MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGB Technical - 0-60 in?

I was wondering how fast the average MGB goes from zero to sixty mph. Lets assume that it's entirely stock.
Frazer

Most road tests in the Brooklands mgb roadsters (1962-1980) book had 0-60 times in the 12 second range. One or two were in the 11 second range and some were above 13 seconds. FWIW, Clifton
Clifton Gordon

Frazer-
The 0-60 figure is deceiving. Because of the MGB's very low center of gravity, it's hard to get off the line like a muscle car. The rear wheels tend to spin, and that effects Elapsed Time dramaticly. Perhaps more significant (read: practical) is its 20-50 or 35-75 time, which is pretty decent. However, many years ago (about 1970?), a friend of mine drag raced his 1967 MKI against a Chevelle with a 327 and four kids in it. We came off the line cleanly with no wheelspin, stayed with it quite nicely until we both shifted into 4th gear, whereupon the massive torque of the 327 enabled the Chevelle to pull steadily away from us. Not bad for a car with an engine 1/3 the size of the competitor!
Steve S.

Mine goes 0-60 in whothehellcaresitsafuncaranyway seconds. Steve, I had a similar experience with an early 80's corvette. I actually took it off the line up to about 40-45mph. The lady driving it seemed confused. I don't think my buddy's cheering and hand gestures helped matters any.
Steve Simmons

I thought the specifications read:

0-60: Yes


Stuart Robson

A well driven modern family car will lick it everytime.
Mike Howlett

Mine does 0-60 in one very large smile. Lost tract of time.
Jim Lema

Somebody mentioned "wheel spin"... ? What's that?
Roger Hotelling

It's surprising how much stuff on the road you can burn off in a stock MGB, as long as you're prepared to work your engine fairly hard. Don't get me wrong, if you're up against a modern sports car you don't stand much of a chance, but you'll get away from the front wheel drivers pretty easily.

FWIW, the quickest car ever submitted for a road test was a late 60s roadster which did it in 11.6 seconds.

ttfn,
--
Olly
Oliver Stephenson

"It's surprising how much stuff on the road you can burn off in a stock MGB, as long as you're prepared to work your engine fairly hard." - Oliver

Perhaps in the UK, but I know here in the States, even an economy car can do 0-60 in far less time than my B no matter how hard I push it. And I've been told a number of times that my B is stronger than average.
Steve Simmons

<<<snip>>>
the quickest car ever submitted for a road test was a late 60s roadster which did it in 11.6 seconds
<<<Snip>>>
R&T timed the mga twin cam at 9.9 seconds, and "The Motor" UK timed the twin cam at 9.1 seconds. The MGC and V8 may be faster, but then they have bigger engines.
Blake

Wheel spin? I didn't know a stock MGB could break the tires loose until I taught my son to drive and he popped the clutch accidentally! That was before the car had twin SU's...now there's no telling what it could do.
Seriously, if the car could do under 13 seconds I'd be surprised.
Randy
1977 MGB
randy olson

I don't know about the rest of yall, but I have yet to "burn off" anything in my MG. Yes, the MG does have sufficient power to make it through daily driving and beat the soccer mom's minivan off the line (mainly because she is scared of the van's 180hp). And since there aren't to many true sports cars on the road anymore and there are even fewer people who can actualy drive a car with some semblance of control, we don't have to worry to much about getting beat by the average driver. For it's power, the MG is a very fast car, remember- you only had 94 horses when it was new. A MG will keep up with a '91 Dodge Ram with 318ci V8 throttle body injection through second gear, but the shift to third looses it. The MG will actualy beat it off the line! Probably has something to do with the rediculously low first gear and 3.90 rear end. If you realy want to smoke something, you need to race a late 80s early 90s Volvo 240 DL. 4300 lb car with 110 hp. On the track of course, any skilled driver can burn most modern cars in the same class as a MG. I know that when I turned 16, I got into autocrossing with the SCCA. I raced our 69 MG that had 120,000 miles on the clock at the time. In my first two years autocrossing I beat a rebuilt Spitfire, 72 B with downdraft carb(in a faster class than me) Volvo 240 DL, and a Ford Focus, I never did worse than 2nd in my class. The only car I could not beat was our 69 B with my father driving it! As far as "wheelspin", I only expirence that when making a turn at a stop sign in the rain.
Here is the key phrase though, FOR IT'S POWER, the MG is very fast.
But who the heck cares how fast it realy is? How many times have you been driving your Accord and had people tell you "Hey,Nice Car"? Or pumping gas and some stranger says "I used to have one of those when I was young". The MG is different, unique, and stylish. It is a classic with an almost timeless body style, and a vehicle that will turn heads no matter how bad the paint is or how shiny the chrome is. When asked how fast your MG is, simply reply- "Fast Enough"
Drive smart, drive safe, Happy Motoring.
--Robert
Robert

