• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Silver Lady V8

Share this page

M

Mike Cook

Member
Offline
I have taken the Silver Lady to many shows and have been asked many questions regarding the cars history, specs and even why? The Peachtree MG Registry here in Atlanta have added to their web page an article that appeared in The Driver Magazine. It not only answers some of the frequently asked questions but may also give a view into MGB modifieds. www.peachtreemg.com/silverlady.htm
Please enjoy.
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tony barnhill:


Basil: Do we need a British V8 forum?<hr></blockquote>

for both of you?
tongue.gif
 
lol.gif
Well, since you asked, in a word: YES! &, there may be other enlightened souls lurking around the forum!
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tony barnhill:
lol.gif
there may be other enlightened souls lurking around the forum!<hr></blockquote>

but we all want v6's, can't afford those high dollar v8's
 
Hi Mike - I saw your car at the Grapevine, tx mg2002 meet and visited with you. Great car - you should be proud.

Lyle Shive
 
but we all want v6's, can't afford those high dollar v8's

BUT!!! I saw this killer Tiger with a 302 at the Victoria MG show!! WOW!!!! I was thinking, just imagine a Boss 302!!! Now we are talking!! I be thinking that any Rover V8 would be left behind!! I remember a ride in a '72 Boss in '72!! It was greeeeeaaaaat!! I know, but if we are going to go and switch everything from what it is supposed to be, I can like a Tiger, right????????
cheers.gif
angel.gif
 
Great article, Mike!

Basil: Do we need a British V8 forum?
 
Gary.
I think Basil should have a section on this board for modifieds, as not only V8's but V6's, Rotary's , Toyota's and even turbo's are going into MGB's. This is because people love to do their own thing and create a one of a kind that is "theirs".
Their are 2 ways to build a faster car, one is by using a bigger engine, the second is to build a lighter car. It has been said that engine size was the start of the demise of Detroit, because they kept building bigger and heavier engines, which of course made for "yank tanks" while the rest of the world worked on smaller lighter more sophisticated engines.That is why the Rover 4.0 ltr engine is so good, it actually started life as a Buick 215 but was rejected by GM and replaced by a larger cast iron motor. It is all aluminum, heads and block and is 40lbs lighter that the cast iron 4 pot MG lump. Replace the 8.13 to1 pistons with 9.75 pistons, change the cam, a little head work plus a few other changes and you have a 2000lb car with close to 200bhp.
Once you have driven a MG with a V8 you will want one. If we ever meet up at a show you can drive the Silver Lady and see what I mean.
Regards
 
&, Mike, Colin Chapman had the best of both: max horsepower that a light, well sorted out car can handle....along with horsepower, the suspension has to be modernized....&, I'm proving a V8 MG can come in under 2000 pounds & still be street legal! But, unsprung weight really has to be lowered - bunches! Then, sprung weight can be worked on.
 
Gary.
I think Basil should have a section on this board for modifieds, as not only V8's but V6's, Rotary's , Toyota's and even turbo's are going into MGB's. This is because people love to do their own thing and create a one of a kind that is "theirs".
Their are 2 ways to build a faster car, one is by using a bigger engine, the second is to build a lighter car. It has been said that engine size was the start of the demise of Detroit, because they kept building bigger and heavier engines, which of course made for "yank tanks" while the rest of the world worked on smaller lighter more sophisticated engines.That is why the Rover 4.0 ltr engine is so good, it actually started life as a Buick 215 but was rejected by GM and replaced by a larger cast iron motor. It is all aluminum, heads and block and is 40lbs lighter that the cast iron 4 pot MG lump. Replace the 8.13 to1 pistons with 9.75 pistons, change the cam, a little head work plus a few other changes and you have a 2000lb car with close to 200bhp.
Once you have driven a MG with a V8 you will want one. If we ever meet up at a show you can drive the Silver Lady and see what I mean.
Regards
 
That would be great Mike!! As you probably figgered, I am not just an MG fan but a bit of a motorhead!! As I look at cars or equipment I probably look different than most people!! Hopefully I will see your car soon, by all accounts it is really good!!
cheers.gif
I am hoping to come east next fall on a bit of a tour!!
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mike Cook:

<<SNIP>>
It has been said that engine size was the start of the demise of Detroit, because they kept building bigger and heavier engines, which of course made for "yank tanks" while the rest of the world worked on smaller lighter more sophisticated engines.
<<SNIP>>

Regards<hr></blockquote>

Hey Mike,

Again I love your car. Great article in Driver too BTW. But while I would agree with everything else you said – I will have to respectfully disagree with the statement above.

