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 - rear shock conversion

Looking for comments on rear shock conversion to tube type. I have a GT in need of shock replacement and was considering the type being offered by this fellow on e-bay, http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MG-MGB-MGC-Rear-Tube-Shock-Conversion-Kit-New-THE-BEST_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33590QQitemZ8064504197
Has anyone used this kit before?
thanx for input
Dennis Silance

Dennis

I have no personal experience with this conversion, however, there has been quite a bit of negative comment from some that have done it. Seems that the original lever shocks suit the MGB well. Check the archives and you may find several postings from people that wouldn't go for thsi modification again.

Regards,

Barry
ex 73 MGB
75 TR6
B.J. Quartermaine

I have seen several old timers who don't want to change anything really come down on them. I think the upgrade is a natural. Shocks should not have to be as troublesome or as expensive as lever arm:

http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/suspension/axin1.jpg

Gary
gw mr

Gary, the Armstrongs aren't troublesome - as long as they are kept topped up (a big 'IF' in my experience) they are 100,000 mile shocks.

And as for cost, add up the cost of all the tube shocks you'd have to buy over that same mileage and I think you'll find that whether you buy cheap ones and change them several times, or good ones like Konis, the cost isn't going to add up much differently.


I still think that the Armstrongs represent a viable alternative, even if you discount the originality factor.

I still run them on my race car and don't believe I'd turn one bit faster lap times with something else under there.

I thought of converting the MGC to Konis at the rear (to match what I have on the front), but there isn't any room with the twin exhaust, so I was saved that cost.
Bill Spohn

I have the Monroe rear shock kits.
Can't wait to take them off.
They tend to loosen up after awhile and squeak like the dickens. gave me a funky bouncy ride as well.
Getting uprated original dampers soon.

I heard the Spax are better but you need to put them on the lowest setting and even at thet its a little too harsh.
Luigi

Waste of time, waste of money. Having experienced both I have just converted my V8 back to lever-arms. They are trouble-free for long periods, and even when they do need replacing are a fraction of the price of telescopics. I had Spax adjustable, which had to be initially set to their softest setting to get a bearable ride over ridges. But over time they softened (maybe that is why they are adjustable!), and by then the adjusters had siezed! By contrast the lever arms give a comfortable ride over ridges with none of the bounce I was getting over humps and dips. Lever arms come with a two-stage valve that gives lighter damping at smaller movements (hence the comfort over ridges) and heavier damping over longer travel (hence the lack of bounce). I'll never go back, or cease recommending against telescopics. Whilst MGB suspension *can* be improved (at considerable expense) tubular dampers isn't one of them.
Paul Hunt 2

I have seen some bad conversions and poor instals with conclusions made from them. I think many changes are shot down and keep people from experimenting. I have seen shocks chosen which caused issues and shocks wich served people very well. I see people strugle with the rebuilds and leakage often and I would wrather encourage people to open themselves to other ideas. I like a simple shock because it's well simple. I think it is one of the reasons why it replaced shocks on antique lever arm cars 60 years ago. Simple, lighter, and easy to change and experiment with. I have seen people mount them poorly, use the wrong shock, etc. For that reason I would wrather see people test other shocks and even come up with better mounts. Any feedback on the forums is typically squashed as a waste of time.


My .02C

Gary
gw mr

Well, yes, I can see that the incorrect dampers mounted incorrectly could result in the user coming to the conclusion that they are rubbish. But my experience is with dampers and fitting kits sold specifically for the MGB by MG parts stockists.
Paul Hunt 2

Well, that wasn't what I said.

G
gw mr

Well, this is one of those extremely rare occasions that I am going to disagree with Paul. While lever shocks do a very good job, so does the tube shock kit that Jack Emery sells. I am currently using it on my MGB V8. I have used it autocrossing (beat all the other V8s again) and thrashed it at Putnam Park doing a trackday.

http://www.putnampark.com/

I do get a little bit of that funky bouncy feel on the highway. I believe it is because it's a gas charged shock. Paul's experience (according to his very informative website) is with Spax shocks. The Monroes that Jack supplies are much better suited to the B and give a better ride than you will ever get with the Spax kit.

Anyone wanting to keep the levers, send them to Peter Caldwell. He will make them better than new. I recommend the uprated valves in the front shocks only.

http://www.nosimport.com/
Carl Floyd

Gary, I went and looked at the link picture, and my question is whether the shock will collapse all the way before the car hits the bump stop? It also looks like the shock will affect the angle the axle wants to move. I'm curious. I would have asked this directly, but you didn't supply an email. I do like the rear disc setup. Peter C.
Peter Caldwell

My concern with the telescopics has always been the side load on the shaft. I think that either a ball joint or some such needs to be mounted to relieve the forces transmited to the shock shaft. The MG axle is not very well located by just the leaf springs, so perhaps this side-to-side motion is also an issue.

Selecting dampers is not a trivial matter. There are engineers who make a career doing this work. Often the kits available are based on a shock that fits the space/travel limitations and marketed as a "Modern" improvement. I have no doubt that the right telescopic damper, mounted properly, would improve upon the levers. However, I do not know that such a kit exist. In the meantime, I will continue to spend my money on a MG transmission that does not blow up!!

Pete
Pete

I really have to agree with Gary (Indiana) on the points he raised.