Y'all had better keep your heads down at the traffic lights if you see me then :o)

Seriously, a large proportion of the cars I see out and about on the roads are not capable of keeping up with a B, even if they're prepared to make a bit of an effort. Have a look at this table of quarter-mile times:

http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm

And have a look at the cars around and slower than the B's time (same late 60s B roadster got 18.5 secs iirc). Oooh look, we're quicker than some 2-litre nissans, a Golf sport, fiestas... and we're only a few tenths away from a steptronic MGF, a rover 75 turbo, and the VW Polo GTI.

So I'm not imagining it. Perhaps those of you in countries with strong economies and good weather see a lot of high-performance cars on the road, but over here people on the streets are pretty unlikely to be driving something quick.

You're quite right Robert, Bs are indeed fast enough :o)
--
Olly
Oliver Stephenson

I looked at some road test results in Motor Trend and did see a few vehicles that have slower 0-60 times than the MGB. Some examples; Honda Civic Hybrid with CVT 13.6; Hummer H1 15.6; Kia Rio 12.8; Mitsubishi Outlander AWD 12.3; VW Jetta 1.9 TDi 13.8; Toyota Prius with CVT 12.7. Some examples of cars that are quicker; Honda Odyssey 8.4; Honda Element 10.8; Hyundia Elantra GLS 8.4; Lincoln Navigator 10.0; Mazda Miata 7.9; Mazda Protege 5 8.8; Nissan Sentra SE 7.9.

There are lots of nice country roads near me with very little traffic and the MGB is ideal for those roads so the newer cars don't bother me except when I drive on the Interstates. Safety Fast, Clifton
Clifton Gordon

People are forever making the mistake of equating horsepower with acceleration. Torque produces acceleration, not horsepower. Horsepower dictates top speed more than anything else, and I don't live next door to the autobahn. The MGB in bone-stock pre-emmissions tune has 110 ft-lbs of torque. My Oh-So-Modern Daily Driver Honda Del Sol VTEC also has 110 ft-lbs of torque. Add a Peter Bugess Fast road head to the MGB and you get an immediate 25% boost in torque, taking you to a very competent 137.5 ft-lbs. The torque peak is down there in the powerband at 3,000 RPM where you can use it, not up at 6,400 RPM where you only rarely go. The B is a lot quicker than most people think if the engine is in good shape and well-tuned, and there's plenty more performance to be had if you want to go after it.
Steve S.

Steve Simmons, Wheel spin? Maybe you need to tighten you knock-offs. I can't even get mine to "lay rubber" by stopping in a hurry!!! Does yours have magnets on on the fuel lines?
Rip

I think what I have to conclude from this thread is that most people's Bs just aren't set up right. No great surprise, as we're working with technology that's old to start with and has worn considerably since it was assembled (to pretty lax tolerances) at the factory.

Today it was wet here. When it's slippery I like to spin the wheels up in first (very easy in the wet, obviously) and then hot-shift to 2nd with the wheels still spinning. The hydrodynamic lubrication with the wheels spinning that quickly is enourmous, and if I swing the back end of the car back and forth a little with the steering, it won't ever hook up unless I hit a dry patch of road. Great fun, and all at very safe speeds!

