Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Is\s+the\s+1965\s+MGB\s+the\s+best\s+year\s+made\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Is\s+the\s+1965\s+MGB\s+the\s+best\s+year\s+made\?\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Aeseeyou@aol.com; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:00:13 EDT; Hi Gang, I know that this will probably upset someone but, has anyone ever heard that the 1965 MGB is/was the best model year ever made. I know that my 1978 MGB is a little 'short on wind' sometimes; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00487.html (8,671 bytes)
2. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Eric <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:37:19 +0930; Nahhhh, you won't upset a single person. You will upset LOTS of people ;-) It would have to be 1968... I get all the good points PLUS an all-synchro box! Now everyone... sound off for each year, plea; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00489.html (8,698 bytes)
3. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: "James H. Nazarian, Ph.D." <microdoc@apk.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:58:28 -0400; You are correct about that, except it wasn't 1965, it is well known that the finest year "B" was the 1974 MGB-GT. ;^)) Jim microdoc@apk.net 1999 BMW R1100RT Very Black... of course BMW MOA #89329, BM; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00490.html (8,229 bytes)
4. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: James Schulte <schultejim@prodigy.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:59:25 -0700; The 1967 and the 1973 B's /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool ///; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00492.html (9,751 bytes)
5. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: "Andrew B. Lundgren" <lundgren@byu.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:31:42 -0600 (MDT); That Split Bumper '70 is the only really unique year. You can pick it off from a block away. Therefore it is the best. :) You can pull off the emissions equipment and regain all of your power, (AFAIK; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00495.html (8,890 bytes)
6. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:11:05 -0700 (PDT); Well, most "experts" consider the 1967 as the optimum year (in the US, at least), 'cause you still get the metal dash and have the 5-main bearing engine (and I think full-synchro tranny) but have bas; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00499.html (9,115 bytes)
7. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:33:42 -0700; Hmm, that's a little bit of an odd proposition, in that I can't think of any real differences between a 65 and a 66. Unless it's an early 65 with pull handles, but I don't think of that as a particul; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00500.html (10,283 bytes)
8. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:33:42 -0700; Not on a 78 (the car in question). He'd still only have one carb, and low compression. At the minimum he'd want to go to dual SUs, but still probably wouldn't quite make 67-era power. -- == Max Heim; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00501.html (9,351 bytes)
9. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: "Andrew B. Lundgren" <lundgren@byu.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:48:28 -0600 (MDT); Nice looking '77 (You can see the year in the paper on the http://lundgren.denver.co.us/Conclave/2001/P9160218.JPG How many horses were lost when they went to the low compression engines? -- Andrew L; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00502.html (9,457 bytes)
10. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: "Andrew B. Lundgren" <lundgren@byu.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:59:03 -0600 (MDT); I kinda lump the carb in there with the emissions stuff I guess. That was the only reason they switched wasn't it? I forgot about the compression change. -- Andrew Lundgren lundgren@byu.net http://ww; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00503.html (9,408 bytes)
11. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Eric <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:26:02 +0930; Ahhh, but I ain't in the US ;-) -- Eric '68MGB MkII Adelaide, South Australia "Aptenodytes non retro concidunt obi machinas Daedali successores supra volantes spectant: ita censet scientista Ricardas; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00504.html (9,092 bytes)
12. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 01:05:20 EDT; Well, if you can't own an MGA, the next best thing is a 3 main B, 63/64 - I prefer the early transmission. Bill /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcoo; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00509.html (9,284 bytes)
13. RE: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: &mem;&resh;&tet;&yod;&fnun; &resh;&vav;&gimel;&vav;&bet;&yod;&fnun;; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:21:30 +0200; Of COURSE its nice looking - they did a CB conversion (ahem) RMartin /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool ///; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00510.html (9,387 bytes)
14. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:11:14 -0700; Good question. There are other changes that make it not quite clear cut (for example, smaller inlet valves starting in 1975), but one way of looking at it gives a 17hp net loss between 1972 and 1975.; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00518.html (10,664 bytes)
15. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Bob Shaw <shaws@mlcltd.com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:38:12 -0500; I was always of the opinion that the best year of MG was whichever year I was in at the moment. -- Bob Shaw Check out Shaw's Garage at http://www.mlcltd.com/shawsgarage/ My British Car is NOT leaky; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00535.html (9,132 bytes)
16. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:23:10 EDT; Love the one you're with? Something to be said for situational ethics, OK, but I can't think of anything that would endear one of the rubber bumper single carb cars to me. A good friend owned one, an; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00537.html (9,232 bytes)
17. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Dan DiBiase <d_dibiase@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:56:19 -0700 (PDT); I guess logically you're right, Bill, except for the fact that my '76 B is the only one I've ever owned and driven, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing! Hope to find out within the next year or; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00541.html (9,134 bytes)
18. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: Gonaj@aol.com; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:29:00 EDT; I think that the best year is the one that you own and love. It's good for mental health too. George /// /// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool ///; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00544.html (8,362 bytes)
19. Re: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: stephen bartley <ragtopday@mediaone.net>; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:24:57 -0400; Seconded-- I own an early '63 MGB, i much prefer it over the '69 B I once owned. Definitely a vintage feel, between the 3-main, 3-synchro, the pull handle doors and that wonderful old dash with the; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00551.html (8,802 bytes)
20. RE: Is the 1965 MGB the best year made? (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:04:44 -0700; You forgot to mention the look on folks faces when the doors pop open going round corners. I don't like the pull handle lock mechanisms for daily driving. Nothing like as robust as the later locks.; /html/mgs/2001-09/msg00553.html (8,626 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]