BUYING GUIDE
AT the risk of telling one truth too many, the one area where you might level criticism at the MGB is in the power department. A little bit more wouldn't have hurt, so the concept of one with two more cylinders and a 60% capacity boost has an undeniable appeal. That was the MGC, though its role from BMC's point of view was to replace the Austin-Healey 3000, with the new MG being cheaper to build and not involving the extra cost of a licensing agreement.
The result was a lovely car, but it failed to gain the reputation it deserved. Road testers insisted on making direct and unfair comparisons with the Healey, which had always been an out-an-out sports car in the great weekend race and rally tradition. The MGC was and is more of a tourer, as quick as the Healey, but more laid-back about it and lacking the older car's rough edges. Think of it as a cheap Aston Martin and you are closer to the mark.
Much criticism was also heaped on the weight of the engine, and yes, at 650lb it is a heavy old lump – nearly 300lb more than the B's four-pot. But it is set back quite far in the shell and the MGC's weight distribution of 53:47 is actually pretty good, even for a sports car, and it's well supported by torsion bars (think E-type Jag) rather than coil spring front suspension.
The MGC did also suffer in press and public perception by looking the same as the MGB (bonnet bulges aside). Perhaps the most damning criticism though came from successive period road testers who commented on the MGC's heavy steering and expressedhelp boost the car's appeal either, though it transpired that this was caused to a large degree by the BMC team tasked with preparing the cars for the press launch underinflating the front tyres.