Nevertheless, it's possible to enjoy our cars even with the least powerful engine anyone could imagine, which is what makes them so great!

ttfn,
--
Olly
Oliver Stephenson

Rip, it was Steve S, not myself that was talking about wheel spin. Confusing I know, but we are different people! I will say though, that back in the day of 175 width tires I used to spin the wheels off the line regularily. I was 17 years old so it was perfectly acceptable if not expected! I doubt I could spin my new tires if I tried without breaking something.
Steve Simmons

To better understand the relationship between torque and horsepower, take a look at this tidy explanation: http://www.epi-eng.com/PwTq.htm

HP = (torque x RPM) / 5,252

You will see the interesting fact that horsepower always equals torque at 5,252 RPM. Further, for any given engine, torque is always higher than horsepower below this RPM, and torque is always lower than horsepower above this RPM. Horsepower is not "real" in that it is just a convention used to describe where the torque is on the powerband. That is, they are not independent outputs. Engines only make torque. A car with a lot of horsepower can't have "no torque". But then again, a car with relatively low horsepower, like ours, can have plenty of low end torque to make for an enjoyable drive.

Dean
Dean Lake

i got my 1968 mgb rd down to 8 seconds in 0 to 60. thats popin the clutch at 5,500 rpm(i literly mean poping the clutch....just move ur foot off the side. it is bored 30 over, smog equip was taken off and it has a dynomax free flow muffler(this had to be cut and welded due to the size of the mufflers)
Scot Hamm

You sure your speedo is right? That's pretty quick!
Steve Simmons

Rip-
Inducing wheelspin in an MGB is merely a matter of reving the engine to 3,000 PRM and sliding the clutch in while increasing the throttle. With practice the RPM won't fall below 3,000 if you master the pedals. This will be very hard on the clutch, tires, and driveline components, but you can impress your teenage son's buddies. Popping the clutch will create a momentary chirp, but if you want to lay serious rubber, you've got to master the pedals. On the other hand, if you want to come out the hole like a shot, the low center of gravity works against you because the car doesn't want to transfer weight onto the drive wheels, so you get wheel spin. It takes practice, but you can get off the line pretty fast if you want to. You simply have to remember that the MGB is a low-slung British sports car, not a jacked-up Detroit muscle car, and drag racing isn't its forte.
Steve S.

A couple of days ago, I was leaving a gas station into traffic. I did a normal, but quick start in 1st gear. However, when I shifted into 2nd, I actually got a little "chirp" from the tires. Granted, I have 175/65R14 tires on 4.5 inch wires. If I had monstrous 195's, maybe it wouldn't have done it.
Paul Noble

Ahhh Love the smell of fried clutch early in the morning....Maybe you guys who like to chirp the tires on these behemoths also love the job of removing the engine and trans to "POP" in a new clutch. Great for the splines on wire wheels as well. Why beat up on these little cars?.. Impresses nobody..

Alan
Alan

Alan-
So true. Just because it can be done is no reason to do it. MGBs are sports cars, not muscle cars. Find a nice winding road through the mountains and the reason for the MGB's existence suddenly becomes clear. As I've said in the past, any pimple-faced kid who's just gotten his driver's license can drag race, and that's usually who does it. Making time on a winding road requires the skills that come with years of experience. The beauty of the MGB lies in the fact that the more skill the driver has, the faster and more fun it is. A really good driver can reduce his passenger to prayer and still be in complete control of the car.
Steve S.

"reduce his passenger to prayer" LOL!

Agreed, I prefer my loss of traction to be in the form of lateral drift. :)
Steve Simmons

0-60 in around or less then 6 seconds.
205/60R15 tires, 5 speed limited slip rear end with 3.42 ratio and a 200+BHP/200+Tq motor.

Ah, not stock. :-0
BMC Brian McCullough

0 - 60? Sometime before tea would be nice.
Murray

I hate to sound like that cretin Jonesy, but you're pleasuring yourself with a claim of 6 seconds. First off, to do that you need over 250hp going into the road, and second of all you need perfect traction. You have neither. Borrow a G-Tech meter and see what you're really doing.
Ted

Ted- how fast should mine go? 350 hp, 350 lbs torque, 5.7L V8, six speed gearbox, 3.23 gears, limited slip, 245/50ZR16 tires. Power to weight ratio of about 8:1. No It isn't complete yet but it will be great when it is. My estimate is 0-60 around 4 to 4.5 seconds, if I don't burn up the tires first.
http://www.hononwah.freeweb-hosting.com/Index.htm

The MG is different, unique, and stylish. It is a classic with an almost timeless body style, and a vehicle that will turn heads no matter how bad the paint is or how shiny the chrome is. When asked how fast your MG is, simply reply- "Fast Enough"
Drive smart, drive safe, Happy Motoring.

