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 MGA - LA Times MGA Article

scroll down the LA Times online newspaper today and see this fascinatating reminder why these MGAs are so special to us!!!

http://www.latimes.com/
Danny Jacob

Danny - Thanks for sharing. Gary
gary starr

Neat article but he doesn't drive it because of how much it pollutes? I guess you have to be from LA to understand ;-)
Bill
Bill Eastman

Demon-haunted Lucas electrics? engine wouldn't be out of place in a tractor? Plated brass as on an old boat? An island of problems? Indescribably unsafe? Difficult to steer? Polluting monster?

Then he spent $6000 building a 1950cc engine and only gained 25 horsepower over a worn stock 1600? A stock 1800 has that kind of power.

He goes on... " I've owned the car three years now and have put about 800 miles on it."

"I kept waiting for the awful, gas-rich smell to go away until I realized it never would."

This guy sounds like a bit of an idiot in my opinion. Or am I misreading the article?
Steve Simmons

Apparently, he doesn't understand physics and some other things. There was an accident last fall in which an MGA went head on into a jeep(I believe) and had there been 3 point seat belts, the owner felt that he would have had very little personal damage. The steering column will not come through your body; due to the angle from the column through the u-joint to the rack and pinion, the steering column will neatly stay out of your way, although you might have a bruise. Also, due to the goalpost construction of the frame, there is little chance aside from a major Semi/MGA meeting that the cockpit area would crush around the driver. If he is really concerned about pollution, I am sure that he can replace the engine and associated components with modern equipment without too much trouble. Since I haven't had my car really running, I am not sure, but isn't it possible to lean out the carbs and run well? I understand that they can be tuned fairly well without being rich.
Steve, go over and buy that thing off of him. He needs to buy a different car.
mike parker

No kidding. He doesn't seem to think it's worth much either. And he did say domething about "Offer him less than he's asking. He will take it." Perhaps I should test his own theory. ;)

Heck, take a look at my web site and you will see plenty of smashed-up MGAs. In all examples the passenger compartment was intact. This includes the car that flipped nose over tail, tumbled down an embankment and allowed it's occupant to walk away.
Steve Simmons

"The gearbox is a four-speed manual with nonsynchronous first gear. To shift to first, you have to rev the engine slightly while pushing on the gearshift lever and wait for the dog-gear to slide into place."

Presumably nonsynchronous is whatever his spell-checker came up with for non synchromesh.

His description of double de-clutching sounds like a recipe for gear box rebuilds.
Dan Smithers

Well, I didn't want to say it but I saw what you did Steve, and thought pretty much the same thing. Although it's meant to be a compliment to the car and it seems like the bloke is some sort of enthusiast, it fairly apparent that he is a.)clueless b.)doesn't drive the car enough to keep it in shape c.)needs to replace the rubber grommets holding the float bowls to the carb bodies d.)bashes Lucas 'cause he thinks it cute--a true sign of the clueless and e.)needs to get over the shallow political correctness of driving a "polluter". Anyone standing on the corner of Sunset Blvd and Laurel Canyon will see a constant parade of classic automobiles--they don't rot in the desert southwest and thus are plentiful and people drive them as their everyday cars. What causes the sig alerts in So Cal are the millions of other cars nudging bumper to bumper along with the totaly unregulated and soot belching semi's. How much pollution does a auto factory produce for each new car it builds?

Some might think any publicity is good but in all fairness, this article doesn't do much for the reliable, sure footed handling and fun that M.G.'s provide.


Paul Hanley

I can probably find out where he lives and pull a robin hood on his car. Anyone here want to adopt a sweet little car with some minor issues? ;)
Steve Simmons

loosen up, guys. It seems this whole country is uptight.

Most of us are having fun with our cars ...that's what I got out of the article at least.
danny jacob

Dear MG obsessed,

Bah humbug. First, I'm not a bit of an idiot. A full-on prize idiot, thank you very much.

