While the MGB roadster hogged the limelight, the pretty Pininfarina-designed GT was the workaholic of the family. Introduced four years after the roadster, the GT was originally designed at Abingdon to satisfy customers who wanted a less noisy, more spacious, weather-tight ride. But BMC had a design contract with Pininfarina, so off the drawings went. The alterations that came back from Italy were minor but clearly improved upon the original sketches. The GT’s several advantages were noticed immediately at its introduction in 1965, including – thanks to better aerodynamics – a higher top speed. Some owners imagined that the cars handled better, as well, with a fixed roof steadying the chassis. This car is a ’74 which was burdened with rubber bumpers and an elevated ride height, thanks to US regulations. Still, these later cars have fans – a modicum of safety against the giant SUVs we face every day isn’t a bad thing! Mitchell G found this car for us – thanks!
The MGB’s BMC B-series motor benefited from long development beginning with the 1200 cc four-cylinder OHV installed in the Austin A40 Devon. By the time the MGB hit the pavement in 1962, that little four-cylinder displaced 1.8 liters and made 94 bhp. By 1965, the engine operated on five main bearings instead of three, but power didn’t change until 1968, when emission control equipment was mandated in the US. From then on, the motors were detuned and defanged, with 1974 being the last year for twin SU carburetors. A four-speed all-synchro overdrive-equipped manual handles gear changes. Note the gap between the tire and the curve of the wheel arch – these cars were hiked about 1.5″ on their suspensions in order to meet regulations around headlight height. At the same time, the subtraction of their sway bars also hampered handling. These insults can be remedied, but not cheaply.
The interior is Autumn Leaf vinyl, a typical pairing with the various blues that MG offered. The seller describes this car as immaculate in and out, and we can’t fault it after viewing the photos supplied. The dash, gauges, steering wheel (even its center boss!), door panels, and rear “seats” look great. The ashtray in the console is still present! By 1974, the glove box had reappeared after safety regs forced its removal in 1968; those of us who are sans glovebox store our documents in water-, mouse- and fireproof zippered pouches, or aftermarket map pockets.
The cargo area is quite tidy, in keeping with the rest of the car. I like to check the condition of those hatch struts which are a weird part that’s difficult to install without inflicting damage on the trim cap of its spring mechanism. Aside from that admittedly nearly irrelevant nitpicky item and its missing trunk seal (fits in the channel of the hatch and helps exclude fumes), this car looks great from the rear. It is advertised on craigslist for $9900 in Brighton, New York. If you fancy an uncomplicated, easily serviced, sporty GT, this example is worth a look.
Nice car but I could never get excited about an MG that doesn’t have a drop top.
I love the BGT, but HATE the rubber bumpers!
Yes, not only are they unsightly, they’re heavy. All in all, not BMC’s finest. Here’s mine. Retired now, to tour driving and the occasional commute, from being a daily driver for about ten years.
Michelle, Your car is a pure GT. It’s the way the way they were supposed to look. I am putting a 69 GT back together to look pre 67. Chrome bumpers, red rounded taillights, no side markers, wire wheels with knockoffs and a steel dash. I drove a 67 GT 50 years ago as my daily driver and I loved that car. Not fast, but solid and tight!!!
Nice one Michelle!
I love it. My dream car. Maybe I’ll still have one some day. No garage space at the moment. Enjoy her!
Nice car, handsome dogs.
Michele, you being an author, I have a question. How do you post a picture on the site? My method does not seem to work!! I am a member.
Well, I say, those “customers” that wanted a less noisy, more comfy ride, the GT was designed with women in mind, not that I can find any proof to verify that claim. Fact is, some GTs were equipped with automatics headed for the US, to encourage women buyers that didn’t want their hair messed up, and didn’t want to shift gears. Still, regardless of who bought them, they did offer a more sturdy feeling, more inside room, a HATCHBACK,,( years ahead of AMC) and from the neck down, was all MGB. While the roadster outpaced the GT almost 3 to 1. A total of 386,981 roadsters and 125,282 GTs were sold, making it one of the most successful sports cars of the time. The GT6 was close, but far as I remember, there were a lot more MGBGTs. I read, the ’74 MGBGT sold for $4495, when a roadster was about $4150. The GT was well worth the extra money, I thought.