There are so many owners who will not even consider any change lest the car be no longer a "proper" MG whatever that is!

If lever arm shocks were such a great mechanical device they would still be fitted my makers todays.

Call a spade a shovel here: The car was built down to a cost and leaf springs and obsolete shocks were cheaper than tube shocks and coils.

It would help immensly if some of those expressing opinions actually worked for a car company for a few years instead of slavishly following the dogma spat out by advertising departments.

By the way I used to work for Ford in the production planning section for a number of years.

One final point: poor engineering practice is poor engineering practice regardless of who is turning the spanners.
Most of the "conversions" I have seen personally I wouldn't fit to tricycle!

Pete.
Peter Thomas

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points Peter, yes, some people will not change an MG from original because they want to keep it that way, I am not one of those people but I have no problem with that thinking, if I had a 1923 Hispano-Suza or a 1911 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost I would not change it from original either, it is a matter of personal choice and is not wrong, just different to what you do.

Manufacturers moved away from the lever arm shock for cost reasons, a tube shock is a lot cheaper to manufacture than a lever arm, manufacturers are ALL about cost and the cheaper option will always prevail.

When the MG was first designed leaf springs and lever arm shocks were not obsolete. The reason an updated suspension was never designed for the later cars was simply cost, BL wouldn't give the MG division the money it needed for updates, they were pouring everything into Triumph.

The currently available rear tube conversions do not work as well as the lever arms because the shocks themselves were not designed specifically for the MG. If someone designed a tube shock with the correct travel and dampening characteristics for the MG I may consider converting, as it is the lever shock is the best option out there - for normal road use. On a nice smooth race track a good stiff tube shock will work adequately, however, if you take the same car onto the street the rear end will jump and skip. The B needs a good soft, pliant rear end that can absorb the bumps and holes of the average road surface and still hang onto that corner.
The Wiz

Some thoughts. Perhaps of minor value. Yes, the lever type shocks were the standard back in the dark ages. Thus, MGs seem to have been "stuck" with them due to the lack of investment capitol made available to the MG Car Company over the years. If one reads David Knowles's excellent book on the history of the MG marque, one wants to: cry, kill some people, drink a lot of beer.

Since in my generation, men do not cry; after I left the armed forces I do not desire to kill anyone: but, beer is good, I decided to, quite simply, work on my MGs and, while doing so, drink some beer. I suggest this to the rest of you.

All of the various points of view are, to some extent, valid. The lever arm shock is, very marginally, inferior to the tube type shock when the system is designed to work with a tube type shock. The lever type shocks were designed back in the days when cars, and the various subsystems which comprise them, were rebuildable. The later "tube type" shocks were designed to be slightly better (mainly due to weight) but, would not last as long. The tube type shocks had to be replaced as an assembly, thus generating both the shop time to replace them and the cost of the new shocks.

Almost all systems work best as originally designed. A fortunate few can, with the additon of later model parts, function better than designed. These latter systems are, normally, designed for vehicles which were either very expensive (thus, owners would be willing to spend the extra money on the upkeep of their expensive autos) or very common (as, perhaps, the MGB was).

Thus, with sufficient funds available, it might well be possible to design a better system for the rear end on the MGB. This would, in my limited experience, consist of some form of vehicle to secure the rear axle in its side to side movement and some form of vehicle to guarantee that the up and downwards movement of the rear axle was maintained within the limits of the rear shock absorbers.

To date, I have not seen anyone willing to do this form of undertaking. Instead, various claims are made, often claiming that the original suspension is inadequate (it is not in my driving experience) and making claims to vastly improved rear (or front) suspension characteristics.

Unfortunately, I have seen no scientific tests of these things. Which, as a scientist myself, I would consider to be useful. When I see someone willing to rebuild ten good condition cars back to original condition, then, test them for 100K miles, then, rebuild the suspension back to original condition and replace the front and rear dampeners with telescopic shocks and repeat the tests, I will take some notice of what may have been learned. I am always aware of how little I know, and understand, and am always willing to learn what improvements might be possible.

When some organization is willing to perform a properly set up, and supervised, experiment, I will use that experiment to determine what might be the best shock absorber/dampener set up.

Until then, I continue to use the factory designed set up and, yes, when necessary, I get Peter C's people to rebuild them. This has worked well for quite a number of years.

Les
Les Bengtson

I think its a valid point that according to Practical classics -MGB uprating they say " Perhaps owners shoudn't underate the original dampers of the MGB which work perfectly well when in good condition. That they are used by the majotiy of racing MGBs speaks for itself"
I have never had a problem with them and find that they are well suited to the car.
bob
R Etches

I'm w/Luigi above. The tube shocks are snake oil period. Did 3 conversions to tube and they were each replaced with levers rebuilt by World Wide within 6 months. Spend your money on the stock rebuilt damper and you'll be much happier afterall. Word. OH, PS- Must thoroughly agree with Les' above advice on pastime libation:spot on, eh? Vic
vem myers

Folks,

As usual the tubular shocks are getting their due knocking(!) but how/where can one get a good rebuild of lever arm shocks in Europe. I'm sure that the few pounds folk ask for 'reconditioned' dampers in the UK just about pays for a wash and a coat of paint. I can't even see the cost paying for new oil!