Second, there is nothing wrong with my SU's. The car is tuned within an inch of its life. But, compared to modern cars, the thing reeks hydrocarbons from stem to stern. Anyone who denies this, or argues that well-leaned out SU's make an MGA comparable to a modern car in terms of emissions, doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, or is in old-car denial.

Oh, yes, I'm in LA, all right. One of the worst cities in the world for air pollution, and if you lived here you wouldn't think my concern about emissions is so misplaced and politically correct (which is a phrase people use to excuse their own selfish disregard for the larger, common good). Perhaps you wouldn't care. I do. So how is it you sound so superior? Don't answer that. I'm sure you have very high opinions of your opinions.

Lucas electrics? I re-wired this car from headlamps to taillamps, and now -- having eliminated any chance of corrosion with mil-spec weatherproofing -- the electrics work just fine, tho, I do have electronic guts in my Jaeger gauges, solid-state fuel pump, hot coil, relays, etc. The usual stuff. I understand if you're quite fastidious about the factory wiring it will all work reasonably well -- and it's a damn sight better than Italian cars -- but come on boys, bullet connectors? High voltage to the freakin' headlamp switch? Dash dimmer switch? Corrosion? Oh yeah, no trouble there.

My motor -- which is as beautiful a piece of five-main as you can find -- is still a heavy, low-speed, pushrod motor. Durable, sure, but so's an anchor. With the hot headers, roller rockers, ported and polished intake and K&N's not to mention the extra displacement, I estimate ... estimate, mind you ... about 110 hp at the rear wheel. Maybe.

I've put up with all this because I wanted to strike a balance between original and drivable. The three-main 1600 was not enough power for freeway driving -- and please, don't tell me about rear-gear swaps. Been there, done that.

I love this car. When I drive it, I drive it hard. I take exception to the notion that some w*nker's going to school me on the use of the gearbox. I rebuilt it myself, with a heavy-duty clutch besides.

Oh, and about the crash-worthiness of the MGA: You have got to be kidding! Compared to what? A Morris Minor. A heavy jacket? Please.

Here's the thing, boys. I was writing this column for the general public familiar only with modern cars -- not specialists like yourself. I absolutely love the MGA and know what an exceptional car it is, undiscovered gold, as I said.

So, there. I've had my hissy fit. I'm sure my chestnuts will now be roasted by an open fire.

Merry Christmas to all,

Dan Neil



DNN Neil

Dan,
If you love the car, tell the truth about it, don't be politically correct to appease the tree huggers. The car will get 25 to 32 mpg, was never designed with air bags, ABS systems, etc, and was not designed with a computer, but it sure seems that it withstands collisions fairly well. Any fool that complains publicly about the crashworthiness and then says that he takes out the seatbelts is not attempting to sell people on the car. You obviously wish to be maimed, just as you would if you were driving any new vehicle without seatbelts. Shoot me a pm, and I will send you an account of another guy that crashed his car. You can actually find it in the archives, as I posted it about 2 or 3 months ago. His first statement was that he was definitely getting 3 point seatbelts, as the major harm done him and his passenger were due to lap belts only. Most probably the fuel smell you complain about is caused by the vented gas tank and carbs. If you are concerned about this, go to the nearest junk yard, pick up a charcoal cannister, and plumb it into the vents. Put a solenoid on them, and you can eliminate excessive pollutants while shut down, although you will also have to install a non vented gas cap.
BTW, what is your reason for upgrading your gauges? Doesn't make sense.
Mike
mike parker

Dan, I always smile when I see someone bash Lucas wiring in LBCs. When I compare my MGs to my Toyota van, I certainly wish the Toy had Lucas wiring. The electrical system in the Toy is such crap I suspect it was made in China. The wiring in my 58 Magnette is all original, in good shape, and everything works properly. Now that's a 46 year old car, mind you, and the wiring in my slightly newer Blazer is starting to go to crap as we speak. Lucas wiring was fine and better than it could have been given the fact that BMC told Lucas how much they were going to spend for the electrical package on a car.

