mgb gt spec line

I have been looking at the spec line on the mgb gt (68-74) in the ITCS, and several things jump out at me.

1) in the last few years, the GT came with the same HIF carbs as the roadster.
2) 18V series engines (introduced in 72) had a 9.0 CR
3) non 18V engines only had an Intake valve dia of 39.8mm
4) 1st gear ratio wasn't 3.64 in the 68-74 timeframe.
5) Where do I find the non-optional 5th gear?

I guess it hasn't really mattered, because no one has been stupid/insane enough to even LOOK at that spec line..... yet. :rolleyes:

>> ...is he insane for even asking?

Must...fight...urge...

Seriously - why would anybody ever consider building such a thing?

K

Quote:

---

>> ...is he insane for even asking?

Must...fight...urge...



K
[/b]

---

Can't -fight -urge...

Yes. He is. ;)

Intervention!!!! Intervention!!!! :bash_1_:

From a fellow British car campaigner and crew man, don't do it!!!!!!!!!!!! :018:

As a fellow said, more learned than I, "All that car wants to do is lie in a field and rust". Don't try and take it racing, it doesn't want to do it. Neither did my Jensen, and look where that has gotten me.

Ron

And your jensen actually has a chance!

Have to agree on this one. If you are going to build an oddball, try to find one that has some advantage or characteristic that gives it a shot. The JH has been a bitch to build and develop, but it is light, very light for ITS.

I don't seen ANYTHING on the MGB GT that would give it any advantage at all. Honestly, I'd not only stay away, I'd run away.

He might be crazy but I don't think he is insane. We are all a little crazy to be doing what we are doing. Could it not be said at this day and age with the rules if he built a 10/10 car could he not get it adjusted, or at least have a chance to have it adjusted? Are there are provisions in the rules now for this right? I am not saying it is going to be easy or fast or anything, he just needs to know that it is going to be a very up hill struggle. I think that people build odd ball cars for....odd ball reasons, if running at the front was all I wanted I would drive a Honda or something (no offence, but I need a car with a soul and new cars just don't for me). If he knows what he is getting into no problem. Talk to people building odd duck cars be ready for some head scratching, spending the kids college money and all. But it can be fun to do something different. I for one would not change a thing.

If you Ron or Jeff where put back in time a few years would you still pick the same car, knowing know what you where getting into....I know I would with the Opel.

If I choose to do a BGT it will be out of enthusiasm for the car and the marque. I do happen to think that there are a few things that can be done to improve the cars performance that might not have been tried yet. There is also the challenge of getting more power out of the engine given that much of the tried and true methods of HP gains for the B-series are illegal. Perhaps no one ever pushed the development of one simply because the car listed in the ITCS never existed.

For the record, my street BGT has much less rust than many rx7s I have come across. Can you say "rear wheel well rot"? Start with a solid chassis and rust is not so much an issue.

Oh yes, and if the car is not successful, I now have all you guys on record for when I make the classification adjustment request. :lol: :lol: :lol:

ps. anyone choosing a 907 motored car has no room to comment. :bash_1_: :D

This was around the Prod site and was thinking some of you british car guys would like this....I wonder what happened to these cars?

http://healeyracing.com

Yes, I would build the TR8 again but really now (after racing for a while) only for one reason: prodigious torque. The car has an advantage because of that.

The thrill of racing your favorite marque goes away quickly, trust me, unless there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm not telling you building the BGT is insane, or not to do it. If that is what you really, really want to do, do it, because you have to really want it or you won't race. The problem as I see it with the BGT that the JH (light weight, decent power), the Opel (really good aero and decent power/weight for ITB) and the TR8 (gods of torque and decent handling) don't have is one area where the car really shines. You can make a B handle, see Prod cars, but I don't know if that will require doing things you can't do in IT.

BUt the the big problem as I see is is power out of the 1.8 in IT trim. I just don't know how you are going to get the power you need out of that motor with the Stromberg, and no real head work or compression bump allowed.

I'd have to agree with Jeff on this one - there has to be something about that car that gives it some sort of edge before I'd build it. With the Jensen it is weight, or lack there of, and good power from the 907. TR8 handles pretty well and has fantastic torque.

But that little MGB GT, well, I don't see any endearing qualities there.

Nice website Cherokee, hadn't seen that one. Huffaker Engineering brought the black JH back out in 1995 and won Prod with it then as I understand it with Jr. driving and now it is back in the garage. Still exists but is one of the few racing JHs around as far as I know.

Quote:

---

...Could it not be said at this day and age with the rules if he built a 10/10 car could he not get it adjusted, or at least have a chance to have it adjusted? Are there are provisions in the rules now for this right? ...[/b]

---

Quote:

---

... I now have all you guys on record for when I make the classification adjustment request. ...[/b]

---

How can I say this?