Peter
P L Hills

I think this shows that people are often unwilling to try new things so solutions are not found. The MG is stuck with ton's of 50's technology and most are quite happy with it. I would never knock people trying to experiment with better upgrades but most are shot down before people even try; they are told not to try. That I think is weak! That I see as the same reason a 1980 MGB as little different then a 1960's MGB.

Gary
gw mr

There's nothing wrong old technology if it meets the needs it was designed to meet. New is not necessarily better -- in fact, I've found that in general and in most non-automotive products, new means only that it doesn't last as long, can't be repaired, and substitutes unwanted features for quality and good engineering. Did you know that ITT desk phones were designed for a 50-year service life? I'll take old, thank you!

In this discussion of tube shocks, it's not a question of trying new things, it's a discussion of trying the same thing over and over by different people, and discovering again and again that the "upgrade" isn't....

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/mg-b, a 1962 MGB will corner better than a 2005 Ford Mustang, with a maximum turn rate of 0.96 g (9.4 m/s²) versus 0.85 g (8.3 m/s²) for the Ford Mustang. So what if a 1980s MGB is little different than a 1960s MGB? The '60s car is pretty darn good!
Rob Edwards

Well, I'm rather startled to hear that a '62 'B will corner at 0.96g. I've read an aweful lot about the 'B over the years and I've never heard such an extreme number. And I find it just as hard to believe that the Mustang only pulled 0.85g. Anyone ever seen numbers like this published other than somewhat anonymously on the web?

Anyway, having said that, I've been given a set of tubular conversion brackets by a friend who removed the conversion in disgust! I don't know what shocks were supplied with his kit, but from reading the BBS and Jack Emery's ebay listing, they might have been designed for a Chevy 1 ton van. Since I've already got the brackets, it won't cost too much to try tubulars, but I'd like to try it with appropriate shocks. Can anyone tell me the part # of the Monroe shocks that Jack supplies? I see all sorts of part numbers in the archives, for example:- Monroe 5893ST; 33076; 5877ST & Gabriel ProRider 73636 as well as all the ones here:-

http://www.mgbexperience.com/article/rear-shock.html

By the way, the Gabriel 81108 shocks used here:-

http://www.theautoist.com/RearSuspension.htm#Tube%20Shocks

appear to be spec'ed for the front of Chevy trucks (according to:- http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/GABRIEL-FRNT-GUARDIAN-SHOCKS-1970-96-CHEVY-GMC-TRUCK_W0QQitemZ8064857827QQcategoryZ33590QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I don't mind experimenting, but I can't afford to buy all these!




Derek Nicholson

In Road & Track issue 12-04 a Mustang GT did a skid-pad test at .84g. I think the writer in the answers link got the 9 & 6 reversed for the MGB.

In 1970 Road & Track ran a comparison test titled Four Sports cars. You can read it here.
http://www.mgbexperience.com/article/rt-4sports-1970.html

The test compared a Fiat 124 spider, Porsche 914, MGB and a Triumph TR-6. They ran all cars through their usual tests along with a 1200+ mile road test. On the skid-pad tests the results were, Porsche 914 0.738g, Fiat 124 0.723g, MGB 0.707g and the TR-6 0.680g.

Read the article to see how R & T rated the cars.

I don't think race cars could pull .96g in 1962. Here are some R & T skid-pad results. 1-03 Mini Cooper S 0.87g, 3-05 Porsche Boxster S 1.00g, 4-06 Volkswagen GTI.0T 0.88g, 6-03 Saleen S7 0.99g and 10-05 MX-5 Miata 0.86g

FWIW, Clifton
Clifton Gordon

Thanks, Clifton. You saved me wasting my money starting an F1 team running MGBs.

Those figures seem much more blievable. Just goes to show that you've got to be suspicious of whatever you read on the 'net. Except, of course, what's on this BBS.

Now, if anyone wants to read my article on DIY brain surgery, go to:- www.this_won't_hurt_a_bit.com

TTFN n n n n n

Derek Nicholson

I have indeed seen cornering force figures for MGB in the .9 range - but not on period rubber or wheels.

The quoted figure is certainly realistic in current racing spec.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out if a tube shock conversion will improve an MGB. The fact that many developers of such products seem to choose suspect geometry and mounting points, or really badly chosen shocks, or both, just tends to muddy things.

But in the end, the lever shocks on an MGB do a pretty good job when in good condition, even in racing. It would surprise me if an ideally mounted tube conversion, with perfectly specced shocks made enough difference to be worth bothering with, particularly in the case of front shocks, where many installations seem particularly poorly engineered.

Heaven knows there are enough other glaring needs on an MG to be addressed before you start looking at things that really don't need upgrading.

A Panhard rod, proper antisway bars, slightly stiffer bushes.......all of these do make a significant difference to handling, much more than a tube shock conversion will (unless you are one of those twits that start with a totally thrashed lever shock, stick in a new tube shock, and say "See, so much better, it proves that tubes are superior....")
Bill Spohn

Great discussion here. I hope most of the paricipants will make it to Gatlinburg. I'll be hosting a tech seminar on lever shocks. Maybe we can all learn. Me, about suspension options, and y'all about what's inside these shocks.

Hope to see you there!

Peter C.
Peter Caldwell

Derek,

I am using the Monroe 5877ST. As you pointed out there a kits using Spax, 1-ton van shocks, Dodge Colt shocks, etc. The people bemoaning the tube shocks were obviously using the wrong ones.