The one weak link is the snap connectors, not the bullets. With 25 years under my belt in marine and industrial electronics I've come to respect the Lucas bullet as a connector. It fares better than any of the comparable US crimp types that we use. So, spend a few bucks and swap out the snap connectors every 30 years or so. No big deal, but I reckon that doesn't leave anything to complain about.

The awful gas-rich smell means somethin' ain't right. I have no such smell in any of my 4 MGs dating from 56 to 74.5. Your SUs may be tuned within an inch of their life but they aren't right.

Could be that the criticism of your article comes from starting by the lauding of an unusual and unique sports car and goes down to pounding it as a POS, giving the impression that the selfish lunatic who owns one will happily go down the road spewing petroleum products like the Exxon Valdez.

Like I said, if yours does that, sonethin' ain't right. Mine doesn't do that.

I guess my take on the article was "yeah, here's a guy who digs these wonderful little cars" until I got down to the end where you beat the crap out of it. Oh well, I guess damning with faint praise, in LA, is better than nothing.
Wray Lemke

Dan,

I may be in the minority here but, as I said, I thought the article was good and I don't disagree with your opinion of the car. It is what it is and demands a more care than modern cars. It is tough for an old car but I don't think it would top the list in the offset collision test. The vented fuel cap, vented carbs and vented crankcase allow hydrocarbons to escape that no modern charcoal cannister would pass- I can't smell it but my wife does. I think the motor has powered a small tractor although, unlike the Triumph TR, it wasn't part of the design plan.

I don't feel superior, I'm jealous because it will be 18 below zero tonight here in Minnesota and, should I choose to brave the weather, the salt on the road would eat my poor car by spring. You live in MG paradise, from where I sit. Maybe you could compromise by driving straight out of the basin before you start wandering those wonderful, curvy roads under the warm California sun.

Regards,
Bill
Man, its cold
Bill Eastman

Mr. Neil,

I'm glad you had a chance to respond. The crash worthiness comparison to a heavy jacket made the soda come out my nose! Pretty funny. Anyway besides all this brew ha ha to which I'm obviously a willing participant, you should not smell any gas whatsoever. If you do, something is wrong and since the carbs are over the exhaust, it may start a fire. First thing I would do is reach under the carbs where the bowl attaches to the carb bodies...betcha find your fuel leak right there. The grommets are notorious for failure. Other sources of fuel smell is a rusting fuel tank and connections to and from the fuel pump.

There are many MGers that modify their cars and tons of MGA's have MGB engines in them, that's no big deal in anyones book, it's just that by the time your article ended, you belittled the car and that won't stand with any group of MG fans. Glad you enjoy the car so much. Try to drive it more--take it up on the PCH and blow some smoke!

And a Merry Christmas to you too.
Paul Hanley

Hey Dan,
Don't you hate it when people can't respect your opinions. Especially when they refer to your own car!

...and I'm really glad you found this thread - maybe some folks will think twice about flaming a fellow enthusiast before they type - what am I saying?

I mean really folks, a guy so endeared to his car not knowing about this site?

Everything the man says is true! These are almost 50 year old sports cars damnit. They have their smelly exhaust, bad electrics and safety issues!

You don't REALLY believe the "SAFETY FAST" slogan do you? My bicycle is faster off the line for one...

And yes, I've owned 3 of them - 2 currently!

Mike, "but it sure seems that it withstands collisions fairly well" I'm calling you out, man. Your MGA vs my wifes Subaru wagon, head on. I bet the wife ends up with a mere flesh wound!

Give me a break!!!


Monkey

My two cents:

I have owned my MGA (or more correctly, major parts thereof) for 38 years and have only returned to NAMGAR in the past year after deciding to keep the car and do another frame off "restoration/upgrade." The car has a lot of memories and sentimental value to me personally, but I know its warts all too well, having lived through breakdowns, discomfort, and oil leaks for decades. However, one of the things that I always liked about the MGA was the community of owners that shared similar experiences and still loved the cars.