No, no, no, nonononono, NO!

That is NOT what the PCA process is for. What you are suggesting is a HUGE leap toward Prod-style competition adjustments (bleh!). I will personally join the group of people willing to throw themselves in front of that bus to try to stop it, if PCAs get repurposed in this way.

Jake? Andy? Where are you??

K

I agree with Kirk - that isn't what it is for. You make your decision and take your chances. If the JH won't hunt, I can't got to the ITAC and say "please reduce weight 300 lbs" or "please let me run different carbs". Ditto a MGB GT.

Only in drastic situations will changes be made, and I don't think one fellow with one car consititues such a situation.

Ron

And ditto what Kirk said. If a 10/10 example is not competitive, no adjustment. Those are PCAs that have no place in IT.

The new adjustment mechanism is really only to correct an issue with a newly classed car, and has been used to fix one error -- the BMW 325 weight -- although in a way that I didn't agree with. But the bottom line is, no PCAs. You look at the spec lines, you build your car, you take your chances.

If you do chose to build the BGT let me know. There is an outfit in Durham NC that has a bunch of race parts and experience with the B and probably could help you.

Quote:

---

Yes, I would build the TR8 again but really now (after racing for a while) only for one reason: prodigious torque. The car has an advantage because of that.

The thrill of racing your favorite marque goes away quickly, trust me, unless there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm not telling you building the BGT is insane, or not to do it. If that is what you really, really want to do, do it, because you have to really want it or you won't race. The problem as I see it with the BGT that the JH (light weight, decent power), the Opel (really good aero and decent power/weight for ITB) and the TR8 (gods of torque and decent handling) don't have is one area where the car really shines. You can make a B handle, see Prod cars, but I don't know if that will require doing things you can't do in IT.

BUt the the big problem as I see is is power out of the 1.8 in IT trim. I just don't know how you are going to get the power you need out of that motor with the Stromberg, and no real head work or compression bump allowed.
[/b]

---

What stromberg? The BGT only came with 2 SU HS4s and then 2 SU HIF4s

that was part of my original post. The spec line is wrong to the point of a MGBGT being impossible.

Is that right? SUs in the US? I thought all of the Bs that came to the US from late 60s on had Strombergs? But I maybe (and probably am) wrong.

Still, Stromberg/SU, both are not the issue really. It's the lack of work you can do to the head to get it flow, and the fact that you are stuck with 9:0 compression. My understanding is that Prod built 1.8s get about 150 hp at the crank. That's with much higher compression and a lot more head work.

Quote:

---

How can I say this?

No, no, no, nonononono, NO!

That is NOT what the PCA process is for. What you are suggesting is a HUGE leap toward Prod-style competition adjustments (bleh!). I will personally join the group of people willing to throw themselves in front of that bus to try to stop it, if PCAs get repurposed in this way.

Jake? Andy? Where are you??

K
[/b]

---

So the Neon was allways an ITA car, or has that bus allready departed?

All of the technical issues (and they exist for lots of cars in the ITCS spec lines) can be addressed under "errors and omissions" - or E&O. All you need to do is submit a letter and documentation that something is wrong or an alternative was available in the US market.

K

EDIT - Re: busses...

** Reclassification has always been a remedy for classing/spec'ing issues in IT

** "Competition Adjustments" have been used in production for ages, to tweak specs to make models more comptitive. This has, on too many occasions, become adjustment of individual CARS owned by individual DRIVERS - in cases where quite literally only ONE was running competitively in the US - or decisions have been made based on the performance of only one car at one event (the RubOffs).

** We were assured by the ITAC that "Performance Compensation Adjustments" (PCAs), new to IT in the past year, would not be applied as remedies to a lack of competitiveness of individual models.

Quote:

---

Could it not be said at this day and age with the rules if he built a 10/10 car could he not get it adjusted, or at least have a chance to have it adjusted? Are there are provisions in the rules now for this right?
[/b]

---

NO, it could NOT be said that if he builds a 10/10ths car that he will get adjusted.
That is NOT how the PCA process was meant to work, nor is it how it will work.

That's the chance you take with an oddball......BECAUSE it's an oddball, it has even LESS chance of any correction.

The recent changes were process resultant ones. Numbers in, numbers out.

IF there was a mistake made in the GTs process numbers, and it was clear and significant, then it would be discussed, but IT is still the category where you choose your horse, and live with that choice.

On edit:

It seems I was too quick to pull the trigger when I read that, and should have read down further!

G -- reclassification of the car to a different IT category is treated differently from a PCA. It is basically a recognition that the car was classed wrong in the first place, and is specifically allowed by the GCR. Quite a few 2.0 16v cars have been moved from S to A, correctly, in the last few years.

