MG C Reviews - Page 2 of 3

1968 MG C GT 3.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1968
First year of ownership1997
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.0 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired72000 miles
Most recent distance96000 miles
Previous carAudi A6

Summary:

Best classic to buy. Fast, reliable and unique

Faults:

Front suspension pins & bushes at 75000

Clutch at 92000 miles.

General Comments:

Watch for rust especially in the inner wings, sills and floor pans. Rear wheel arches is also a good place to check. MGC suffers in the same places as other MG's, but make sure that the front torsion bars have no corrotion around the mounting as they are structural.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th March, 2003

1968 MG C Roadstar 3ltr from Australia and New Zealand

Year of manufacture1968
First year of ownership1990
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 3ltr Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Most recent distance120000 miles

Summary:

A very rare car that with mods is very rapid on the open road

Faults:

The clutch slave cylinder failed an easy repair.

I broke an axle due to driver abuse easy repair cheapish cost.

I needed a new exhaust and used stainless 10 years ago still OK.

General Comments:

A long legged tourer.

With a few recognized mods (it is a classic after all and some improvement is possible) the car is faster than a healey, early 911, tr6 and others. and handles much better than one is lead to believe. It is more comfortable than a healy or tr.

You must do the mods though.

Head flowed, Free flow exhaust, mild cam.

Quick rack, and new shocks and tires.

Many many cars have these mods, and are considered desirable with them.

I love it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th August, 2002

1969 MG C Convertible 3.0 six-cylinder gas from North America

Year of manufacture1969
First year of ownership1980
Most recent year of ownership1986
Engine and transmission 3.0 six-cylinder gas Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.5 / 10
Distance when acquired88900 miles
Most recent distance0 miles
Previous carMG B

Summary:

MG See 'ya

Faults:

When I first attained the car it was at a used auto dealer and needed much attention. We completely rebuilt the car from the ground up. Following the restoration, the only problem was an occasional carburettor rebuild.

General Comments:

Before purchasing my first MGC I had read numerous reviews on this unusual car. Most of the reviews didn't give the car spectacular marks and several noted it as being "not much more than an MGB". These writers must have been intoxicated when they compared the two.

Having owned an earlier model MGB, I felt the six-cylinder "C" was a much superior car. My MGB was highly modified, but the stock "C" had far greater torque.

The big engine sounded more like a Jaguar XKE and it would leave vehicles with similar displacements far behind when leaving a traffic signal. When equipped with an electrically activated overdrive it was quite a highway cruiser as well. At 75 miles per hour my "C" was turning just over 1200 revolutions per minute.

Handling was another issue. The suspension between an MGB and MGC was slightly different because of the increase in front weight. The car had significant oversteer and was unforgiving in tight quarters. While the MGB seems to be well balanced, the "C" was lopsided at best.

Basically, an MGC used the same engine as the famed Austin-Healey 3000 Mk. III. However, the Healey is a much more sought after car. The MGC can typically be purchased for $6000 - $12,000 (US Dollars) and is an interesting addition to any collection.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th April, 2002

16th Jan 2004, 07:54

I like the MGC, although many don't. the problem with them is the poor handling caused by an excessively heavy nose... what else do you expect with a truck engine in it?

Treat the car as a grand tourer, just sit back and enjoy the power!

21st Jun 2004, 14:26

Just a small correction in your comments regarding engine likeness to the Healey. It is a similar engine, but not the same.

28th Aug 2004, 07:41

Hmm. The great rally driver Timo Makkinen once said of the Healey 3000: "If you want to drive really fast in a Big Healey, I always found that a drop of whisky helped."

I think that seriously fast driving in an MGC would need the rest of the bottle!

9th Apr 2005, 18:27

These were fine cars for touring, if you want to go seriously fast they could be modified, there was even an all aluminium engine developed for competition, along with aluminium body panels and improved brakes and suspension, they were very fast and competitive as used for racing by John Chattham from 1969, he also entered a road going competition MG C in the 1970 Targa Florio.

23rd Feb 2006, 21:17

The MGC and MGC-GT feel like two very different cars, even though they're based on the same platform. The extra 250lbs and extra strength of the rear of the GT balances the weight of the massive 'C engine (a seven main-bearing redesign of the Austin Healey four-bearing engine, but not new from scratch), and the GT's heavier leaf springs help lessen understeer. While I love the '69 MGC-GT, I'd buy a 'B if I wanted a roadster.

If MG had their way, I bet Donald Healey would have put his name on the project. But, BMC didn't let MG do anything to make the car work, and gave them the 6-cylinder much heavier than promised.

Average review marks: 7.0 / 10, based on 7 reviews