Robert

Power to weight ratio of 8:1? So you have ten thousand kilograms of power? Or your car weighs 44 horsepower?

You won't get near 4 seconds, sorry. Maybe 5. I believe that it will be faster than 'enough' :o)

Have fun,
--
Olly
Oliver Stephenson

I'm thinkin my B can get to 60mph in, say, 3-4...weeks that is....the 1950 block is no more....too much blo-bye, the next one will be 30 over...

rn
RN Lipow

Ted, I'm glad you specified which "cretin" you were referring to, so we don't get them confused.
Rip

Oliver- that is 8 pounds to 1 horsepower.

Here are some numbers for comparable American cars

Chevrolet Camaro Coupe:
310 BHP, 340 lbs torque, curb weight 3466lbs, 0-60 mph in 5.5 sec

Chevrolet Corvette Coupe:
350BHP, 375 lbs torque, curb weight 3220lbs, 0-60 mph 5.2 sec

Ford Mustang GT:
260 BHP, 302 lbs torque, curb weight 3066, 0-60 mph 5.5sec

Dodge Viper GTS:
500BHP, 525 lb torque, Curb weight 3357, 0-60 mph 4.1sec

Here is one you should recognise
Lotus Esprit V8 Turbo: 350 hp, 295 lb torque, Curb weight 3100 lb, 0-60 mph 4.1 sec

I should be comparable if it will hook up, quarter mile estimate times are in the middle 11 second range.
But of course only real world driving will determine actual performance. I don't mean to sound like an a$$, but I do believe that the car should be in the sub 5 second 0-60 time frame, if nothing else it will be a great tire burner.
Robert

Robert, gotcha. Over here we (or perhaps just the people I talk to) rate cars and bikes in horsepower per ton rather than pounds per horsepower. examples; westfield supersport - 440 bhp/ton, dodge viper gts - 336 bhp/ton, MGB GT - 68bhp/ton. Suzuki hyabusa is I think something like 800bhp/ton.

As the gurus have stated above, the B doesn't sling its weight onto its back wheels when going off the line, which is why I think you'll struggle to get that setup to 60 so quickly. But if you do, good on you, and either way I feel sorry for any boy racer that goes up against you at traffic lights!

Have fun,
--
Olly
Oliver Stephenson

Sorry for the misunderstanding. That would explain your confusion with my numbers. Since we don't recieve many English cars over here the English terms don't make it here. I think the only thing British we get here is Jaguar and Land Rover. We do get the new Mini Cooper but I am not sure if they are still English. I would love to see MG or TVR brought over here, that would be great. Perhaps then people would stop asking me what a MG was! Have a good day.
--Robert
Robert

You need to compare weight too. The early roadsters were under 2000 lbs. The late, over 2400. 20% more wieght is equal to 20% less horsepower in acceleration or hill climbing. My '67 gt comes in about 2100 lbs with alloy wheels, fiberglass rear springs, alloy head, one battery, a light weight compact Datsun spare, lighter tube headers, overdrive tranny, plus myself. With stock carbs and a modified mild cam, a little under 10 seconds to 60 and great kick in the back at 3000+ rpm for highway passing in 4th. No wheel spin. I'm pulling the engine to put in an alloy flywheel, gear starter, flat top pistons and a slightly hotter cam. My Olds Alero with 30 mpg highway fuel economy is way faster (0-60 in under 8 seconds), more economical and handles better. The MGB is more fun.
Barry
Barry Parkinson

I am continually amazed at the B's ability to compete in modern traffic. What that says to me is that whatever the MGB was when it was new, it has taken many modern features such as multiple valves, EFI, and computer controlled engine management systems to meet and then surpass it.

No one should be surprised that one of these cars in more or less stock form can be beat out at the stoplight drags by some pretty mundane cars from the current crop and simply blown away by more sophisticated cars from the upper end of the current stables. A lot has happened engineeringwise in the last 40~30 yrs, and it has produced some very different cars.