Btw, bet my B pulls real close to .9gs on the skid pad.

http://www.britcars.net/FloydC1.jpg

Peter,

Hope to make your seminar. Any progress on the external valving adjustment for the levers?

Carl Floyd

The Monroe 5877ST is the SensaTrack spec'd for the Dodge Colt. MonroeMatic number is 33090. Gabriel numbers are 69680 (Ultra) and 81464 (Guardian). Just trying to keep this information I've dug up together in one post, for the benefit of future archive searchers.

Derek Nicholson

I have used the Monroe SensaTrac #5893 with decent results on a 68 GT, but was not impressed that they accomplished much other than exchanging tube shox for lever shox. As Rob Edwards said so well, it seems to be a conversion looking for genuine need.

Looking at the Ebay listing, there is little difference between it and the kit sold years ago when I tried this conversion (for the same reasons as most do, because it seemed an upgrade to more "modern" technology). I still think it is possible that there are better choices than the Armstrong Lever shox, but I also have come to believe that they are those which have been well engineered by folks who have a good understanding of how that can be done and with materials which are truly compatible or adjustable to acheive verifiable improvements.

As for G-force measurements, there are devices which have gained some acceptance as being accurate (within the limits of cost and complexity) available and I would guess that anyone who wants to quantify their results can do that better with one of them than by the seat of their pants. That may be how Rob got his numbers? Handling and drivability depend, in my estimation, as much on other factors than just G-forces generated, depending of course, on what you are using the car for and how you drive.
Bob Muenchausen

I think people miss the point. A shock is not that complex. It is only a simple part of the suspension. Either can be tuned and turn out to be a better shock but there are other issues at hand.

There are people after people trying to get theirs to work. They sink money in them, they leak, they are heavy, and then they leak some more. I sold my set on ebay for $20. They were a recent re-build. This ain't even core charge. The guy said when he turned them upside down they leaked. He wanted his money back. I gave them to some one else. I think the whole thing is silly. You get them not to leak and "Hey they are working!" 3 years latter, "shock issues again". Who cares if you added.001 on a skid pad.

Find the right aftermarket SIMPLE tube shock, when it doesn't work, 10 years latter spend another $10 for another set. Shock setting is about getting lateral "G"'s. Making things simple that arn't typical MG junk are improvements! One less leak on the floor!

Gary
http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/
gw mr

I fitted the Gabriel tube shocks with fiberglass rear leaf springs and a panhard rod. The stiffer shocks were a necessity with the soft springs. Add to that heavier (much larger) wheels and tires and the need for a stiffer shock becomes much greater. They worked wonderfully until my springs failed. Now with the stock springs, they are pogo sticks.
There is an application for the shocks - just not on stock suspension cars, unless the cost of poorly rebuilt replacements is just too frustrating. I figure if I leave the shocks on long enough, they will soften?
Jeff Schlemmer

gw mr, I don't know who rebuilt your lever shocks, but they sure didn't do a quality job. I have replaced TWO shocks in TWENTY years on my MGB! If you had sent yours to Worldwide you would have had a no-leak guarantee.

As for weight, I very much doubt that a tube shock and related mounting hardware is lighter than a lever shock. In fact I would dare to say the tube shock kits are heavier!

A lever shock weighs what, 4 maybe 5 pounds? What does a tube shock plus all those steel mounting brackets add up to? Sure cant be any less! And even if it were, what would a pound or two of sprung weight do for your car? Not a thing.

There is something to be said for the simplicity of the original shock design. It works just as well as a modern shock and is offered in adjustable form if required. Best of all, no modification of the car is required and the design remains as engineered by some very bright men at the M.G. Car Company in the early 60's.

Then there is always this...

http://www.motorheadltd.com/tubeshock.htm
Steve Simmons

>Making things simple that arn't typical MG junk

MGs are almost 100% "typical MG junk." ;-) Perhaps you might find a Porsche more to your liking....
Rob Edwards

Well I guess since open thinking is not allowed and that the mgb was a perfect design and it can't be improved or experimented with I'll just go crawl back in my hole where I came from.

Gary
http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/
http://www.rc-tech.net/cars/panttransam/med.jpg
http://www.rc-tech.net/cars/panttransam/bothb.jpg
http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/homestretch/wire2.jpg
http://www.rc-tech.net/MGB/homestretch/engjan2006.jpg
gw mr

"Well I guess since open thinking is not allowed"

Gary, I think you have to get past the idea you seem attached to that 'open thinking' means 'agree with Gary'

Your example of lever shocks that aren't properly rebuilt is just simple misdirection. Anything worn out or improperly refurbished can hardly be an example of a typical new or properly rebuilt part.

The fact is that lever shocks do last far longer than almost all tube shocks, and that they do almost as good a job of damping as even the best tube shocks.

If you absolutely must choose windmills to tilt at, I suggest you find one that better serves your purpose. Argue about non-synchro transmissions, or cars that use generators, but give the lever shock thing a rest. You aren't gaining any credibility.

From my point of view it is the other people that have been discussing the issue rationally from both sides that are open minded, not you, who decides to take your toys and go home when people disagree with you.

