Healey vs MGA

[MisterB]

Hi Folks-
Been reading this thread along and it occurred to me that since Brit cars don't take up a lot of space.......... Own both!
Simple problem, simple solution!
Mike

 

[AN6-TX]

I think the point is that the MGC and the Healey both have a BMC 3 liter 6. Though the MGC motor is not the same as the motor found in a 3000.

Yes, this is what I was alluding to. Same bore and stroke, a tad lighter, a smidge shorter, about 5 hp less, and a different head and manifold. Engine color was the same...

 

[vette]

I own a BN6 and I had the pleasure of driving an MGA from LA to NYC, so I'm pretty familiar with the driving dynamics of both cars. Obviously the Healey is more powerful and torque as we know = fun. That said, neither car is built for comfort, but I might actually give the A the edge in the driver ergonomics department. I love the looks of the Healey but from a design standpoint, I think the A's design is more pure, in an Audi TT kind of way. While the Healey is sexy and swoopy, the A's form is built from more simple geometry, which, as an industrial designer, I find appealing.

I appreciate Nevets opinions about the cars and the fact that he has traveled some in both cars gives great support for what he has said, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned cruise ability about either car. In my earlier post I mentioned that I believe that the "A" & the "B" are superior in body structure to any of the LBCs. I say that from my experience in structural restoration of the A, B & A.H. and also from my experience in driving all three. As an example, the renown cowl shake of the Healey, the tight accuracy of the MG's rack & pinion steering and the smoothness of the MG's gear boxes. These 3 features alone make the MGs more enjoyable road cars and good track cars as well. Yet, I do love my Healey.

 

[HealeyRick]

I appreciate Nevets opinions about the cars and the fact that he has traveled some in both cars gives great support for what he has said, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned cruise ability about either car. In my earlier post I mentioned that I believe that the "A" & the "B" are superior in body structure to any of the LBCs. I say that from my experience in structural restoration of the A, B & A.H. and also from my experience in driving all three. As an example, the renown cowl shake of the Healey, the tight accuracy of the MG's rack & pinion steering and the smoothness of the MG's gear boxes. These 3 features alone make the MGs more enjoyable road cars and good track cars as well. Yet, I do love my Healey.

While researching an upcoming article, I learned the design of the Healey was called "robust" while the MGA was called "lean." What this referred to was longevity, not construction. The design of the Healey allowed it to be modified fairly easily and provide new models with changing the shroud or lengthening the body and chassis. This meant basically the same design could stay in production for 14 years. The designers of the A, on the other hand, since the car was more streamlined and "all-of-a-piece" found that it was almost impossible to come up with a facelift that would look good without changing the whole body ... hence the B.

 

[Bob_Spidell]

... the renown cowl shake of the Healey ...

I've always thought of it as mach buffet. The OD, of course, is warp drive.

 

[blueskies]

Vette, possibly I misinterpret your phrase "cruise ability," but the Healey is the faster of the two cars and capable of covering a greater distance in a shorter period of time. The later or larger displacement MGA cars mentioned above may be exceptions to this. I will concede that the MGA may be a more solid and simpler design, in comparison to the more exotic and stylish Healey. Up against a basic run-of-the-mill MGA, the Healey has a considerable edge in performance and looks, IMO.

 

[oxford]

The cruise ability of the Healey is the advantage in my opinion. Vette is right on that score but the tightness of the MG chassis, brakes and steering is noticable on windy roads. I live in the Adelaide hills so lots of windy roads but if I was touring I'd take the Healey. Really different cars for different purposes. As Mike suggested: keep both.
Matthew

 

[redhawk1689]

I watched the videos of your restorations of the MGA and then the Big Healey and I was suitably impressed that you would have an unbiased opinion about build and restoration work. Seriously though, I did a Google search of Austin Healey vs MGA and went to images. I sat down with a couple of people that weren't familiar with LBC's. In looking at the pictures, it was somewhat difficult (at first) to tell the 100-4 from the MGA! Of course, the differences started to show and it became apparent which was which. But, it shows that these two designs were very similar from a superficial view.
I just found this thread. I like both designs and consider them indicative of that wonderful 50's design which the later MG's and Triumph's just didn't have! I have had two MGA's and the last one has a 1622 engine with a T-9 transmission. I don't feel the need to blast away from the start but I can attest that the car has some pep! It's a blast to drive and, with the addition of OD, is very civilized at highway speeds! I'm not at all convinced that the Big Healey is twice the vehicle that the MGA is (that's going by current prices) but I am​ of the opinion that, with the larger engine, the Healey wins out. Both are wonderful vehicles IMHO.