I thought that the LA Times article was nothing if not honest. It was obviously written by someone who had deliberately and caringly given his time (and money) to a car that has shortcomings, but in his eyes, still has charisma and panache, if not personality - including body odors. His comments about safety were as much an editorial about modern vehicles and negotiating LA freeways as they were about the size and construction of the MGA, which is nearing antique status. The designs of many parts of the car;s running gear predate the MGA by decades due in large part to conservative British engineering - which largely was responsible for the precipitious decline of British sports cars through the '70's and '80's.

Many people feel the same way as the writer as evidenced by the selling prices well-restored versions of the MGA can bring. On a precentage scale, I would hazard a guess it has appreciated in value more than many other British cars of the era.

In any event, here is a modern story about the cars that the members of this BBS, like the writer, have invested considerable personal resources and emotion in enjoying as a hobby, or maybe lifestyle. The story is a celebration of this lifestyle - enjoy it and cut the writer some slack - we've all asked ourselves whether it's worth it some time or another - or will.

The only gripe I have is with calling the XKE convertable "vulgar" compared to the coupe. That was a bit over the top.

Steve
Steve Brandt

I think it's pretty much all been said by both sides (except for the guy who won't even post his name, he doesn't count). There is no doubt that Dan has a real affection for the car or he wouldn't still own it. But as most have pointed out, the article paints an unfair picture of a car which everyone here knows better about.

As I said in my first post, I may have misread the author's intentions and if that is the case I appologize. However if after reading it twice I still had the same impression, then it's fair to say many other folk will feel the same.

Dan, don't take anything you read here too personally. The article gives a negative impression to many MGA enthusiasts and on an online forum wording of conversation can be quite different than in person and sound more harsh than actually intended. I'm sure you know this being in your line of business. I don't think it's your views or beliefs specifically that spawned the reaction here, but the article itself and how it was worded.

While I don't agree with your article 100%, I must of course respect your beliefs and acknowledge that different people enjoy these cars in different ways. I feel they are relatively safe (comparing to coats and huge trucks isn't fair) and I don't smell anything from my A that any modern car doesn't emit. The electrical system is very reliable and, well I could go on but you get the point. Personally I wish you painted a nicer image of the cars to the general public but we all know writing is an artform and you are free to write in whatever flavor you like. What we have is just a difference of opinion, no harm done.

Merry Christmas!
Steve Simmons

If you write an article for a major newspaper bashing a certain car, you should expect fans of that car to react negatively. So what is the problem?
Anon

I think Dan should trade her in on a nice Fiat. M
MLS Somers

Ahhh, Christmas....The time of goodwill to all men. Don't you just love that festive spirit?

Merry Christmas guys & girls. Hope next year is kind to your cars.

Now stop bitchin!
Ian Pearl

Dan...you do write quite well and are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I first thought your story was a bit of aa joke, but now realize that you were serious.
What a wonderful world it is that a jerk (in my opinion) can bash a wonderful car in the newspaper. The simple truth is that anyone with MONEY can buy almost anything their heart desires. Another truth is that quite a few liberal, politically correct woosies simply don't deserve such a fine object. You Are Not Worthy! Clearly you failed in several respects to bring someone else's MGA to proper running condition. Frankly...you put a godawful amount of money into "hi-tech" improvements it to have it still wreaking of fuel and feel like the wiring is a nightmare. This is truly sad, given the extensive works by many members of the BBS and Barney Gaylord, etc, to document the many ways to competently improve/restore a MGA. Simply because your work was incompetent...why place the blame on the car? Why don't you just say it like it really is..."I obviously have more money than sense or skill, so I must admit that I have failed to mimic one of the hundreds of other MGA owners that dispute my claims."
Many that first come here are quite wise, knowing that they don't know, because they seek knowledge and happily learn that help awaits them here. If your carbs still continue to leak after all the bling-dough you've tossed, you clearly didn't get the help you needed from the BBS. If you did ask and weren't helped...then we failed you...and I apologize for that. I don't have to like you or even respect your opinions, but I'd still give you a straight answer if you needed help. I know that most here would (you'd probably still get a few jabs in fun though).
Dan...PLEASE...allow somone to rescue their MGA from your unworthy hands. It is clearly not your MGA...though you obviously had the money to purchase and "improve" it.