I am never surprised that some "muscle car", early or current, blows off an MG. As Steve says, Torque rules for acceleration and I see current sports cars get great competition from brutish pickup trucks and SUVs ~ just glad for them that they get better MPG than their predecessors with carbs and dizzies.
Bob Muenchausen

for what it is worth, the MG and mid 90s Corvette (92-96) both put out 52 horsepower per liter! The corvette is a 5.7L V8 developing 300 horsepower and about 350 lbs of torque. The MG must have been incredible back in its day, especialy since it does manage to keep up with modern cars.
Robert

Robert-
Although the B Series engine design is truly a compromise, it's a brilliant one that modern mechanics recognize as one that was far ahead of it's time when introduced. It was further improved with the introduction of its 5 main bearing version. Certainly there were other new engine designs that were even more advanced in the mid-to-late 1940s, but this one was intended to be available in cars that ordinary people could afford to own and operate. In those days, that made it special, and it's designers had every reason to be proud. When the 18G Series arrived in 1962 it boasted 95HP from a mere 110 cu. in., giving it a specific output of .864hp per cu. in., and this was an engine that could reliably be used as a daily driver! In it's heyday, it was impressive indeed. Pretty fantastic for a relic whose design is well over a half century old!
Steve S.

Ted,
The traction on an MG B is the limiting factor, but less then 6 is very possible. Gear it right. Get the best suspension you can find, set the car up right, limited slip, remove the stock motor, oh- forgot to mention that...

Less then 6 is not that difficult. Less then 5, well lots of power so once you do hook up go can go....
BMC Brian McCullough

The B engine was outdated technology pushed to it's limit for mass production use. The block began as a 1500 cc displacement and was increased to 1800 cc's which was about as far as a manufacturer would want to go an still have a reliable engine. The head had siamese center exhaust ports, and siamesed intake ports which was way out of date even back then. The 1953 Olds v8 had 8 separate ports. The 1955 262 c.i. Chevy v8 was rated at 160 hp. By 1957 the 283 c.i. Chevy v8 was rated at 225 hp. The engine could fit in the MG engine bay. In 1960 Alfa Romeo was selling a 1300 cc coupe with an aluminum block, dual overhead cams. The MGB was never considered fast or "high output". It was then, just as it is now, an economical, reliable ( by late 60's standards) fun car to drive. The drivetrain was obsolete technology from day 1
Barry
Barry Parkinson

Barry's right, the basic motor was almost antique by the 60's. The block may have been smaller than 1500cc. At one time I owned a 1949 Austin Devon A40 which had the familiar block. IIRC it was about 1200cc with a tiny single barrel downdraft carb. Was going to put a newer head/manifolds/dual carbs on it but it died first.

Edd
Edd Weninger

Ok, we all know that the B series motor was an outdated design that was modified several times to keep it competitive with other makes. It was still a good design if you consider HP per displacement as Steve has done. Lets compare with some other American V8 offerings of the time. Thumbing though an old Hot Rod magazine from 1965 I noticed a few adds. Plymouth advertised their hemi 426 produced 365 HP which turns out to be .857 HP/cid. Buick had their 400 which developed 325 HP or .813 HP/cid. Ford's 289(not high output) developed 215 HP or .744 HP/cid. When compared to our .864 HP/cid, that little four banger ain't too bad. Of course when you have larger engines you can afford to be less efficient as you have a lot more to begin with. Nevermind we'd need about 3 of our engines to equal the average V8s horsepower. Not to mention the V8s seem to have a whole lot more headroom when going for increased HP. For instance it's not too hard to get 500 HP out of a 350 ci motor or 1.43 HP/cid. Although those motors aren't really all that streetable but then again how steetable would one of our B series motors that developed 157 HP. All this really doesn't mean much 40 years later but it's still kinda fun to compare all this stuff as long as we don't get too worked up over it.

