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 TD TF 1500 - MGTD weight

Does anybody have a handle on a good number for the weight of a TD. I have one MI title that says 1850lbs and another that says 2000lbs.
Greg & Grimm
G.J. Cenzer

Hey Greg,

The workshop manual says 2,072 lbs, 2,464 lbs laden and with two passengers.

warmly,
dave
Dave Braun

Hi Greg,
my TD's weight on a scale is 860 kg with about 20 liters of fuel in the tank. My scaleconverter says 1637 lbs, but not sure about the last number.
regards
Frank
F.P. van Geldern

Frank, I'm not sure how accurate the figures in the workshop manual are. I do calculate 860 kg out to 1892 lbs (2.2 kg per lb). How much rust is on your TD? Could it have been lightened after all these years? Just kidding!

dave
Dave Braun

The WSM states (for the TD on page 7) 941Kg = 2,073.6 pounds.

I've just realised for the first time, that, by the WSM, the TF is about 140 pounds lighter - My registration says 893 K = 1,969 pounds, and the WSM (page 22, says 878Kg = 1,935.6.

What do you suppose accounts for that, beside obviously heavier bonnet panels?

Gord Clark
Rockburn, Qué.
Gordon A. Clark

My guess is that the workshop manual is just wrong on this. There's no way that the TF is that much different from the TD in weight. If anything, the TF is a few pounds heavier, since it's slightly wider. Probably a typo or transcription error when the WSM was written.
Mark B.

Mark,

You're almost right. The TF IS wider, by one-sixteenth of an inch!

The weight of my TF differs only by 15kg or about 33 pounds from the BMV and published weights.

But that still leaves about 100+ pounds for the TD. The TD carries 2 pints more coolant. Doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm going to consult the T-Register in the UK.

Stand by.

Gord Clark
Rockburn, Qué.

Gordon A. Clark

According to Moss Motors site http://tinyurl.com/oljpk curb weight is 914 kilo and the conversion site http://www.manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm indicates 914 = 2010.8 lbs. I'll check some other sources I have but thought I'd post this to get my $.02 in. Cheerio Gents
Jim Tatol

I vote for the TF to be lighter than the TD. The front wings probably weigh the same and the TF does not have the headlight buckets and all their bracketry, and I'm willing to bet the grille is lighter also, and the bucket seat backs have to be lighter than the dinosaur TD seat back assembly with all those metal springs and such.
Greg & Grimm
G.J. Cenzer

According to the performance specs, the TD is faster then the TF with better aerodynamics...(go figure). Perhaps the TD is lighter?
gordon lawson

Gord, whose performance specs are you quoting? If they are from an American Automotive Journalist they are totally flawed. AAJ's know nothing about cars and performance, they only know how to use fancy words and create fancy phrases.
Greg & Grimm
G.J. Cenzer

You bet, Gord. the TD with its standard "stump-puller" 5.125, will probably out-acclerate the TF for the first 50 feet, or so. But as I recall, the TF with its standard 4.875 was a tad faster than the TD.

GAC

Gordon A. Clark

Road & Track, June, 1961:
TC:
Curb Weight 1840 lbs.
Top speed: 75.0 mph
0-30: 5.7 sec
0-60: 21.2 sec
Total Drag at 60: 120 lb.
TD:
Curb Weight 2005
Top Speed: 78.9
0-30: 5.2 sec
0-60: 19.4
Total Drag at 60: 130 lb.
TF (1250):
Curb Weight: 2020
Top Speed: 80.1
0-30: 5.5 sec
0-60: 18.9
Total Drag at 60 mph: 129 lb.
TF (1500):
Adds 5 mph to top speed
Reduces 0-60 by 3 sec.
Bud Krueger

The first TFs with the 1250 and the 4.87 rear end were a little anemic, and while mathematically the gear ratio said they would be faster at top speed, (80.1 vs 78.9 mph) they first has to get there- maybe on level ground- no head wind.
Because of this the perception and belief at the time was they were also heavier.
They certainly had less torque and performance all through the ranges where the parking lot competitions and road racing was done and were regularly bested by TDS.
This was one of the reasons they were disliked initially, as well as the unpopular (at the time) nose job. The engine power deficect with the higher gearing led to the over-bores and then the 1500 engine.


Dallas Congleton

The TF is 4 inches lower at the cowl than the TD, so the body has less material, plus the headlights, this accounts for the lower weight.

I don't agree with the above that says the TD (1 1/4 in carbs) outperforms the TF (1 1/2 in carbs) and higher compression, more HP.

My manual list the TD & TF in hundredweight?
Don Harmer

Have read a couple of articles mentioning that even with the more 'modern' design, the TF ended up being slower then the TD....hehehe. That would have been when the engines/carbs were the same!
gordon lawson

“I don't agree with the above that says the TD (1 1/4 in carbs) outperforms the TF (1 1/2 in carbs) and higher compression, more HP”
Sorry Don, but that is the way I remember it, although factory literature provided to Road and Track and other magazines tried to spin it differently. Some of the actual test, not specification data, confirmed this. The general public also formed this opinion and sales fell off. The factory reacted with the 1500.

My statement about mid-range torque and speed was relative to the TF with a 1250 engine and the 4.87 gear ratio. It is true today also, but the converts are not going to accept it. You have to have the horsepower and/or gear ratio to do the work, and just giving it the bigger carbs wasn't enough. The package was basically that of the stock TD3, but with the 4.87. The compression ration was only a little more resulting in about 3 hp gain, not really capitalizing on the larger carbs capability. This also left the flatter gear ratio in the mid range as the choice of the 4.87 was to get a higher top speed.

The later TFs with the 1500, including a better cam, larger bore and the larger carbs did produce enough hp, ( although with a potential for problems with the over-bored engine.)

Anyway that is my story and I'm sticking to it. I like TCs, TDs and TFs and would love to have a black TF 1500.

The aerodynamics of both the TD and TF are probably affected more by the windshield, which are basically the same cross sectional area, than the shape of the nose.

Another weight factor is the TF wire wheels are heavier than the disc wheels on the TD, which is why the TD had disc - to reduce sprung weight and to eliminate problems with "dished" wheels. This would tend to offset any weight loss on the TF from the slightly smaller front end sheet metal, and maybe lighter seats.
Probably the only correct answer to the original question is a set of car scales.
Dallas Congleton

Of all the T types, the TB is the lightest,. TF/TD are Heavy, heaver than a TA or TC, or MGA or MGB, from what i remember.
Len Fanelli

Good evening gents
Here is a link to some other "Road and Track" data related to the TC. Might not pertain to the TD and TF, but I think you all (one word here in the south) will find it interesting.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=3386
Good night, whew it is hot here in Virginia even with the top down it still feels like 100 degrees John
John Hambleton

PS Don't forget to click on the "data panel"
This should keep you out of the heat for a couple of days. John
John Hambleton

This thread was discussed between 31/07/2006 and 02/08/2006

MG TD TF 1500 index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG TD TF 1500 BBS is active now.