Jon Bachelor

I recant for the most part...Dan may well have been perfectly competent in his efforts too restore/improve that A's driveability.
Dan: You'll have to keep wrestling with the guilt...it is bittersweet. The smell of gas can't be eliminated for several reasons. The gas fill cap can't be sealed effectively, because to do so would likely result in vacuum lock. The jet orifices are vented to air, as are the float bowls via the overflow tubes. If you can move the float bowls...they probably leak to some degree.
Jon Bachelor

I wrecked my first MGA in 1975. I ran head on into a tree between 30 and 40 mph. I was able to walk away with no personal damage to myself. My MGA could have been repaired but I had to save my money for collage instead. 27 years later I bought my second MGA and having fun with it.

Now a side impact with a full size pick-up truck might be a different story as with any small car.

Merry Christmas
Paul
P.D. Stewart

Nice to see an article about the joys (and costs) of classic car ownership. This side of the pond all we get is that opinionated twat Jeremy Clarkson who only likes it if it is unfeasibly expensive, or German - unless he gets a suitable backhander.

But cars are meant for driving. Mine is.

How often do you really need to change down into first with a standard box and rear end? It's much easier to let the car come to a near standstill.
Dan Smithers

Hi Dan. I read your somewhat controversial article, and have to say that I generally loved it. Yes, perhaps there were a few points that didn't sit well with some veteran MG owners. However, I found that most of your article smacked of at least a bit of truth, and was clearly written from the heart. Personally, I tend to agree that perhaps our MG's pollute more than newer cars. This seems entirely logical, since newer cars have tons of technology and anti pollution hardware (and software) to reduce same.
I can't fault anyone for being sensitive to environmental issues regarding mother earth, and smog is a big issue in California and elsewhere. While I find it sad that your MG does not get driven much due to environmental morality issues, I do support your freedom to make that choice. If you feel that strongly about the pollution issue, then perhaps you should convert your MGA to a non polluting fuel. Electric, or propane might be worth looking into. This brings up the age old argument for and against modifications to our classic MGA's. Personally, I think that each owner is entitled to make the modifications he or she feels is appropriate to being able to enjoy the car to the fullest. For some people that means leaving the vehicle dead stock. For other people, it means bringing the car up to contemporary driveability standards. For others, it may mean converting the car to non polluting status. Personally, I think Dan is being rather harshly criticised by some people, for having the guts to speak his mind and publicly voice his opinions, and put both himself and his car under the scrutiny of some very tough "judges", the members of this web forum. Perhaps (or perhaps not) Dan has made some errors during ownership and restoration of his car. Personally, I have made numerous (sometimes very serious) mistakes while restoring my A. I suspect most people on this web forum have also. This forum has for me, been a place of refuge, good will, caring, and willing free assistance from members, when needed. It has also been a place of safe haven to voice concerns, and give opinions, both correct and incorrect. I am hoping that this forum continues these extremely important role. Cheers, and Merry Christmas everyone! Glenn
Glenn

Dan,

Keep on writing!!!! If we were rational, objective and kind, we wouldn't be driving MGAs.
Russel Meints

They say that there is no bad publicity...
I think that the article portrays some of the mystique of driving such a car. Worked for me.
Al
Al McMillan

Happy Festivus to all.

Before adding my 2 cents, I'd like to read the text of the article, but I'm too cheap to pay $2.95 to buy it from the LA Times. Has anyone got it saved ? Could you email it to me? Thanks.

