Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I imagine it will still handle like an MGB though.

[Doctor Gollum]

Front end should be lighter

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Really ? V6 lighter than a B series four ? Even so, the handling was dire with S4 or V8, due to the suspension design being centuries old.

[VXL V6]

Looks great 

Lot of work gone into that installation. 

[Doctor Gollum]

Really ? V6 lighter than a B series four ? Even so, the handling was dire with S4 or V8, due to the suspension design being centuries old.

Upon investigation, there's not much in it... 181kgs for the 4pot boat anchor vs 190ish* for the V6

* The 3.0 V6 turbo version that SAAB used is 197kgs.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

It does look a lovely installation though.  Would be even nicer in a Chevette. 

[456lbft]

It does look a lovely installation though.  Would be even nicer in a Chevette. 

V6 is shorter than a 4 pot too, and unusually narrow V angle helps a bit too as long as you don't have a steering box to get around...

[Nick W]

It does look a lovely installation though.  Would be even nicer in a Chevette. 

V6 is shorter than a 4 pot too, and unusually narrow V angle helps a bit too as long as you don't have a steering box to get around...

the problem with engine swaps in a lot of fifties cars(MGB underbody wasn't new) is that the front chassis rails sweep up and inwards to mount the suspension. That doesn't really matter with a tall, inline engine but is right where the exhaust manifolds need to be on a vee motor. DOHC heads make that worse, as do the very wide Rover heads - Rover V8s are only common swaps in the UK due to their ubiquity, they're actually long, tall wide, underpowered compared to their bulk, and not very durable. And the 'alternatives' were even worse; Essex V6 for example.

When comparing the weights, don't forget the gearboxes: four speed with an additional chunk of overdrive both in cast iron compared to a shorter aluminium cased five speed. Swapping the massive V6 flywheel four cylinder one would make another difference. Although we've fitted the back of the engine in the stock location, the front pulley is about where the front axle line lies. This changes the weight distribution, as the car currently sits higher than normal on its standard front springs.

MGB suspension is double wishbone front with decent geometry, and there's nothing wrong with parallel leaf springs. The biggest problem is that it's all a bit cramped under there. This car is intended as a GT, so with appropriate front springs, thicker oil in the front dampers and telescopic rears(Escort ones I bought by mistake 20years ago) plus 4pot calipers on bigger, vented discs(an off the shelf upgrade as Ian wants to keep the stock alloy wheels) it will be plenty good enough. The car's small size, light weight(even small modern cars are ridiculously heavy), impressive power to weight and torquey power delivery will make for seriously usable performance. If it were my car, I would have used a 2.2 four cylinder.

[456lbft]

speaking from experience, the Rover is a nightmare for making exhaust manifolds because the head face is vertical, not even slightly angled downwards.  So you have to start with a 135degree bend to tuck it into the block. These days we can bend them on a very tight radius with no kinking or loss in cross-section, but that certainly wasn't possible as easily back when I started in the eighties.  Triumph Stags with Rover engines in were a common swap back then. The Omega V6 in an MBG sounds much more sensible by comparison.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Really ? V6 lighter than a B series four ? Even so, the handling was dire with S4 or V8, due to the suspension design being centuries old.

Apparently the MGC handled even worse.

[Nick W]

Really ? V6 lighter than a B series four ? Even so, the handling was dire with S4 or V8, due to the suspension design being centuries old.

Apparently the MGC handled even worse.

there's not much MGB under an MGC.....
Front structure, gearbox tunnel, suspension and steering are all very different to accomodate the boat anchor masquerading as an engine. Supposedly, the press demonstrators had incorrectly inflated tyres for some reason; fixing that makes a big difference

[456lbft]

Really ? V6 lighter than a B series four ? Even so, the handling was dire with S4 or V8, due to the suspension design being centuries old.

Apparently the MGC handled even worse.

there's not much MGB under an MGC.....
Front structure, gearbox tunnel, suspension and steering are all very different to accomodate the boat anchor masquerading as an engine. Supposedly, the press demonstrators had incorrectly inflated tyres for some reason; fixing that makes a big difference

Wasn't it an Austin Healey engine, iron head and all. I can hardly lift the head alone of one of them, and yet a bare rover V8 block and heads is easy (or was 10 years ago before bulging discs and sciatica..)

[Keith ABS]

It does look a lovely installation though.  Would be even nicer in a Chevette. 

Much nicer in a Manta Albs

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Nah, Manta always looked a bit big and cumbersome to me compared to the Chevette. All personal preference of course.
I need to speak to you soon Keith about hire of ABS cam locking kit.

[Nick W]

Wasn't it an Austin Healey engine, iron head and all. I can hardly lift the head alone of one of them, and yet a bare rover V8 block and heads is easy (or was 10 years ago before bulging discs and sciatica..)

it was just BMC's six cylinder engine as used in their big cars and trucks, but in a slightly higher state of tune.


The twin-cam MGA engine would have made the MGB a much better car, if the design hadn't been so crap. Something that Triumph continued with their slant engine family(which includes the Stag V8) and especially the Sprint cylinder head. If those had been better designed and engineered(angled head bolts for instance), BL would not have been reliant on the B-series, Rover V8 and Triumph six throughout the seventies.