The MGC was one car when it was launched in 1967. But it is another car altogether today. The physical aspects of this transformation are rooted in modern cures for the many complaints about handling and heaviness when the car was new: these defects can be alleviated by using contemporary versions of shocks, bushings, and tires. Meanwhile, we’re human, and nostalgia grips us: what we once reviled, we now appreciate, contributing to the MGC’s freshly acquired glow. Here on craigslist is a 1969 MGC roadster with an asking price of $34,000, located in Valleyford, Washington. Curvette sent us this tip to review, and yes, it’s expensive – let’s find out why.
The MGC – like many a car emerging from Abingdon – took years to develop. The choice of engine was one stumbling block, but eventually, chief engineer Sid Enever revised the Austin-Healey 3.0-liter six-cylinder, beefing it up with seven main bearings, reworking the head, and making at least a partial attempt to lighten the 600 lb lump. This effort met with minimal success: the new engine still registered 200 lbs heavier than the four-cylinder B-series 1800. Shoehorning the mill into the MGB’s engine bay was also a trick, requiring two alterations to the bonnet – a small blister to accommodate the 1.75″ SU carbs, and a larger bulge to clear the length of the block. Even at that, the engine was mounted forward in the bay, playing havoc with the car’s balance. The suspension was revised to handle the weight, at the cost of handling the handling: the car gained a reputation for oversteer. After all that, output was down to 145 hp from the Austin-Healey’s 150, and the heavy flywheel made acceleration feel ponderous. Originally conceived to carry both Austin-Healey and MG badges, the MGC met with strong resistance from Donald Healey, who wanted nothing to do with it. I prefer the stock valve cover, a minor quibble in the background of near-perfection here.
The cabin is as nice as every other part of this car, with color-matched piping on the black seat upholstery, and meticulous attention to details – from the shine on the chrome trim to the proper satin polish on the steering wheel spokes. Note the lack of glove compartment – that lasted from 1968 through 1971, as MG struggled to find a way to give occupants a safety-compliant cubbyhole. The trunk is carpeted and contains the spare.
The license plate refers to a production total of only 9002 cars. While we’re back here, note how straight the bumper sits, the perfect chrome plinths in the rear lamp corners, the great gaps, the way the convertible top boot snaps all … snap. It’s hard to fault this car. Today’s collector understands the MGC as more of a GT car than a carve-the-curves sports car. Fine examples are selling for around $20k; specially prepared cars are breaching $40k. I’m not sure I’d pay the seller’s ask here, but he’s not completely crazy, given the rising interest in this offbeat model.
The MGB and the Big Healey were loved by the sports car crowd and supplied Britain with much needed dollars. However by the late 60’s they were getting long in the tooth and Japan was producing clones with much of the charm and none of the leaks. Maybe the Brits thought that the smooth power of the Healey 6 with added main bearings grafted into the MG body would be the car that kept the Japanese at bay. Sadly it was just too much iron stuffed into too little space. It’s a shame because they had the Buick/Rover aluminum V8 available and that would have made a very desirable combination.
Not only would have, but later did.
This is a beautiful example of a redone stock MGC. The C was interesting when it came out trying to make a stronger version of a B. That motor was never right for the idea and they were incredibly nose heavy. My first car was an early BGT and 55+ years later I am putting an early BGT back together. I preferred the B over the C and if I wanted a more powerful version, I would go the route of the small V8 or V6 conversion. The 4cyl is enough today for me. This C appears to be an investment car due to its condition and rarity, yet I don’t believe the B or the C is an investment car. They should be driven. $34K seems to be quite high although this car seems to have no expense spared in its condition. It’s nice to look at and maybe it belongs in a museum. The only appearance part of the 69 models that I do not like are the first year side marker reflectors and the head restraints. I grew up with the early models and disliked what was done to the marque in its later years, appearance wise and power detuning……… This car is right for someone…………..
I’ve had many MGBs and one MGC. The C was truly a different driving experience with smooth and plentiful power at speed. Would love to have another. Given today’s parts and restoration costs, I’d imagine it would be very easy to spend $30K to make a C this nice.
Beautiful car, and as a past owner of 2 MGB’s and a present owner of a nearly identical MGC I can testify that all you need to cure that understeer is a good set of 195/65R15 tires…
Purists will also note the non original seats from a later MGB, and the spinners which should be octagons on North American cars and the rear orange indicator lenses which should be red. On the other hand the car has the highly sought after period aftermarket center console.
Top money for a C, but a restoration to this level can cost more.
Twice over the years I came close to adding a ‘C to the fleet to compliment my ’73 ‘B, but never wound up pulling that trigger. That heavy 6 definitely changed the character of the car making it an interesting cruiser… very different from the 4 which – even with OD – gets a little “busy” on the typical American highway. Modern tires and minor suspension tweaks can go a long way in addressing the front end weight bias… but it will still be there when pushed… the ‘C will never be a slalom champ. This example appears nice, but $34k seems quite high to me… I don’t doubt that money was spent to get this car in the condition it’s in, but I just don’t think ‘Cs are in that territory… but we’ll see I guess… I frequently have been surprised by how much people are willing to pay for things.