Bill Spohn

In defense of the lever shocks, they do a good job over a long period of time for most situations and because of their design add very little to the upsrung weight.
Carl Floyd

HOLLY COW gw mr,

How many things have you done to that car? I just looked through your website! New window cranks, new heater and air controls, new coil over front suspension, V6, VDO gauges, is that a glass mat battery? You ever drive it up north?
MGA

Anything can be improved upon ~ that is what successor models usually try to accomplish for any product line. MGBs, gw mr, were never perfect, or they might still be in demand today. However, anything we do to a 40+ yr old design is using that basic platform as a test bed. The return on investments can be great, depending on the criteria used or they can be marginal. I think what you are being told is that many of the folks who make up this particular BBS who have tried some of these things found them marginal according to their individual criteria and expectations.

MGBs were never an "Ultimate Driving machine" and altho improvable to modern standards in many ways, probably never will be either, no matter how much we try to make a silk purse of them. Most MGB owners are content with the car's inherent limitations no matter what the reasons, or they will have either graduated on to the big leagues or bought into them in the first place. An MGB is a very good and surprising car, but it will simply never be a Ferrari, even tho folks like yourself can capture some of the rearing horse's qualities with the mods you have chosen to do. I think for you, it is the challenge to push the basic platform beyond its inherent limits that is suits your interest, whereas most owners here seem to want/need only a fraction of the changes you have chosen to do.

If you think this group is stifling, be grateful they are NOT an exclusively Purist bunch. Most can appreciate that a change or two or more are not sacreligious to the Sacred Octagon. There are alternatives tho which I think you must be aware of.
Bob Muenchausen

Gary, go suck an egg. (;-)>

http://blackwoodlabs.com/

Check the link, you'll see I'm as open to mods as you are, maybe more. But as far as tube shocks go, it only makes sense if you redesign the entire suspension. On the front the only really good tube shock configuration I've seen so far is Ted's unit. You put that on your car and you'll never go back, but it goes way beyond a tube shock conversion. As for the rear, how much can you do with a cart spring arrangement? It's a real credit to the old MG engineers that it works as well as it does, and yet even this ancient bit of technology is still used today. What kind of shocks are used with it makes very little difference as long as they are tuned to the car and suspension. But give me a couple more years and I'll have my T-Bird IRS conversion finished and you can copy that.

The problem with tube shock conversions is not the concept it's the execution. When you can open a database and plug in the car's weight, distribution, unsprung weight, wheel diameter, center of gravity and roll centers as tuning parameters for shock selection then we'll be getting somewhere. I figure I'll have my IRS done first.

The real beauty of the lever shocks is tunability. As far as durability, as long as the shaft, bushings, and seals are good they will not leak and the oil will stay high enough to keep the bushings lubricated and eliminate wear. But you do have to check them and top them up occasionally if you expect them to last. In return you have a great range of tunability. The weekend warrior can swap in competition valves but the genuine tuner can modify and adjust the valves for exactly the valving he desires. In addition various weights of oil give even more range. I fall somewhere in the middle. I'm happy with the competition valves nearly as they come and ATF for oil. Stiff on the valves, light on the oil works well for my system. YMMV

But until you have taken the trouble to see what can be had from the lever shocks as opposed to tossing them out because they are old MG junk you really do not know what you are talking about. Some of the MG stuff can be considered junk but the lever shocks are not. And I've run tube shocks also. Not so great. In my opinion there is little point in changing it just to have something new which may or may not be an improvement, especially when so many with experiance say it is not.

Jim
Jim Blackwood

All,

My original comments stand. The factory system was designed with the components availble to them. They did the best job possible within the limitations imposed upon them.

For "late generation improvments" to be valid, one must make a test of both the original factory system, in "as new" condition, and of the "newer" system.

Various people have made unsubstantiated claims as to the benefit of tube shocks over the original lever arm design.

None have, in my experience, done any testing which would be of statistical significance.

As a scientist,I wonder why this is?

Others have pointed out the difference between a set of worn out shocks replaced with a set of telescopic shocks. Many of us, however, have seen, similar differences between our old, worn out shocks and a new set of lever action dampeners.

Might I suggest that those of us who have tested the lever shocks on both street and race track, and have found them to be fully adequate, might be more impressed by a qualified testing program that shows that the modification both represents a noticible increase in capability and is cost effective for that increase.

There have, in the past, been people who have shown up on this BBS recommending radical changes in the original design. One such was, several years ago, the fellow who had an "upgraded alternator design". He appeared out of now where. He, also, had another fellow who was not a regular member. but fully supported the first fellow. When most of us demonstrated that our Lucas altenators had worked fine for many years, said fellows, after some abuse about our being "purists" disappeared.

In the mean time, my Lucas alternator is working just fine and so are my lever shocks. Should someone be able to demonsrate, scientifically, that either is inferior to some well thought out and well tested alternative, I will be willing to invest in such as a test. In the mean time, I am doing quite well, thank you.

Les
Les Bengtson

You guys totally missed my point. Thanks for the warm welcome though. Goodby!

Gary
gw mr

"MGBs, gw mr, were never perfect, or they might still be in demand today".

I thought they still *were* in demand when the factory closed, which was purely for UK political and ego reasons in favour of Triumph. It has been claimed that when Edwardes closed Abingdon Prime Minister Callaghan said to him "I thought when we appointed you to this job you said you were going to make sound business decisions ..."

How many other cars of that era in that price range command the prices the MGB does today?
Paul Hunt 2

Re: telescopic dampers.

