David-
The shortcomings of the RBB are relatively easily corrected, assuming that
you are not subject to a lot of smog test related problems (as I know Pat
is). Step one is a desmog of the car. Next is a carb swap, to either dual
S.U.'s or a Weber. If your more ambitious, a re-curved distributor, and
mild camshaft would come next. At this point you have recovered 90% of the
lost H.P. as compared to CBB's, and costs have been moderate. If you want
to spend a little more time and money, go for the earlier 8.7 to 1 CR
pistons, and you are in business.
Handling comes next. It is relatively simple, and inexpensive to lower the
RBB cars, if desired. Post 76 cars were fitted with anit-sway bars front
and rear, which went a long way to correct for the sins of the increased
body height.
Clearly, RBB vs. CBB comes down to cash, and taste. RBB's don't command
the same amount of the cash, but if you're buying for yourself, and you
like the RBB styling then it's a benefit. If you're buying for investment
purposes, good luck anyway.
Regards,
Chris Delling
At 03:57 PM 12/30/97 -0600, dmeadow@juno.com wrote:
>Not that anyone asked me, but it is a _real_ slow day at work and the
>devil finds work for idle hands!
>
>As a member of Bill Easton's Club for Self-Congratulatory MGA Owners
>(BECSCMGAO), I have no particular bias with regards to RBB's or CBB's.
>Perhaps, therefore, I can weigh an emotionless opinion (I know you are
>all just holding your collective breaths out there ;-)).
>
>The rubber bumper thing itself is obviously a personal decision. Some
>might find it ugly and others think it is cool. Personally I think they
>look strange on a roadster but not bad on the GT. However, that is a
>matter of personal taste, so there is no such thing as one being "better"
>than the other.
>
>Pat has some very good reasons for going with a RBB, most of which have
>to do with the fact that they are all younger cars. He does not mention
>the drawbacks, however, which are mainly 1) lower horsepower and
>increased complexity due to emissions controls, and 2) crappy handling
>due to increased ride height (originally done to conform to US bumper
>height restrictions). As long as you can live with the former, the
>latter is relatively easily fixed.
>
>Am I missing something, or aren't those really the only issues?
>
>David Littlefield
>Houston, TX
>
>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:48:28 -800 (PST) Mike Carter <mcarter@score.com>
>writes:
>>Pat,
>>
>>Thanks for the good words on the rubber bumper "B." I was getting
>>a bit discouraged with all the bad conversations concerning this
>>model.
>>I'm leaning toward getting a rubber bumper for the exact reasons you
>>stated. I'll take a look at that article you mentioned. Thanks
>>again.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Customer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald Scott wrote...I would not take a TR7or a rubber-bumper MGB
>>unless it was a gift.
>>> What!! I have a 79 Rubber bumper B that has been a great car I have
>>put over 30,000 miles on it since I bought it 3 1/2 years ago all
>>pleasure driving and haven't had half the problems I've been reading
>>about from the "classic" B owners,and it hasn't been restore it is all
>>original. I am getting sick and tired of all this maligning of rubber
>>Bs they are evry bit as good as the older ones if you do a little work
>>to them and they cost a lot less simply because of attitudes like
>>this.You can get a good rubber B for a couple of thousand bucks but
>>will pay twice that for a "classic 71"The stromberg carb isn't as hard
>>to keep in tune as twin SUs,It will be newer and should have less
>>rust,lower milage won't have been "restored"by some idiot.
>>> My advice is if you find a good solid example of a rubber B get
>>it!Go get the Jan issue of Thoroughbred and classic cars magazine the
>>lead story is MGB
>>> Why the smart money's back on rubber bumpers.So in closing don't shy
>>away from a later B though I would get a 78 or 79 because they have
>>the rear anti roll bar you will get more car for the money.
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|