We Americans as a nation have been notorious throughout our history for getting caught with our collective paints down in just about every war we’ve ever been involved in. The American auto industry's mindset in the late 60s & early 70s is IMO just an extension of that.

But it was a little thing in 72 called the OPEC oil crisis is at the hart of what happened to the American auto industry. As oil prices soared, folks started opting for the smaller more economical vehicles. But back then folks didn’t pick these cars for their styling, or because they where engineering marvels. People flocked to them because they where cheap, frugal and sipped fuel. Words you’d never used to describe American cars at that time.

So IMHO to blame the American auto industry for their demise is kind’a like kind’a like saying it was Americas’ fault that the Japan attacked Peril Harbor.

cheers.gif
 
Interesting debate here. Seems to me you could also bring in environmental concerns and controls, global warming, the cost of beef...on and on.

Could it be that there were several contributing factors rather than any one?

Regardless, it's hard to argue that the industry has come a long way, on all shores. One of my fantasies has been to travel back in time, say to 1967 or so, with one of the current offerings just to see what the reaction would be. Can you imagine driving a Viper or a BMW roadster onto your high school parking lot?
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mickey Richaud:
Interesting debate here. Seems to me you could also bring in environmental concerns and controls, global warming, the cost of beef...on and on.

Could it be that there were several contributing factors rather than any one?

<<SNIP>>
<hr></blockquote>

I don't really see this as a debate.

Perhaps it’s a poor testament our make-up & shortcomings (both then & now), but I tend to believe that none of those issues combined would have gotten us to where we are today. Oh sure environmental issues would have eventually taken their toll & forced change in the automotive industry. But as much as it pains me to say this most consumers don’t really sit-up and pay attention until it hits us in our wallets.

Hindsight being 20/20 from a purely business standpoint – I feel that the foreign auto manufactures where the true benefactors of the oil crisis of the early seventies. While they already had economical products to market, the American automakers where scrambling to meet the new demand for economy cars. Thus allowing overseas competitors to focus on improving an already existing product. Gaining an advantage that would last decades.

A secondary, warm & fuzzy benefit ol'Mother Earth was an accelerated environmentalists’ movement. Thanks to impart to a more "aware" auto buying public. We now have cars that pollute less & are far more economical, over a shorter time than they ever would have been without oil crisis.

cheers.gif


[ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: Bret ]</p>
 
Bret -

Yep, cars are more economical, pollute less, and, incredibly, much more power out of less displacement. Not to mention reliability. I remember it being a big deal if a car made 100k miles without major repairs. Now they're just getting broken in at that point. Of course, we're driving much more now as well.
 
Great points everyone.
I was not here when the "gas guzzler" ruled the highway, but have we not travelled a full circle, when you look at the SUV's made in this country compared to the European and Asian models, is there not a "size thing, bigger seems better" with US models that translates to less fuel mileage etc. exactly at the time ther is a fuel shortage for the forseeable future. Is this history repeating itself?
Mike Cook
 
The notion of size being “everything” is defiantly a contributing factor. But in the case of SUVs its not unlike any other vehicle type that has ever been in demand through the years – face it, we’re talking status. Most folks don't need'em, but they still want'em.

That said: It must be noted that a modern vehicle is far more capable, dependable, efficient and even safer than a comparable vehicle from 20 or 30 years ago.

A great SUV example of this would be to do a side by side between the Suburban of old and this model year. I have a couple of friends with relatively similar SUVs that claim to be getting something like 15 to 17 MPG in town. If I’m remembering correctly I don’t think my dad’s old Suburban couldn't muster anything above 6mpg going down hill with a tail wind. Heck even most automotive & consumer type magazines note that while there’s always room for improvement – the average SUV numbers are only a few MPGs off from the averages for sedans.

Next time you get the chance to read over a Car and Driver magazine, open up to the Road Test Digest. It might not be a big stretch of the imagination to say that a Honda Accord would be a good bet as a “fuel efficient vehicle”. But did you know that a 01 Corvette (0-60 in 4.3secs & 13.1secs ¼ mi), gets just one mile per gallon less than the Honda in EPA city testing? 19 vs. 20 MGP.

Yes indeed we all have come a long way since 1972.

thirsty.gif
 
Back
Top