When I bought my MGC GT it already had a telescopic conversion fitted with worn out, oil filled dampers and the handling was awful.

I invested about £200 in a set of gas filled Spax adjustables (for all 4 corners) and a much fatter front anti-roll bar. The MGB Hive in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire were the suppliers. Nigel Petch, the co-owner of the B Hive, races MGCs and has a very great deal of first hand experience and knowledge on these cars.

The handling was transformed - but I must be honest an say that some of that must be down to the fact that the components were new and some to the fact that they were upgraded.

I have heard from one respected MG motor sport expert that he prefers lever arms to telescopics but on the other hand the telescopic kit on my car has been completely faultless over the last 13 years.

I think that there are three points to be made here:

1 ) either set up in good conditon will be fine.
2 ) either set up when worn will be crap!
3 ) choice over which you go for probably boils down to how much you care about originality
Richard Moss

Another thought:

Ron Hopkinsons MG Centre in Derby spent a lot of time developing their MGB handling kits which effectively consisted of an uprated front ARB and a retrofit rear ARB. Tested back to back on the same car vs good condition standard kit they gave a dramatic improvement, whilst maintaning lever arm dampers.

When it came to the C they discovered that a rear ARB was not required - just a telescopic damper conversion using Bilstein shocks. Quite why this should be so, I can not explain. However, as I said they put a lot of time, effort and R&D into it - it wasn't just fad or fashion.
Richard Moss

My V8 has the front and rear handling kits, and the rear definitely seems to aid axle location, having driven a couple of cars without the difference is noticeable. The whole thing corners flatter than the standard roadster, for whatever difference that makes. However all the differences seemed to result in a greater tendency for the rear to slide away in the wet compared to the roadster, but I've since found that tyre manufacturer makes a huge difference, probably more so.
Paul Hunt 2

About two years ago I converted my CGT from old original leaf springs and recon levers to parabolic springs and Spaxes. From day one I was pleased with the general compliance of the springs on bad roads, but short bumps (speed bumps etc.) were very encomfortable. The level of disconfort, I found, could be changed with the setting of the Spaxes. To me this means that the Spaxes are to blame for the harhsness over bumps. A setting of 2 or 3 on the Spaxes would give something of a balance between good roadholding at speed and tolerable handling of bumps.

Today I bought the missing link (litteraly) to put my lever dampers back on..
After this week-end I'll now if levers are really better or whether this is all in my head.

I'll let you know,
Rufus
Rufus Pool

"You guys totally missed my point. Thanks for the warm welcome though. Goodby!"

Gary, you can stay and with polite discussion show us how you believe we are incorrect, or you can skulk off perhaps leaving the wrong impression about yourself.

Head high or tail between legs, whichever suits you.
Bill Spohn

uh...what was his point? He came here with baggage, "Any feedback on the forums is typically squashed as a waste of time." and left with an ample supply of confirmation of what I think he expected. Sorry we disagreed with what he wanted to hear, but I am sure he'll find commiseration somewhere.
Bob Muenchausen

A number of years ago, "MGB Driver", the publication of the North American MGB Register, had a tech article on the RV8 front crossmember which was just becoming available for use on MGBs. Do not remember who wrote the article, but it may have been Ian Pender.

The author detailed the claims made for the modification, told about the work required to install it, then, noted that after the very significant expense and work to do the modification, the improvement was very marginal over the properly set up factory system.

That type of article, one that starts out with a properly set up, well maintained factory system, then details the results of the modification against such a standard, is a splendid example of how such experiments should be conducted and made a significant contribution to the general body of knowledge.

It stands in vivid contrast to people who take old, worn out systems, replace them with something new and are impressed with the "improvement", then tell all of us we are not open minded because we do not, immediately, make the same changes on our cars.

Les
Les Bengtson

"It stands in vivid contrast to people who take old, worn out systems, replace them with something new and are impressed with the "improvement" ..."

Abso-flippin'-lutely! Applies to many so-called improvements to the MGB.
Paul Hunt 2

I am in agreement Paul, Les. Wear is usually like watching grass grow in the fall so the loss of performance is subtly gradual and hardly felt, but when you do the rebuild, suddenly it is an instant feel and anything is an improvement.

Mark
Mwhitt

I've often said the same: Replacing worn out component of type X with new component of type Y and seeing an improvement doesn't prove Y is better than X, only that new is better than worn out!

There's also "Post-purchase rationalisation": I spent a ton of money on this, of course it's better! (Even if it's not....)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization
Rob Edwards

Well lot of emotions over this thread...

My opinions is for freedom of choice. To keep a B "original", I will not substitute any parts by an "upgrade". for example substitude troublesome pre-cambrian points instead of pertronix. Ok but we have to service them frequently.

Regarding suspension, I tried the Moss rear suspension swap kit with Monroe's, that appears to have truck shocks. Not a pleasant experience. I replaced shock in this kit with rear Hyndai excel one's and the ride is more than adequate. But it was not troublesome as I must repositioned the lower spring's bracket to its original setting and drilled shock's sleeves to 1/2" as they are 12 mm..

All that fuzz is not necessary an economical way of doing things and Armstrong rebuilt units is not so a bad idea after all.


Cheers,

JGC
Jean Guy Catford

Jean, while I race with Pertronix, most of my street stuff still uses point ignition.