TTFN
Derek Nicholson

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil22dec22,0,3085087.story?coll=la-home-highway1
MLS Somers

Thanks for the link. Just finished reading it. IMHO, not that it counts for much, I don't really see what eveyone's getting all hot under the collar about. The only thing that upset me is the 800 miles in 3 years. I average about 500 miles a week for 9 months of the year in my 'B and plan to do the same in my 'A (if I ever get around to restoring one or both of the two stashed in a barn.
Derek Nicholson

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that a 1967 Jag E-type is significantly safer or less polluting than an MGA. Would the author have said "The car is almost indescribably unsafe" and "but I rarely drive it much because it's such a polluting monster" if he were talking about his Jag? My guess is no, because he really loves the Jag and he'd be biased toward it, same as most of us are biased towards our A's. It's pretty obvious that the MGA was a distant second choice, an afterthought.

The problem with the article is that it makes it sound as though the MGA has specific design flaws, when in reality it shares many similarities to most of the other British marques of the period. And by period, I mean the mid-50's to very early 60's. Revving the engine to shift into first, old-fashioned lever-arm shock absorbers, low horsepower pushrod 4 cylinder, Lucas electrics, the comparison of standard hydraulic brakes to anti-locks- all these points are spun in such a way that to the outside observer- someone wholly unfamiliar to the breed of sportscars- the MGA looks unsafe, archaic, and unfit to be a sportscar. What the article neglects- and I think this is what enthusiasts here are looking for- is praise for the vehicle in the context of when it was designed and built. I mean, this car had DISC BRAKES in the 1950's. A top speed of over 100mph, and it handles very very well. Get a well-maintained example out on a twisty mountain road and any thought of criticsm or critique goes out the window. Why? Because the car is zipping through the corners and holding its line, which is exactly what it was meant to do. And the ultimate measure of a car, in my opinion, is "does it do what it was designed to do?" The MGA is not at home on the streets of LA, or any other city for that matter.

To sum up, the article was written by a professional car critic who likes Jaguars in urban LA. It's as generous an article as an MGA owner could expect.

Mark
PS- We could always write the editor.
Mark

Write the editor for what reason? Because the author didn't praise the MGA enough? I thought the article was excellent...funny and honest, well-written, and the he clearly had a love for his subject.

I'm always amazed -- and amused -- by some 'net forum posts. Whether it is die-hard PC or Mac users defending their operating system, die-hard conservatives complaining about liberal bias, or trekkies arguing whether Shatner wore a wig on which episode...it all gets a little carried away some times. Better to turn off the computer before making that nasty smartass post, go outside and smell some fresh air!

Maybe mixed with gas fumes of your favorite british car... :)
Jim Paul

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. Seems the gent pretty much sums up what owning and driving an A is about. They ARE a portable pollution plant, but since there aren't a herd of them lurking behind the shade trees in every trailer park, the occasonal collector/hobbiest car shouldn't be too much to blame for destroying the ozone layer and increasing the greenhouse effect to the point where palms and orchids start growing in the mountains of Greenland.
I own an A and an MGB L/E. Sharing the same technology the author cites with the A, the B is by far more comfortable, civilized and less polluting. I probably put less than 1K miles per year on the pair. Why? Because I bought them to play with--which in my case means tinkering with them. Driving is an afterthought--relegated to a few club events during the year. Likewise in my career as an aircraft mech, I never had a burning urge to fly one myself. Got all the stick time I ever desired, though.
Would not want to be in a serious accident in either car (or any for that matter) there's not a lot of protection, and a roll-over would be fatal, due to my size. I don't see what all the heartburn's about--you'd think someone attacked your wife's honor. It's just an archaic, sometimes frustrating toy. Get used to it.
R. L Carleen

As usual on the web, things get blown out of proportion and I think this is becomming one of those times. The article did not paint an entirely positive image of the car but it wasn't necessarily meant to. It was simply a tale of one person's views on his car. A car which he obviously does love, but not for the same reasons as many other people, myself included. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but there isn't much sense in Dan becomming offended by other enthusiasts' reactions so such an article.