Howard – I actually will seek out posts with your commentary. We were a Rambler dealer circa late 50’s to early 70’s so I have knowledge of all the factories that supplied American Motors, and have great memories of early morning getaways from Kenosha to head home. KAT was the American shipper at least on the west coast of most English cars, and my Father a always bid on any damaged in transit proffers. I learned at a young age that an adventurous partner could drive a stick, especially if the top would retract, and the many Sunbeams that came our way filled that bill. I am like all elderly – I wish I knew then what I know now.
Hi Dave, thanks, and my Rambler/AMc stories should hit home for you. I courted my ex-wife in my MGB, and tried, in vain, to teach her to drive it, and gave up. Some people just can’t get that coordination down. Good thing the MG was of stout build, and took the abuse, but I said, you’re right, you can’t get it. For them, the idea that the clutch disconnects motion is something they don’t understand.
KAT( Kenosha Auto Transit) was indeed big. I believe they had all IH cabovers and were based out of Illinois. They hauled AMC cars everywhere the train didn’t go.
The beauty of the higher roofline, the hatchback and the tighter feel makes it a different car from a plain B. I have had them both but prefer the GT. I also have and had a few Spridgets which solve the ‘top-down’ dilemma!
As I recall, had a Lt. that owned one in Germany in early ’70’s. He loved the car until it rained. They had a electric fuel pump that didn’t like the puddles.
My youthful ignorance caused me to discount anything with less than eight cylinders. Then my Father got a TR-3 from his usual Oak Park sources for my cousin who had just fled Idi Amin in Africa by motorcycle. We loaded my then 72 year old Grandma (who was ancient by my ten year old eyes) myself and my wanna-be Phil Hill father for the trip from Cd’A to Palo Alto. What an eye opener of driving dynamics. Even Grandma was having fun as long as we fed her every two hours (diabetes). Lighter and lower became real ideals for a budding driver. It’s obvious that the height spec detracts from the car, but I’d guess it is still lower and lighter than any pony car. Do not mis-interpret as I loved the four speed ponies ’til 1979, but by then I had owned several 240’s and one I’ll-fated 911that opened my mind to alternative chassis and engine. One of my favoriteeatures eve r is ft he three small windshield wipers on the last few years offerings. The Morris Garages hit way above their weight.
I read this out of courtesy, Michelle. I had a rubber bumper MGBGT in the 1980s. It was dynamically dreadful, the only car my wife has ever spun….
It was a good shopping car, though. I prefer MGB GT to drophead, in fact, but never rubber bumpered!
“Dynamically dreadful….” Excellent turn of phrase. Thanks for reading, always appreciate that. Just one note: the coverage of a rubber bumper car has given us all an opportunity to praise the earlier versions, right? A worthy endeavor!
I’ve said before that because of the large production numbers, there are no “rare” MGB’s, but there are some very desirable ones. The three main B’s (63 – mid-65), the 67’s (because they are the last of the Mk1’s) and in my mind, the rubber bumper GT’s. The small number of rubber bumper 74.5 GT’s tend to make them more desirable to folks who actively deal with the marque. depending on who you listen to, there were 1248 (Clausager) North American rubber bumper GT’s sent to the continent, I’ve had two. From here til the end of this post is “MY HUMBLE OPINION”. While there are lots of folks who complain that the rubber bumpers are Ugly, I have found that lowering the ride height to the pre RB spec produces a very attractive result (once again, I’ve done several). Very few people dislike the looks of the GT, and the rubber bumpers don’t detract from the GT as much as the roadsters. The comfort level in the later GT’s can’t be denied, and if you spend the $$$ on several engine upgrades (high compression pistons – minor port work on the head – distributor and carburetter tweaks) 100 hp isn’t that difficult to reach. Add an overdrive gearbox and you have a very competent 80 mph cruiser. With the aforementioned suspension mods, you have a very unique BGT that you won’t see copies of at the local cars and coffee, or even the most exclusive British car show.
