Previously, on this channel.....
>>> others wrote:
>Actually I wonder what the deal was back then. I think BL must of
pissed off
>the press. All of the road tests were subjectively negative of the
car. I
>think the press decided to hate it before they ever drove one. 'Club'
reviews
>in the following decade had them all back-peddling like mad.
Probably it was preconceptions. Most all the automotive press saw the
main
deficiency of the B as a lack of horsepower. They probably anticipated
the C
as simply a B with more umph. Well, it had more umph, but was not
simply an
'improved' B. It's purpose (and probably not the original intent of
Abingdon) had been changed altogether. From nimble sportscar to
long-legged
tourer.
Opinions on cars often change when the criteria for approval changes.
Note
the MGB V8, one of the complaints at its launch -- dated interior-- now
make
it preferable to many of the competitors with which it was current. And
what
about the TF? From last gasp of the T series, to T series pinnacle.
Disappointingly modern to T series buffs of the era, disappointingly
antiquated to the general public -- now its just 'real purty'.
Probably these auto-press folk were first introduced to the C with a
short
jaunt, maybe some skidpad and slalom testing (all the while thinking,
more
powerful B). Later they were able to take longer cruises, weekend
touring
etc... and suddenly they think, "Hey, this ain't half bad!"
Michael, New Bern, NC <<<
In 1967, when the MGC was but a newborn lamb, the normally compliant and
obsequious press had already grown to dislike BLMC, which seemed
oblivious to its own shortcomings. So the MGC, obviously a big-engined
MG done on the cheap, was off to a bad start even before it turned a
wheel. The Austin 3-Litre, which I mentioned in a previous posting, was
panned by critics as being hideously ugly or at least deadly dull;
technically it was quite clever in many ways, but only in that age old
"Curates Egg" way peculiar to BLMC cars of the era.
After a debut in 1967, the Austin 3-Litre prototypes were whisked away,
and nobody saw a production version for another year, in which time
there had been numerous changes to upgrade the interior and alter the
pig ugly rectangular headlamps of the original. In the midst of this
appeared the MGC; even the people who created the car were not exactly
proud parents. They had done their best - frankly - to make a silk purse
out of a sow's ear. For all their merits (and I do like MGCs - seen
through my octagonal shaped glasses 30 years later) the MGC was
dynamically hampered by that lump of an engine.
The root of the problem probably lay with the old guard at BMC
engineering, for it was Issigonis - father of the Mini and feared even
by the BMC management - who refused requests from Abingdon to reduce
both the size and the weight of the big cast-iron seven bearing six.
When you consider that US manufacturers were well advanced with
thin-wall cast iron techniques, Rover had just bought the ex-Buick alloy
V8 and even Ford Europe were moving into V6 engines, the Austin
3-Litre/MGC engine was an abortion. Sadly, the way forward was shown by
the all-alloy racing MGC GT'S' engines - in production form, these could
have transformed the car out of all proportion.
BLMC (marriage announced 1/68, partially consummated 5/68) soon
recognised the problem, and made a plan to throw the six away, and
replace it - in the big Austin at least - with the Rover V8. However,
in-house rivals - Triumph, Rover and possibly Jaguar - ensured that it
didn't get further than a prototype. By the late 'sixties, the
traditional British customer for the old Austin Westminster type of car
had either passed on to the senior civil service graveyard in the sky or
had switched to other brands - the Rover 3.5 Litre and Jaguar 'S' type
being good examples. So the Austin 3-Litre became an irrelevance, and
with that the MGC became more uneconomic.
Ironically, the Austin 3-Litre outlived the MGC by two years.
DAVID KNOWLES
|