Our cars do produce more pollutants than a modern car but I hardly consider them "polluting monsters". However his idea of a polluting monster may be quite different than mine. There are many points in Dan's article which could be argued but they don't really need to be. In a faceless forum such as the internet it is easy to misunderstand people's intentions and emotions which is just one reason this should be let go here and now. There is a saying about arguing on the internet which I won't repeat here but a few of you probably know what I'm talking about. ;)
Steve Simmons

A more thorough re-read of the article, and Dan obviously loves the car. I feel that he is mistaken in that he believes that the steering column will hurt him, in that he believes that he must live with the gasoline smell, and that the car must be one of the worst polluters on the planet. As has been explained above, there are methods to eliminate the gasoline odors, and actually, if truth must be told; with a steel gas tank, there may be less pollution than he thinks. The modern plastic gasoline tanks have emission problems of their own.
Dan, if you would like, we can set up your vehicle to operate with the most modern of technology. We would need your vehicle, and the LA Times might be interested in funding the transformation. Think of the possibilities, not to mention the publicity.
mike parker

I wonder what he uses for a lawn mower. Maybe a goat . It eats the grass and fertilizes the lawn at the same time.All that without polution.
conrad sanders

Not exactly, Conrad. ruminants produce prodigious amounts of methane, a gas that contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect!
Joe Cook



Dan,

Funny article and well written. I was chuckling the whole time I was reading.

I think you're off on the pollution thing though. My 57 with 1800 motor, big cam, electronic ignitioniation/detonation, skimpers union carbs and heat absorbing catalyctic converter (the drivers floorboard) actually qualifies as a USLEV. Unbelievably super low emissions vehicle.

Well at least it did coming back from Palm Springs on the back of a flatbed.

800 miles in 3 years? You have got to be kidding.My dog puts out more pollution then that after one sausage dinner.


Relax....Breath deep.......Shift
Tom M

Dan Neil writes:

" ...politically correct (which is a phrase people use to excuse their own selfish disregard for the larger, common good)."

"Politically Correct" is a term which first gained popularity amongst the political left in the 1980s. It was a term of approval just ripe for parody, the result of which we see in its common usage today. Me, I have a healthy disregard for the "larger, common good" as 99.9% of all progress in this world has been made by people persuing their self interest. Edison didn't give the world the electric light in order to altruistically make life safer and more pleasant, he produced it to make money by making life safer and more pleasant. Big difference.

David Breneman

Dave, I looked, and couldn't find PC in the article, at least not blatantly, but the article smacks of it. Is it possible that he had to adjust the article to conform to the LA Times version of what should and should not be on the road?
mike parker

It was an aside in his message in this thread, and it betrayed a rather brusque dismissal of those who aren't, uh, politically correct. :-)
David Breneman

I liked reading it. Good article, wish our newspapers would write about the MGA. All they can come up with is the fact German cars are too expensive and let's all drive Japanese or Korean cars. Must admit they are of extremely good quality,the Japanese cars that is. In my opinion they'll never reach the degree of handling and style though.

Anyway,
I don't agree on the fuel problem or the polluting issue. As said before, there should not be any fuel smell of significance.

I am sure that the exhaust fumes of an MGA are more polluting compared to those of modern cars. But this is relative, as just about every SUV or truck currently on the market has an engine at least twice as big as an MGA engine, using two/three times as much fuel and subsequently polluting more. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

If I get a chance, I'll look up some of your previous articles. I read Jeremy Clarkson' review on the Chrysler C300 the other day, he said : Finally an American car that goes around a corner!

Regards,
Koen
Koen Struijk

Actually that's not true at all. An engine that's twice as large is going to use more fuel, especially lugging around a heavy vehicle. With modern emissions controls and computer controlled engines, emissions are significantly less. The common perception is that small engines pollute less. That's totally bogus. My 12hp riding lawn mower actually emits more pollutants than my 2003 GMC pickup. BTW, the GMC gets 25 mpg around town, about the same as an MG. My wife's Caddy gets about 30+ with an even larger engine. Old cars do pollute--and lots more than newer ones. You can't rationalize away cold hard facts.
R. L Carleen

