and the pendulum effect!
Steve S.

When the B GT was introduced to the market, more than 40 years ago, it was not the car anybody would buy for it's efficient design of storage room or as a Hatcj back saloon for small families.
The GT allways was the closed 3-door version of the B and nothing more. The technical layout has its roots in the 1950's as it's mechanic too, BUT it was a classic right from the start of the production and there have been very few other cars since then that were drawn in a comparable harmonic design.

Beeing some kind of a sports car, the GT did never need to have that storage room that other cars of equal dimensions offer, it just had to look good and even today it is quoted as an classic example of a real good looking sports coupe.

When i drive my roadster, it is fun with the hood down, otherwise it looks ugly, just like a car with a helmet on.
With the GTV8, it is fun, allways, and there is room enough for comfortable long journeys in a car everybody is still looking at with a smile. Have you ever had this experience with a Mini, an Austin 1300, or other 'faceless' Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda ...
all offering more room, more economic dimensions, more modern technology, more...
Do you remember these designes 24 hours later still?

Ralph

Ralph

Bob ,

David Knowles' exceptional book on the MGB has a mention of this car and the designers.

By the way the MGB GT was penned by MG themselves using the roadster height screen which struggled to give the right lines and a balanced look.

A car was sent to Italy where the screen height was changed and a small "character" line was added to the roof profile.

The result is the B GT we know today.

The body was the earlier pull handle type.
The car was I understand then sold on to a lady who drove it for many years and to some meeting events.

Pete.
Peter Thomas

Finally! I remembered to check my book - "The MGA, MGB and MGC" by Graham Robson, and on page 120 he has picture of the car, and the names of the then young men who submitted the design. They are:

- Pio Manzu'
- Michael Conrad
- Henner Werner

The caption says, "The 'greenhouse' is altogether too simialr to that of the MGB GT for the two cars to have evolved completely separately from each other."

I hope Mr. Marshall is still tending to this thread.
John Z

Barry ,
you have raised some interesting points there about the design of the B.

Te context of the design needs to be considered as well as the finished product.

The Mini was a response to the "Suez crisis" when the oil supplies were curtailed and was also a result of the policies of the government thinking of the day.

The B was simply a replacement for the A but one stepping into the field of semi unit body contruction.
Even given the experience of MG in building aircraft parts during WWII this was a new area so caution was to be expected.

Pete.
Peter Thomas

Having owned a roadster for the last 21 years, I've always thought that the GT was a much nicer looking car.

Barry, I'm still some way under 50 and I remember and appreciate them!
Dave O'Neill 2

This thread was discussed between 01/06/2007 and 07/06/2007

MG MGB Technical index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGB Technical BBS now