 

[pdplot]

OK. You asked. I'll tell. About 150 years ago, I had the choice of a new 4-cylinder A-H or an MGA Twin Cam. I was trading in a Porsche coupe. (A story for another day). Both cars were about the same price - about $3,350.00 if my faulty memory serves me. I drove both cars on winding, bumpy CT back roads and in town. IMHO, the MGA was a tighter car with better brakes (4-wheel discs), R & P steering and no rattles. I could not stand the Healey 3-speed gearbox or the sloppy steering. The whole car felt looser if you know what I mean. For looks, it was hard then and now to beat the Healey. I bought the Twin Cam. My brother had a stock MGA and though it wasn't quite as fast as mine, it had lighter steering and handled better - the T-C was front-end heavy. I kept the MG for about 6 months. It ran terribly, fouling plugs. At one point, I had 3 different heat range plugs due to unequal cooling and got phone calls from as far away as Washington, DC from other Twin Cam owners. If you used your hand brake, the rear disks warped due to unequal cooling. As I had just entered law school, I traded the MG to Bob Grossman for a new VW Beetle sunroof and some money back - I think about a Grand. As some on the MG Board here may recall, my Twin Cam turned up a couple of years ago in poor condition - in Australia. Should I have bought the Healey? If I had kept both cars, assuming no rust, the Healey would have turned out to be a better investment - not as good as a 6-cylinder Healey but better than the T-C. There you have it.

 

[pan]

Simon, I agree that the MGA feels more responsive than a big Healey, but that is due to the rack & pinion steering as glemon suggests. The design of the MGA chassis is, though, archaic compared to the Healey. Geoff Healey took the 100 all welded design that extra step when he did the Sprite and that design formed the basis of the MGB.

 

[Bob_Spidell]

... Should I have bought the Healey? If I had kept both cars, assuming no rust, the Healey would have turned out to be a better investment - not as good as a 6-cylinder Healey but better than the T-C. There you have it.

Great story. From hearsay and my casual following of the price guides, the 100s seem to be valued at least as high as most 6-cyl cars--in part, due to scarcity and the 'true British roadster' cachet--except for BJ8s and 'outliers,' like tri-carb, center-shift BN6s (of which, IIRC, there were only 60-something built). 100Ms and 100Ses, of course, command a serious premium.

 

[busybrit]

Wow, what a can of worms you opened.
I have a 100 and have competed a ground up restoration of a MGA for a customer four years ago.
The MGA was black with maroon leather seats, and black carpets. It was a great looking car.



As far as looks,,, which one of my children would I sell? For looks I like both cars, but I have to say my 100 with a few mods such as a DW1 cam, gas flowed head, big SU's, a 3.54 diff and a five speed box,, wins hands down every time.

 

[KCM]

I own a BN6 and I had the pleasure of driving an MGA from LA to NYC, so I'm pretty familiar with the driving dynamics of both cars. Obviously the Healey is more powerful and torque as we know = fun. That said, neither car is built for comfort, but I might actually give the A the edge in the driver ergonomics department. I love the looks of the Healey but from a design standpoint, I think the A's design is more pure, in an Audi TT kind of way. While the Healey is sexy and swoopy, the A's form is built from more simple geometry, which, as an industrial designer, I find appealing.

 

[dougie]

I've often raced and competed against the MGA. They're more nimble and can be a challenge to overtake on tight tracks. A track with a decent straight, I can easily run past, dusting them in my '57 100-6 MM BN4.

 

[pan]

The Big Healey evolved quite a bit over its years of production, so I would imagine that the MGA is a lot more comparable to a 100 than a BJ8. Perhaps your BN4 is the sweet spot for the comparison? I have a TD rather than an A, so for me it really is like comparing two completely different eras of motoring. A 53 TD is really a 30's car, whereas my 54 100 is a new era. The A. is IMO. a jump slightly more into the future with the design of its chassis compared to the AH. The much smaller higher revving engine making it peppier. The T series MG's were designed for the sportsman, to be chucked about a bit. I think the A followed that formula to some extent to maintain the heritage.

Here is my TD taken at sunset on New Years Day 2017
View attachment 48231

G'day Simon,
Interesting that you consider the MGA chassis design as "a jump slightly more into the future". I beg to differ. The A was the last MG to have a separate chassis with the body bolted on and was superseded in 1962 by the MGB which used monocoque construction.
If you ever have the opportunity to inspect an MGB in its bare shell form you might notice a similarity to the Austin-Healey Sprite monocoque shell. Bigger, of course, more refined and probably stronger but the design concept is the same.
The Sprite, of course was the work of the design team led by Geoff Healey at the Donald Healey Motor Co in Warwick. The way I see it, the Sprite monocoque was a natural progression from the fully welded chassis/body of the Austin-Healey 100. By deleting the chassis rails from the front bulkhead back, deepening the sills, welding in the transmission tunnel and strengthening the rear bulkhead so that the rear suspension could be mounted from there, it was much lighter and had increased frame rigidity beyond that of the 100 and subsequent "big" Healey models. I see the Sprite design as the ultimate refinement of the 100 chassis/body. And, I believe that is the reason why, when he was asked which was his favorite Austin-Healey model The Skipper always answered "the Sprite". He was looking at his cars from a design standpoint.
So in my opinion, the MGA was the last of one era and the Austin-Healey the start of another!
Cheers,
Alwyn