Is the MGB GT in B? It is probably a C car, maybe that is the correct route for you to go if a 10/10 MGB GT doesn't run well with the Volvos and Golfs and Chargers and Audis in B.

I guess I am too thick headed to understand some of this. I understand that moving to a different class is something different from a PCA. if "The new adjustment mechanism is really only to correct an issue with a newly classed car" What is the difference between a newly classed car VS a car that has been classed forever but no one had built? If it is too fast we will slow you down, if you are too slow tough cookies? Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this. Just because it has always been this way does not make it correct. What happens if after the JH gets all the bugs worked out it becomes a barn burner...will it get slowed down, under this reasoning no, it has been classed for too long. I hope it does real well I would love to see fields full of 30yr old british sports cars....oh I can it is called prod. <_<

I am not trying to be a pain in the a$$ but it just does not make sence to me, I am not talking about different carbs or anything, perhaps less weight.

How to loose the weight you ask? Well a few years ago we could not gut any of the doors now we can all in the name of safety. I would bet that in 10 years IT cars will have plastic windows, on board fire systems and must have fuel cells. I think that the SCCA lawyers might push this class in a direction it might not want to go.

Sorry to polute the MGB GT thread. But if it was me I would say build it only for the right reasons, those reasons are not in your head but in your heart.....boy that was mushy :D

Not a problem Cherokee, it&#39;s an interesting question of philosophy. But, for IT, the majority believes (including myself) that for the most part, you pick your chariot and you run with it, based on the weight, etc. set by the process.

If you build a 10/10ths Wacko GT and it is slow, well, so it goes.

If you build a 7th/7ths Wacko GT and it wipes the floor with everyone else&#39;s 10th/10ths car, well, then it was probably classed wrong.

I think the ITAC is trying to prevent minor tweaking of performance variables like you see in Prod. So, the idea is "roughly" set equal power to weight ratios and then let everyone have at it. Only make a PCA, as allowed by the rules, if something is grossly out of whack.

You take a chance when you build an unknown car in IT. Ron knew that, and I knew that. If it is slow, you&#39;re stuck with an expensive piece of art. Trust me, I feel for the guy who wants to build the MGB GT. There is a coolness factor to the oddballs that we all (on this subforum) like. But there is extreme risk too -- in fact, we should be LESS likely to get help than mainstream cars because abandoning the IT philosophy of no/very limited PCAs for an orphan car is just asking for big, big trouble.

Your only real hope with the orphans/oddballs is to pick one that CLEARLY has an advantage in one area. Go for it, and try to develop the car around the advantage. Try as I might, and I have always liked the cars, I just can&#39;t see one with the MGB GT in ITB. I do not ever see it running with the Volvos and Golfs and Audis.

Jeff has it pretty nailed there.

But....IF....one guy goes out and builds a car, then says, "It&#39;s too slow"...and asks for a weight break, what should the ITAC do?

Well, it would look at the request, and unless it saw a glaring issue, like it was assumed it had a 2.0 litre engine when in reality it has a 1.6, theres not much it can do. If it were the engine, thats an error and gets taken care of as an E & O.

But IT isn&#39;t in the biz of balancing every model on the head of a pin, and especially those that have ONE example running. Too many variables. Maybe he&#39;s finishng 6th in a VERY hot class in his area. He could go to the ARRCs and finish 6th or 7th...and even that isn&#39;t really indicitive of a need, or the lack of a need for an adjustment.

How do we know...really know, the development thats gone into the car?

How do we know it&#39;s legal?

How do we know that the guys he&#39;s comparing himself to are legal??

In short, it&#39;s not the goal in the first place, and beyond that, it&#39;s just about impossible to determine the real need, or lack thereof.

And yes, since I know it will be asked, the answer is tha same for a car that wins as opposed to one that loses. It takes much more in the way of trending to signal a need for an adjustment, and even then, it&#39;s just a possible signal.

Process process process.

Quote:

---

... If it is too fast we will slow you down, if you are too slow tough cookies? Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this. ... [/b]

---

We&#39;ve been assured that PCAs won&#39;t be applied to slow down a make/model that appears to be too fast either, for the reasons already shared here. That&#39;s part of the definition of "Performance Compensation Adjustment," in theory - the purpose behind the adjustment - that makes them different than "Competition Adjustments" (bleah!)

K

On the other hand when the process of PCAs were applied to the list of car in the ITCS we were told that the ITAC did not spend time on cars for which there was not good specs or that no one was racing. We were told at that time, if remember correctly, if we thought there was a car that met those conditions we could request it be run thru the process. I would post the specs here and let Jake or Andy run the numbers. If you like the results you could formalize the request. Of course the best you can possibly do is gett he car put in ITC.

Have you made a choice about the MGBGT? Sorry if all the political banter drove you away, we are getting enough of that on TV this time of year. Just last week I was looking at one for a street car.