~ This is really the wrong list to be talking about Volvo 1800's, but if
~ we're going to talk about them, its good to get the facts straight.
Thanks for the dates on the Jensen cars; I obviously followed the old
Usenet directions for getting the right answer to a question by posting
the wrong one. :-) (I've seen P1800s from '62 and '63 but had no idea
when they changed over; thanks for supplying the edges of the window.)
~ I have
~ owned a 1961 P1800, a '64 1800s and a '72ES, and worked on many others. My
~ next sports car will be British. (that's why I'm here)
~
~ Now lets talk about British Cars.
Well then, let's talk Triumphs and M.G.s with respect to the B18.
If you park my 122S between Chris Kantarjiev's TR4A and my MGB,
the three engines have a great deal in common from the outside.
All use constant-depression carbs, though Chris' come from Zenith-
Stromberg; both British blocks look a little sturdier from the
outside than the Volvo, and in the case of the TR it's due to
additional displacement -- 2,138cc if memory serves.
If you get a TR, the valve cover will look familiar, if of slightly
more generous dimensions; and the intake/exhaust manifolds are on
the same side (right-hand WRT direction of travel) for the Volvo
and the TR. The Triumph, unlike the other two vehicles, has four
distinct tubes in the exhaust manifold, though all three use
cast-iron manifolds with twin-tube downpipes leading into the rest
of the exhaust system. And of course, the B18D and the TR both
have the distributor mounted on the (US) driver's side of the block,
toward the rear, and are probably driven off a similar area of
the camshaft. All three blocks have camshafts at about the same
height, operating pushrods that open overhead valves via rocker
arms; the M.G. at least uses a central shaft with bushed rockers
that slide over the shaft and are held in place with springs and
pedestals. I've never pulled the cover on one of the other two
motors.
One place where the M.G. differs from the other two, in addition to
reversing the induction and ignition sides of the engine, is in the
number and configuration of the intake and exhaust ports. The B
Series engine has five ports: two intake and three exhaust. This
isn't as bad as it sounds; it lets the intake ports, for example, be
larger than would have been possible if the head had been designed
with separate ports for each cylinder, at least given the head size
and the pushrod configuration in the block. That is, the cam on
the B is on the same side of the block as the induction, so the
pushrods have to come up through the same side of the head as the
ports; I *believe* that the B18's cam is on the same side as the
distributor, based on the appearance of the timing gear cover on
the pushrod Volvo motor. And I confess I've never paid attention
to Sarah's timing cover.
One thing that may seem strange to you is that the cam is timed, on
the M.G. (and I assume on the TR), by timing chain with sprockets on
the crank and the cam. (The B18 uses a large fiber gear on the cam,
something that looks odd to eyes used to British motors.) On the
B, there's a chain tensioner, and early Bs used a duplex timing
chain. It's simple to retrofit while you've got the engine apart
for a rebuild; the motor we're going to pull tomorrow came with a
single chain and I installed a double when I first built it in 1991.
This of course means that cam rotation is reversed with respect
to the B18, though of course in all cases it's half engine speed.
One of the MGB's best features, BTW, is the rigidity of its unit-body
construction, something that Volvos are famous for. If anything, the
B is probably 150 pounds overweight for its size, due to the over-
built nature of the unibody. However, once you rebush the front
and rear ends of these cars, MGBs are surprisingly stiff, solid, and
rattle-free (apart from the folding hood mechanism and of course
any components that have worked themselves loose from vibration :-).
On the other hand, the TR's separate chassis-body construction means
that the body can be removed from the frame for restoration, and the
connections can be tightened to achieve similar results. Chris' TR4A
feels about as torsionally rigid as my MGB, though I haven't driven
it yet. A proper Triumph shouldn't feel much less solid than your
1800, and even one with a lot of flex can be put right.
Of course, if I recall, Ron, you have a 164. Maybe the right TR for
you would be the TR6. If you're at all susceptible to the extra
torque and the sound of a six, drive a TR6. The MGC was supposed
to be M.G.'s six-cylinder sports car, but it was disappointing when
new (the engine was longer, taller, heavier, and less powerful than
M.G. had been told it would be by the Austin design team that was
working on it), and it's fairly rare today. Of course, its character
is now appreciated as a comfortable high-speed tourer, not as nimble
as the B but with a much more relaxed pace for covering long distances.
If you live in a Bad Climate (I can't recall where you are), an MGC-GT
might be a nice British six-cylinder sports car with good weather
protection and reduced revs from a smoother engine for long-distance
touring. If you're looking for a car in which to make 1000-mile trips
in comfort and (comparative) quiet, the MGC-GT (or even a B-GT with
overdrive) is a great choice. I've driven B-GTs extensively, and
while I've never owned one, I've always been impressed with how nicely
they combine the feel of an M.G. with much of the comfort and snugness
of what many people consider a "real car" (that is, something with a
roof and windows).
However, I have to say that there is nothing quite like an open British
sports car. I haven't even covered Sprites, Midgets, and Spitfires, the
usual first step on the Castrol-covered slope of LBC ownership; my own
first British sports car was an M.G. Midget, and I suppose by that the
die was cast.
As a penultimate comment, I've been quoted recently as having said that each
variety of sports car has a fairly fixed cost, regardless of price. This
means that if, say, the average price of an MGB is about $5000, then you
can expect to spend at least $3500 putting right an MGB that you buy for
$1500. Actually, on reflection, it's not linear; your own work always
costs more, even without allowing for labor, than someone else's work.
It will more than likely cost you closer to $7000 to make your $1500 MGB
as nice as one you could buy (or sell) for $5000. You might think of it
(or sell it to the spouse :-) as being like car payments; by the time you
total up 2 years of $200/month car payments, a $4000 loan has cost you
quite a bit more than what the bank lent you. That's the price we pay
for not having the cash up front. Personally, I'd rather send the money
off to people like The Roadster Factory and Moss Motors than a finance
company; at least you're paying for something you can see, touch, and
bonk your knuckles on.
The last word (for the time being): Every British car is a project car.
Sometimes the project is small enough or non-critical enough that you
can drive the car and enjoy it for years, with whatever the project is
at the back of your mind; as long as you know what it is and it's
something you can live with, it's not crucial. Sometimes the project
makes the car stop working, and then you have to fix it (along with as
many other projects as you can fit into your schedule and budget at
that time). But don't be fooled by shiny paint and high price; even
a "perfect" M.G. or Triumph is going to be a project car, if only
because their maintenance requirements were much higher than cars from
other nations and other times. You'll always have something to do on
a 30-year-old sports car. My advice would be to buy the nicest car
you can find within your price range, but to hold out some cash in
reserve for the first big project you encounter.
Best of luck, and enjoy whatever you end up with!
--Scott Fisher
|