Why (you may ask)?

Because if an electronic bit fails out on the road, you are basically fz@#ed, whereas I have managed to get a car running again a couple of times using such handy roadside items as a discarded matchbook to reset point gap when the rubbing block wore down.

Similarly, have you ever seen a guy that 'upgraded' to a fancy new electronic fuel pump manage to keep going once it fails? Of course not, as simply whacking it once in awhile (the time homoured SU method to keep going to the nearest parts outlet) will avail you nothing with such modern fripperies!

As for one facet of this oft repeated argument (the suspension one), I wish someone out there would take a couple of Armstrong shocks, a front and a rear, and remove the arms from them and weight them.

We keep hearing about unsprung weight as a reason for using tube shocks, but I am betting that any tube shock has a higher unsprung weight than either style of Armstrong does. We could put that one to bed for good if anyone is willing to hacksaw a couple of shocks.....

Yes, the Armstrongs will have higher sprung weight, but what the heck - you can offset that by avoiding that extra Big Mac at lunch time.....
Bill Spohn

Bill, Excellent idea. I happen to have a few lying about.

MGB front full without arms, otherwise complete... 7lbs, 1.4oz

MGB rear same as above, 5lbs, 7.5oz

These are all cleaned, ie, no road grime.

Peter C.
Peter Caldwell

For the rear, you'd want the weight of the arms and the links only -- the body of the shock will be sprung weight.

For the front, since some of the tubular conversion kits retain the stock shock arm, you could argue that the unsprung weight of the stock setup is 0!
Rob Edwards

Bill,

Simple answers, electronic is more reliable than any electro-mechanical components as for example point starts to degenerate at first star-up of engine. Anyway if a pertronix system fails on a trip it is a piece of cake to go back to points system in less than 10 minutes. For an electronic pump, I remember it was mandatory to have an extra fuel pump for a tavel, as said by many MG's gurus.

For armstrong shocks it is not bad and very durable, but performance is so so. I have also a TR6 with such shocks and I never been hable for rear suspension to behave without wobbling.

The basic point here is our British car(s) have some flaws in design inherited from a conservative past and from selection of some available parts fond in a bin somewhere.

Another example of a flaw: rubber suspension bushings witn many cracks appearing just after installation. In your mentality it will be an heresy to install V8 or nylatron or urethane bushing. It is a way of thinking and a matter of choice to ride with an original non reliable set-up on your car.

JGC
Jean Guy Catford

Now Jean, everyone knows that the V8 bushes are the only way to go! Unless of course the nyla...s are your bag. I have loads of little top hats laying around as chew toys for my dogs. But those are like $12 or so for a set of V8 bushes, no demon tweaks there.

Mark
Mwhitt

OK, so unsprung weight bits. MGB front arms only 3lbs 2.1oz for the pair with hardware. Rear.. arm only 14.5 oz. Arm with chrome bumper link 2lb .4oz.

Peter C.
Peter Caldwell

Attitudes aside, I do like Gary's hot rod! I hate to loose anyone with his skill from this board. Now, can we get back to picking on 3 sync transmisions!!!!!! ;-)

Pete
Pete

Agreed Pete, he has some nice looking rides. Doesn't mean he can come in and throw his weight around but if he can be civil he'd likely be an asset.
Jim Blackwood

"For armstrong shocks it is not bad and very durable, but performance is so so. I have also a TR6 with such shocks and I never been hable for rear suspension to behave without wobbling.

The basic point here is our British car(s) have some flaws in design inherited from a conservative past and from selection of some available parts fond in a bin somewhere."

Jean Guy - you have found one of the flaws - in the TR-6.

The rear spring rates were laughable. Every stock TR6 looks like a female dog taking a whizz when you boot it - they squat ridiculously. Don't attribute that quirk to anything to do with the shocks. Change the rear springs to stiffer ones and that all goes away.

New Armstrongs are quite good. New Armstrongs with competition valves in them (which is what I race with) are excellent. Most tube shocks, anything short of Koni level, don't measure up. Konis and a few others are clearly superior. I don't think we do badly at all with our Armstrongs.

I have Austin Westminster double valved fronts on my Jensen CV-8 and I can attest to the stability of the car over somewhat rough sirface at upward of 140 MPH.
Bill Spohn

Not everything different is necessarily better. Neither is anything which comes along "new". Time and experience generally sort the wheat from the chaff.

Years ago, the venerable Consumers Reports did testing of some then new front and AWD cars, making some disparaging remarks about rear wheel drive cars as an archaic design. I had to laugh.

I wrote them a letter in which I told them:

"I just received the April Auto issue, and one thing I found interesting was the continued reference to front engined, rear-drive vehicles as “old-tech.” Certainly this layout has been around a long time, but then, what is so “new” about front-wheeled or even all-wheeled drive? Most of the options we have offered to us today in the way of drive layouts, have been around in one form or another for most of automotive history and used on passenger cars for more than just a few years that motor vehicles have been around.

"Admittedly, some of these layouts have only recently found their way into the mainstream of the US market and the favor of manufacturers. If anything, the rear drive layout is not just “old-tech” but well-tried tech and in the hands of some engineers, well-honed tech, making it the setup of choice for most of the world’s most sophisticated road handling vehicles, on the road and on the track. Old tech is not necessarily “low-tech” as seems to be implied.