-Jared
Jared Snider

There are few mysteries about the engine employed in the MGB.
During the era in which the B Series engine was designed hydraulic lifters for automotive applications were still in their technological infancy, therefore the engine was designed to use solid lifters. This offered the designers the opportunity to wisely leave the camshaft exposed to the crankcase so that its lobes could be lubricated by a spray of oil emitting from the lower ends of the connecting rods. This desire to lubricate the lobes of the camshaft dictated the thickness of the connecting rod big end. Adequate bearing support was achieved by using a large diameter big end design.
Its Weslake-patented combustion chambers were a marked advance beyond previous technology, allowing for superior flow characteristics while permitting excellent flame propagation. The siamesed intake ports, like some other features of the engine, were largely the result of production economics. By using siamesed intake ports the intake manifold could be of simple design and thus be inexpensive to produce. The tappets and pushrods could also be neatly situated between the ports. The placement of the intake and exhaust manifolds on the same side of the head meant that only one mating surface need be machined, and fewer manifold mounting studs and their attendant threaded bores were required. It also allowed the distributor and generator to be placed on the opposite side of the engine, thus simplifying maintence.
There are also some distinct engineering advantages to this approach. By placing the intake ports with their cool fuel/air charge next to the hotter exhaust ports, this area of the head is better cooled than it would be in a crossflow design, precluding warpage and possibly extending the life of the exhaust valves, although this configuration allows more heat to accumulate in the walls of the intake ports and thus is detrimental to intake charge density and hence lowers power output potential. The small-bore long-stroke configuration gives better thermal efficiency and thus better fuel economy. The bore centers are the same as those on the earlier versions of the engine, so the new engine could be produced on much the same tooling, thus keeping costs within reason.
Steve S.

What is great though is that 40 years later, these little engines are still running and performance parts are still avaliable. Despite the ancient design, the basic motor is very reliable. The engines would be thought much better of if the ignition systems had been better. I would like to see someone take a 1.8L B motor, put on an aluminum cross flow head, high ratio rockers, high comp. pistons, a good set of headers, decent cam, and twin 45 DCOE fuel injection throttle bodies. It would be interesting to see what kind of power that would produce. I believe that it would be pretty streetable with fuel injection (DCOE throttle bodies avaliable from TWM Induction) and electronic ignition. Last I heard, Moss was developing a SU throttle body for fuel injection. If anybody has a fuel injected B I would like to hear about it.
Robert

Robert

185HP is the figure from an engine as you describe, check out

www.britishclassiccarspares.com

He's pricey, but the engine has good reviews (and noise!)

~PHIL
Phil

Amazing- that is the exact power figure that I was thinking the engine should produce!
Robert

0-60... no way to tell. Just isn't enough time to drive the car, watch the road, shift gears, look at my watch, and check the speed. Maybe if I just launched in second or third and kept it there? Might be quicker that way anyhow. One thing for certain, it's well under 6 seconds. I have owned a car that did 0-60 in 6 seconds exactly with a top speed of 150 and this one is much quicker. What is -really- fun though is when I tell curious onlookers that it's totally stock. "Came from the Factory that way!" and if they don't buy that... "Special Order" ;-)

Jim
'71 Roadster
Olds 215
Eaton M90 @ 12psi
Ford SEFI/EDIS
36" primary fenderwell equal-length headers
Warner T50 close ratio
265/50-14 tires (that's 10" of tread width)
and -NO- wheelhop.
Jim Blackwood

PICTURES JIM - WE NEED PICTURES!!!

;-> ~PHIL
Phil

Here's a couple shots:
http://home.insightbb.com/~jblackwood5/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
If that doesn't work Larry Embrey has a bunch of shots on his website:

http://home.insightbb.com/~jblackwood5/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html

Jim
Jim Blackwood

Oops.

http://www.mgbconversions.com/photoalbum/variousv8s/JimBlackwood.htm
Jim Blackwood

My '66 once did 0-60 in exactly 2.2 seconds. Just after some kid in a Cavalier smacked me in the rear.
David

Amazing. You actually had time to check it? I can only imagine... "Hey Bubba, give me your watch..." Sir, my hat is off to you. You are certainly a man of extraordinary talent.
Jim Blackwood

Jim,
It's all based on a complex algorithm using how far back my fillings were lodged in my throat and how deeply my hook just set in you.
David

Yeah, I couldn't find the button for the tongue-in-cheek smiley.

Mind if I use your algorithm next time I blast off?

Jim
Jim Blackwood

This thread was discussed between 01/05/2003 and 21/05/2003

MG MGB Technical index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGB Technical BBS is active now.