Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
|
MG MGB Technical - I thought Steelcraft made good panels
I purchased a right front fender patch panel from Moss. It's a Steelcraft panel that extends from the crome strip down. After carefully seperating the original seam and panel away from the fender, I was very disappointed to find that the new panel is about 1/2" longer (from top to bottom) than the original. The top flanges come together nicely, the curvature of the wheel arch looks good, but when you bring the bottom up to try and put in the screws, it's clearly too long, and hangs out the past the bottom of the car a good 1/2". I've already replaced much of the car as it is, so I know that panels don't always live up to the originals in many ways, but how do they get something this far off? I don't see any easy way of fixing this, short of replacing the entire fender, which I really can't afford to do unless someone has a perfect original chrome bumper fender they want to sell me for a good price. I've thought about taking the panel to a sheet metal worker to have the step that's bent into the bottom of the panel raised up 1/2" to compensate, but I'm not sure how that would look. Am I the only one who's ever had trouble with this panel? Thanks for any replies. |
Scott |
Hi Scott: I am planning the rebuild of both r&l front wings using the same patch panels from the chrome strip down. What was your measurement of the patch panel regarding the top flange down? Another question, how did you remove the lower section from the original wing, and how did you deal with the rear flange? Thanks: Rich Boris 67 B roadster |
Rich Boris |
When my car was done in the mid 90s I was told to get OE wings, now I know why. You would expect with a hand made panel to have to do some work to get it to fit, stretch shrink joggle in a plate etc and thats one reason why having your pre war Alfa restored by a pro will bankrupt you. For the number of MGB panels being made its a pretty poor state of affairs . I used a lot of Steelcraft on my car and while not perfect they were usable, luckily none of the problem panels were visible from the outside so you could just get them to fit without cosmetic worries. |
Stan Best |
I can't attest to the current quality of the ones for the right side, but just bought and replaced one on the left for the current GT project. It fit very well - only had to trim a little at the top/front to get it to line up. The overall shape, curvature and length look good. It aligns well with the door and rocker as well as at the bottom where the 3 screws hold it down. However, it is issues like this why it is vitally important to do multiple trial fits of parts being repaired. Did you take measurements of the original and the patch, or is it just the difference of how the new one fits up? If your door is in place use it as a guide to get the 'correct' fit. There is enough play in the patch panel to push the bottom up a bit. That will change the curvature a little so you need to check both the door and rocker fit as you go. Good luck, Tom |
Tom Sotomayor |
Scott, like you I recently bought a Steelcraft lower front wing. When I compared it to the existing wing I was disappointed with the lack of curveture and the bottom flange. My supplier took it back against the equivalent Herritage part which is much better, as it comes off the original tooling, but about 50% more expensive. |
David Witham |
Scott, Perhaps Steelcraft quality is slipping? When I completed a restoration on our B/GT was several years ago the parts from Steelcraft were better than the Rover bits. Example, I have a Steelcraft right, and a Rover left front wing on the car. The headlight mounting on the Rover is still 'off', and it took a bit of work to get it where it is now. Better a piece too long, than too short. Regards, Larry C. '74 B/GT |
Larry C '69 Midget |
This thread was discussed between 05/08/2007 and 06/08/2007
MG MGB Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGB Technical BBS is active now.