I briefly had a C if I remember suspension wise every thing forward of the bulkhead is different torsion bars rather than coil springs. Still an entertaining car.
I was just buying my first car when the MGC came out to very faint praise. One of my chums swapped an unreliable S2 Elan for a 6 month old C, but went back to an Elan S4 within a few months.
Aprt from all the chassis problems, why buy a car which everyone thinks is an MGB anyway? The only MGB I have owned was the MGB GTV8, as mentioned above. Better than the C, but still nothing to love about it. Good shopping cars and not bad sports cars if you change every mechanical component on the car.
I was just buying my first car when the MGC came out to very faint praise. One of my chums swapped an unreliable S2 Elan for a 6 month old C, but went back to an Elan S4 within a few months.
Apart from all the chassis problems, why buy a car which everyone thinks is an MGB anyway? The only MGB I have owned was the MGB GTV8, as mentioned above. Better than the C, but still nothing to love about it. Good shopping cars and not bad sports cars if you change every mechanical component on the car.
You asked why one would buy a car which everyone thinks is an MGB ?
Well, in my case I don’t really care what everyone thinks – I just always liked the MGB (and had a couple), but wanted more torque and cruising abilities. It’s also fun to own a car that almost nobody knows :)
I’ve driven a number of Cs. The MGC turned out to be a great cruising car rather than a speedy car. Rumor has it that they put an MGB hood (bonnet in British terms) on the C and slammed it on the C engine, then produced the C hood with the bumps in the hood.
That would be a very logical, very British, bit of make do.
Thank you Michelle for a very nice write up. I have owned one of these for 50 years now. From back in the days when people asked, “Why do you own one of those?” It’s nice to see that they are finally getting some long due respect.
Thanks Michelle, you’ve convinced me I don’t want one of these. AN MGB with OD served me very well back in the day.
Nice car but wrong seats. In 69 they never came with different color piping. That ended in 68. Steering wheel is also incorrect. If the drive train and brake booster have been rebuilt the price for this car is market correct. While it got very bad press when it was launched due to low front tire air pressures the reengineered front end with torsion bars did provide a 55/50 balance. Upgrading the suspension with modern components like tube shock all around and thicker sway bars,etc vastly improves the handling of these cars. How do I know? I’ve owned 4 of them. The last one was a Sebring tribute (Red) I had built that just sold on BAT back in the fall of 2025.
This is an absolutely beautiful restoration. I can’t even begin to imagine how many labor hours were poured into this MG. I would think that the inline 6 would definitely make acceleration effortless. I’d be afraid to drive it and ruin it though.
Kind of funny, the entire time I had my MGB, say, ’73-’82, I never knew there was such a thing. A 6 cylinder in an MGB? Get out,,aye mate, tis’ true. While I had experience with the 6 in my brothers Big Healy( ’58 100-6 with ’64 3000 motor) and a fantastic car in its own right,, I never thought the MGB needed that. With O/D, the 4cyl. served me well. I read, the MGC was not a big hit in the UK(?), and most were exported. Almost half, 4256 came to the US alone. It was also interesting to note, most MGC-GTs were automatics, targeted for women. I think the MGC was a knee jerk reaction to the 240Z or TR6, and probably was best left alone. This is an unbelievable example of one.
Nice example, but I would prefer a CGT version. My B roadster, after a large aftermarket investment campaign, makes enough horsepowers and torques to compete with a 6 cyl version,(thank you Moss Motors) and is nimbler to boot, I would wager. Still, they aren’t making any more of these and I’ll bet it’s a great highway cruiser!
So it makes sense that the 4 cylinder is called the MGB and the 6 cylinder is called the MGC, but it doesn’t make sense that The V8 is called the MGB GT V8. Why isn’t the V8 called the MGD GT?
Because MG used the same body shell as the BGTs.
While I will never own an MGC, I am partial to the hardtop BGT version. I really do like the bulged hood, though and the 15″ wire wheels! I have the 15″ wires for my 69 BGT project and maybe I’ll spring for an aftermarket C bonnet……(probably not)…. The worst travesty, when I have attended British car shows, is the MGC-GT with an automatic! Yes, I know the reason why they were made and brought to the states…. It just turns me off not seeing that third pedal. Back then, I said, buy a Chevy if you want an automatic! Yikes!! BTW, I live in Vermont in my later years and a 4cyl is just fine for our roads. They are mostly, windy, twisty back roads where you don’t go over 50 anyway….Upshifting and downshifting with a throaty exhaust makes it feel like you are going fast!!