Some automotive writers really don't understand MGB's

Anyone ever read these 'top ten' lists by some of these automotive writers? this review of the MGB really bugged me on several levels: 1) he's way off on years of production, 2) the car is anything but depressing, in fact driving mine always brightens my mood 3) I've never been ashamed to admit I wanted one (I still one another one to keep the GT company!)

What: MG MGB

When: 1968–1981

Why: This is a tough one. By modern standards, the MGB is a slow, depressing little car. It handles like a used-up Jeep and seems to have been built from Fisher-Price plastic and medieval machine tools. It rusts—badly—and all the affordable ones are equipped with ugly, government-mandated rubber bumpers. Still, the 'B succeeds in spite of itself. It's charmingly, irrepressibly British in a way that few things are, and it can often be pretty entertaining to drive. I'm ashamed to admit this, but I kind of want one. Don't you?

How Jalopnik Is It? 140 at minimum. Thank you, Jolly Old.

wow! he is waaaay off base. My staff like to check out the resto progress and want a ride, they love my B

Yeah, the Wedge cars get slamed on a regular basis too. I don't pay much attention to these articles. Must be nice to be able to make a living writing about things you know nothing about.

"Must be nice to be able to make a living writing about things you know nothing about."

Sounds like most of the insurance adjusters I deal with... :)

a prof of mine once said there is nothing more ignorant than an educated man speaking on a topic he isnt educated in

Don't take anything on Jalopnik too seriously.

Indeed, I believe Desmond has this one spot on. It's a very tongue in cheek article and I'm sure if the writer had spent even just a little more time with a B, he would have mentioned oil leaks and dodgy electrics as well. We all laugh about these little things that endear us to the irreverent MGB.

For what its worth, Jalopnik has been on a downward spiral for the last year or so. Used to be pretty cool site, though.

I'm with Desmond too. I think some of us get too defensive about our babies. Let's face it, the B is a 30 yr old, out dated and for most part, pretty poorly made. That said, I just love mine and if I ever get this one sorted out, I would love to do a V6 conversion. But facts are facts. My SRT-4 runs circles around my B on so many different levels, but my B is just as much fun, if not more fun to drive.

Unless you've either owned or worked on Italian electrics, the MG's electrical system can't be called "dodgy". Specifically I'm thinking of my '81 Spider.

My Spider will run rings around my "B" but I have to give the handling edge to my "B". I enjoy both of them immensely for exactly what they are.

Koontz.....how true the quote from Ayn Rand about American businessmen......and the Twain quote.

Vic

I'll go with what Desmond said as well.

""By modern standards, the MGB is a slow, depressing little car. It handles like a used-up Jeep and seems to have been built from Fisher-Price plastic and medieval machine tools. It rusts—badly""

By modern standards, he is correct. The cheapest econobox will probably run circles around an avg stock B in acceleration and handling. My take on B's is that I can more fun at 45 than someone in a new car can have at 75-80. The guy likes B's, he says just that.

If you read the whole article its all a tongue in cheek kind of a list. I am happy he included the B in it. The car is included in the list as the editors liked all the cars listed even with any little quirks they may have.

A new econobox should run rings around our cars but in my experience on back twisty roads the drivers don't know how to drive them and I'm usually wishing they would just get "Outta my way!" I have outrun Miatas and have been outrun by guys in pickup trucks. I think the driver has a lot to do with handling and You could put a lot of people in an Elise and they couldn't go fast!

I don't think he's too far off base at all. MGBs aren't the greatest cars ever made, but they are charming and relatively reliable cars that are fun to drive. That's basically what he said, with a bit of poking fun thrown in.

thanks for makin' a stance for the wedge, too!!

Back handed compliment....and I personally pay little attention to the best or worst lists in mags. Its all subjective at best. I will say as an ecletic car owner, NOTHING compares to a CB B or midget/sprite for grins and handling...am told the original minis maybe a part of the group. :thumbup:MG!

I totally agree with Robert.
These "lists" are meant to get attention and sell mags not inform the buying populace or flatter the owners of the vehicles on them.

Mostly subjective drivel.

Cheers , Pete.

Pete
Back at you.:thumbup:
These dolts have to come up with something and normally its of little substance beyond pointing and waveing and filling space between the ads. My wife gets mags that I swear are 90% adverts or articles pointing to the adverts....
Prior to internet it was what was accepted. T'aint so now...
I would vouch, other than certain grounding issues, MGB in BMC form was and is one of the best sports cars bang for buck EVER MADE...exception to Midget and Mini pre 1980....

The MGB was OUTDATED when it was first produced. Why would we think that it would compare favorably to TODAY'S cars?

That's really not even a fair fight though. There's been just a "few" (hhahahahahahaa) technological advances since the early 60s.

Knife to a Gun Fight comes to mind.

B

The B's front suspension was designed pre WWII, The B series engine first was used in a Riley in 1947, the SUs date to the 20s, the rear suspension to buckboards & the Moss gearbox was an obsolete nightmare when the car was new. The only 'new' thing about the B @ the time was the unibody. That being said the car has good balance, a wide torque band, & a linear progression of speed & handling that makes a good one easy to drive hard. Our B is a successful autocrosser & has embarrassed a lot of newer machinery.

The basic operation of the internal combustion engine hasn't changed since Otto invented it.

Thats one thing I have against Top Gear - if it is British or costs less then The USA Gross National Budget it is automatically a piece of crap.

I mean didn't they do a comparison of the B to a modern day $100,000 plus machine and then complained because it couldn't compete??

On the contrary the MGB was somewhat groundbreaking.

Yes the some of the parts used were a little dated but it is the sum of it's parts right, it was one of the first to use a unibody chasis and as a first unibody they overbuilt the thing which rewaards it in stiffness that exceeds other "framed" cars of its day. It had disc brakes up front,,,,, the leaf spring rear suspension was current for the day. Some people complain about the shocks but they are were then and are now a proven design that works well when serviced correctly.

Decently maintained a CB MGB has very nuetral, forgiving handling which was a much better car to learn how to drive "correctly" than any 318ci Dodge Dart or other american car cold offer.

To me the only area they really just plain dropped the ball is not developing either a cross flow or twin cam head for the 1800cc engine to keep it up to the growing demands for more power.

If they had pursued and released the Aluminum v8 cars to the american market,,,,,,,, what a great lineage they would have had.

Eh,,,, in the end it's just that, the end, just don't get me started on british bikes as I'll really get upset.