"We continue to use the pulley to lift heavy loads - how old-tech is that compared to the automobile? And what have we found in this age to replace it? We continue to use it because it does the job asked of it well, and the same can be said of the old rear-wheel-drive layout. Or the old front-wheel-drive layout. Or the old all-wheel-drive layout. It is their performance that makes them useful, not their age. You could probably say that about some people as well."

Armstrong lever shox may well fall into that same category of "well proven tech" even as tube shox do. They both perform their jobs well, and to the chagrin of some of us (including myself) sometimes prove once again that just because they might be an older design, they aren't dead yet, and in some applications are still hard to beat.


Bob Muenchausen

Bob,

I agree with you as old tech. is sometimes very good. For RWD It could be another debate, but personally I stopped buying Vo;vos when they changed to FWD. Here in snow it is true that FWD exhibits more traction, but when a FWD decides to spin it is most of the time game over, which is not the case with RWD.

But coming back to MGB improving things could be a Plus, as if Brits. were more able to adapt the car in its more than 20 years of production, they will definitely change things a lot. Instead of selling a destroked single carb with low output B at the end and a raised body to complies with regulations we could have had a an OHC engine and an IRS set-up in the old body. In fact it is true that armstrong shock or points or lucas fuel pump are for some more than adequate. But try to improve things could yield to good results, mainly for a daily driver MGB.
Speaking of originality, I bought rear springs made in Thailand for my MGB and many parts sold a genuine are also made in many foreign countries mot really related to England. Gary's modif. were well made and may be fun to drive.
And speaking of modifications, if I remember well, was it not some strange texan guy that had the idea to place a non-refined 260 Ford-V8 in some british car or another example is it not TVR that had placed Ford, Triumph, Vauxhall drivetrains in their cars. British automaker were good to share parts in different models. In such case the word original had less meaning to me.


JGC
Jean Guy Catford

I see that Jack Emery is selling a kit using KYB shocks. I've never noticed this option before. Wonder what the PN for these shocks is?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MG-MGB-MGC-Rear-KYB-Tube-Shock-Conversion-Kit-New_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33590QQitemZ8052936811

Anyone tried KYBs on their 'B before?

Derek Nicholson

KYB Gas-A-Just KG4192?


Derek Nicholson

I've never had points or condenser fail in nearly 40 years. And since I started checking dwell instead of points gap I haven't had to adjust them between replacement intervals either. In fact both roadster and V8 have now done over 10k, and whilst I did have to tweak the V8 points this year (they only have 1 degree tolerance either side) the 45D4 with 5 degrees either side is still 2 degrees inside. I have a spare set in both cars, but am tempted to leave them until I start getting problems. Whilst in theory they do start deteriorating straight away, in practice because peak HT voltage is determined primarily by points gap they would have to get very poor indeed before they start affecting HT.

I had a points-type SU pump on the roadster when I bought it and a 'pointless' (very apt) on the V8. The roadster started playing up, but didn't even need the usual clout, just switching the ignition on and off a couple of times was enough to kick into life, until I eventually replaced it. The V8 pump started playing up also, but in that case I just had to wait until it decided to start woking properly before I could continue on my way, thumping it did nothing, not even make me feel better. After 2 or 3 bouts of this, and another while I was at home and was able to get the cover off and actually see what it was doing to no avail, I replaced it with the refurbished points-type off the roadster and have had no more problems to date.

You have to go to a significantly different engine design (O-series), fuel injection and mapped electronic ignition to get any noticeable improvement over the original design. The O-series was intended for the MGB, and gave way more performance, economy and lower emissions than the B-series.
Paul Hunt 2

Well,
yesterday I found some time to take the Spaxes on my CGT off and put the lever arm dampers back on.
What a huge difference this makes! Now shocks are being absorbed again. With the Spaxes set to "2" I could feel every small imperfection in the road, speed bumps were horrible ánd bumps on the motorway would throw the car off course slightly (which meant I had to be alert all the time).
Now with the levers, the car almost glides over poor road surfaces and the instability at speed is gone.

Also, my steering has become lighter! I have no way of measuring this but, I am 100% certain about this.
May have something to do with the extra bit the body now rolls in the corners.
Strangely enough, with the extra roll I now have i seem to be able to take the speed reducing chicanes they use on some local roads faster then before, the handling feels much more predictable. With the Spaxes there would be a moment during weight transfer from left to right where it fealt like the car was unsure what to do. Now, the transfer is a fluid movement that gives much more confidence.

As it is now, completely stock dampers, the rear is slightly softer than I like. I will try thicker oil and/or "uprated" valves.

Whether I'll experience frothing of the oil in the dampers with the parabolic springs, we'll find out soon enough (I'll try to give 'em a good test).

Conclusion for me: no more Spaxes ever. You would need some very convincing arguments to have me try any other brand of tele's, I am convinced that the geometry problems and the too great stiffness makes them not really suitebale for the B/C.

FWIW,

Rufus
Rufus Pool

Well, well,

I do not know about spax set-up but the montroe shocks in Moss kit appears to be GMC truck one's. An inadequate dampering stiffness for a MGB. As I mentioned earlir on this thread with proper shocks the ride is great.
Cheers,

JGC
Jean Guy Catford

This thread was discussed between 12/05/2006 and 24/05/2006

MG MGB Technical index

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