Dave,
Re-read his post here, and you are correct. I don't understand his issues with pollution, being an automotive writer and all. He should know 1960 standards, and expect that. According to research that I have seen, today's cars emit less than 1% of what was emitted in the 60's. The B series engine is definitely not a clean engine. If you want to spend the money to update the car, and you have issues with the pollution emitted, there are ways to decrease them. Already having a non-standard engine, I don't see why he didn't install a fuel injected, computer controlled, emissions friendly engine with a catalytic converter. I don't see how it should cost more than the $6000 he has invested, unless all new, custom components are used. Since the car is considered antique, would it still need pollution checks, if a newer engine were installed? Would he be able to fluff it off, calling it stock, and not requiring checks? I don't know, as I don't know California standards.
Dan,
Enjoy your car, get it out into the open air where you can let her go to the max, and chill out a little. Go somewhere where you are able to not worry about emissions a little. Safety fast!
Mike
mike parker


Being from the red state of Alabama....WHAT THE HELL ARE ALL YOU YAHOOS COMPLAINING ABOUT?????
First off, the aticle was pretty much on the money...we do have to "tinker" (read: work on) the car a good deal of the time. Many of us enjoy it and thats why we bought the car, but it doesn't change the fact that we HAVE to tinker. Its the nature of the beast.
Also, the engine WAS built for a tractor. Maybe thats why it is such a long lasting, strong little engine.
And the car DOES pollute, and anyone that tries to rationalize it away is just lying to themselves. As someone said, earlier, fortunately, the newer cars are so much better than the older cars that we can still drive the few older ones that are left. But facts are facts...IT DOES POLLUTE....BADLY. I commend Dan for living up to his personal beliefs. Isn't that what being true to oneself is all about?
It was a very humorous and true article about owning an older car, especially a British roadster. I guess it just hit too close to home for some of the more conservative people in this group. Maybe these, money making, money hording people, suddenly realize that they won't moake money from these cars, that they are spending a lot of money and time on them, instead of accepting the inherent faults of the cars and loving it for what it is.
Jack

(PS: before anyone gets mad at this, read "A modest Proposal" by Swift.....well, ok, I'll explain it....tongue in cheek.)
Jack Weiss

Dan's article was enjoyable and funny - a personal exploration of his enthusiasms and frustrations with the A ...

... like a member of your family, you love the car but don't always like it.

Let's face it, if the cars were perfect in the first place, what would there be left for us to talk about anyway?
Richard Ross

Wow, I havent been in the site for a couple of weeks and this was an excellent story. At least you can say that old car owners are passionate about what they own?!!

I am a bit sceptical about modern cars "environmental" image compared to a new car (working in the industry) as in comparison to old cars there are many more non renewable materials in a modern car. Now this would be okay if there was a reason other than cost but I have to conclude that this is not so. Plastic is worse than metal in recycling and it is now everywhere on the car. Steel scrap price is now through the roof and Alu is not far behind but plastics are only recyclable at additional cost over new material!!!
A little bit more CO or SO2 from the exhaust does not come close in environmental impact.

Talking of impact I agree with the comment that old cars are tougher, although not neccessarily better for the occupants. New cars are designed on computers with very nice crash simulation modelling and the non passanger cell areas are designed to deform, saving the occupants. On old cars there was no idea how much strength was needed so chassis frames where over engineered. In impact the car suffers less damage but the decelleration of the car vs driver is much worse for the occupants (whiplash).
I had a mercedes taxi slide into me at a set of lights and the mercedes was written off (engine pushed back) but my MGA had one paint chip where its bumper had flexed into the rear wing!! On the other hand my neck was in very sore for about 4 months.

My conclusion. Modern cars are different beasts from those built 30 years ago and the impact of the industry is much higher now due to the lower cost of vehicles making them more accessable. Older cars can be made to run well (this is where I disagree with Mr Neil a bit) if time is invested but few of us would have one as the only car we owned (I need my e-type as a backup!!).

Neil
Neil Purves

This thread was discussed between 22/12/2004 and 12/01/2005

MG MGA index

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