Here’s our ’67 GT,with Shasta Dam in the background.
Beautiful! The BGT makes a superb sightseeing pal…..
This isn’t far from me and I spotted it the other day. It looked familiar to me and realized it was bought this spring off of the big auction platform that suggests you “bring” something. You can see a lot more of the car there, but I found the video of it running a bit concerning; it appears that they never let it idle and the occupant is lightly giving it gas the entire time.
Being close I was tempted to take a look, until I Googled what exactly is involved in converting a rubber bumper B to chrome. Which is the only way I would want one. Uh, a bit more than I thought. It’s not worth the effort or cost on this particular car. Speaking of cost, kudos to the seller for essentially asking what they paid for it.
While there were tens of thousands of chrome bumper MGBGT’s there were less than 1300 rubber bumper BGT’s. (once again) In my opinion, it would border on criminal to remove the bumpers and replace them with chrome. If you want a chrome bumper GT, why not go buy a chrome bumper GT?
Back in my early days ( early 70’s). I was toying with the idea of making ‘T-tops’ for my BGT. I preferred the hardtop with its usability however I do like open air driving. I also thought of of experimenting on a donor car BGT and making a small pickup. Fun ideas but they never panned out…. I guess I just didn’t have THAT much free time on my hands!! You really can’t compare the B and the BGT because they are really two different rides even though from the wipers down, they are the same vehicle…..
Joey Mec. T-tops – me too. ‘Looked really cool in my imagination. Never got any further. There are a few sun-roof GTs around – I thought about one of those too – but it would have to be a Webasto. ‘Never got a round tuit.
I did put A/C in mine – and it works well. ‘Wife LOVES it. ‘Will do A/C in the C/GT also – eventually.
Like minds, I guess!! My 67 BGT has a dealer installed Coolaire A/C unit back then. I put a cut off switch on the compressor so at long speed and idle the car didn’t lug as much. That A/C unit pulled a lot of power from that old 1800cc!
And here is my ’73 B/GT, and my ’69 C/GT too. We seem to be on a roll with Teal Blue ones here. I TOTALLY agree with Rufus’s “MY HUMBLE OPINION[S]” In fact, one could argue that whereas, in profile, the grill of the CB cars abruptly squares downward, interrupting the curve of the bonnet, the RB gently continues that curve all the way down to the bumper. I think that works perhaps a little better when the bumper has been painted to match the car.
In addition to handsome looks and comfort, B/GTs are about the most useful little cars on the planet. I’ve hauled 8-foot 2X4s in mine – with the hatch closed!
And yes, the RBs look better on GTs than on tourers (roadsters). There is another advantage to all RB MGBs. The RB was in the design phase at the same time the factory brought out the BOP/Rover 3.5 liter MGBGTV8. Anticipating a much higher production, along with the RBs all MGBs were adapted to fit that V8. That’s the reason the motor mounts were changed. Of course the V8s were never “federalized” for sale in the US, and the 1973 Oil Embargo pretty much killed any market appetite for V8s anyway, so fewer than 3000 of them were built. But if you want to convert a B/GT to V8, these engine conversions are practially bolt-in on RB cars.
Over the years, at least three RB GTs have slipped in and out of my ownership; each time with a V8 conversion in mind. One was a very nice running one-owner car with but 39,000 miles on it. It wasn’t broke, so I couldn’t screw up the courage to fix it. Two more were project cars and I had too many project cars already…
Nice looking rigs! My kind of BGT’s. Chrome bumpers!!! The other thing I have done is eliminating the stupid rear seat ( if you could call it that). The rear cargo area is extended with a hinged compartment over the battery compartments. My family used to run a catering restaurant and I always had to pick up the giant sheet cakes for weddings. The 67 BGT extended rear cargo area was perfect for that job!!
My second MG was a blaze BGT bought used for £700. A 1973 chrome bumper model with sunroof and tinted glass. Special order for the dealership owner’s spouse! It was 3 yo when I bought it with 12,000 miles on the clock. Kept it for two years and traded for a Vauxhall Firenza as the B was too slow away from the lights. Wish I had it now!