Compared to its brother the MGB, the MGC is a harder car to find these days. While more than a half million MGBs were built between 1962 and 1980, just 9,000 MGCs were produced in 1967-69. The main difference? The MGC had a six-cylinder engine, while the MGB was a four-banger. This ’69 MGC GT (coupe) has been off the road for 20 years and is out in the woods in Fountain Inn, South Carolina. It’s available for as a parts car or a project for $5,000 here on craigslist.
The bodies were largely the same (except for the hood) with some modifications made underneath to squeeze in the bigger engine (2,912cc vs. 1,798cc). While the increase in power was impressive (total 145 hp with twin carburetors), the extra weight (200 lbs.) and different suspension components resulted in a car that didn’t handle as well as its inspiration. But as a cruiser, it excelled and was capable of doing 120 mph. Two body styles were offered, a roadster and a coupe (like the seller’s. The production of nearly 9,000 copies was split roughly down the middle between the two body styles.
As the story goes, this GT has been idle for perhaps two decades. Unlike most of these cars, this one was built with an automatic transmission, perhaps adding to the rarity of the vehicle today. It also has air conditioning which was installed after the car was built but before the seller purchased it. The British car’s time out in the great outdoors has resulted in rust in the doors and front fenders, but as is often the case with these English machines, there may be some in spots you can’t see.
The seller has not attempted to get it running but does believe it’s a complete package. He/she speculates that about 4,700 MGCs in total were imported to the U.S., which sounds about right given that the American market was a big target by British manufacturers like MG. Given the kind of attrition these automobiles have probably seen in the last 50 years, how many viable MGCs could be left?
You know, the entire time I had my MGB( 1973-1980) I never even knew there was a MGC. This was supposed to take the place of the AH 3000, but fell horribly short. The 6 cylinder ruined what was otherwise a great and capable car. The 4 cylinder did just fine in this car. The 6 was too heavy, and made it front heavy, more so. I wouldn’t rip on the automatic. It was a BW unit, I think and many cars used them, but rare. Initially marketed for women, numbers vary, but the automatic was sold in about 764 GTs, and 453 roadsters, of the 9002 MGCs built, and all but a handful came to the US. After going through several ragtops, and the “rags” used to plug the holes, I always wanted a GT. Certainly means a lot to a British fan, but I doubt many today will know why.
I remember a pal of mine’s dad having a go of one and not liking it because he’d driven it like a B and it understeered something rotten. I think that if you’re a bit less aggressive in your driving style, then you’ll make better progress ‘cos there’s more oomph from the motor. A good six is a nice thing.
Auto trans AND air conditioning? Awesome.
My early days in the early 70’s, I drove my 67 MGBGT and my brother’s 69 MGB. The MGC and CGT were nice thoughts with a 6 cyl, but the car’s were dogs! Too much front weight and they handled terrible. Then an automatic CGT was offered…. My question….Why? I would not restore a CGT back to original because it’s not worth it if you want a good driver… You are better off putting in a Rover V8 or small block GM V8. And…. they won’t lose their value! MGBGT V8’s done right are bringing big money! Why not a MGCGT V8 They can be lighter than the original 4cyl!! I like the looks of the CGT with it’s 15″ wheels and the hood bulge. If I wanted to get this car, that would be the route I would take. Get rid of that Healey 6 cyl. It was not a good fit. The Brits tried but failed on this one. I think they had an overstock on that motor and they tried a ‘stuff’ fit!!!
Project MGCs show up very infrequently. I had one last spring and had to fight to get 2 grand for it. Thought I had a winner, but, oh well. Good luck to this seller. Hope he gets his 5 grand for it.
The MGB was a good popular sports car and the Austin-Healey 3000 engine was a good powerplant…but they were just not a good fit with each other. It was almost like trying to shoehorn a 454 into a TR-6…the laws of physics are going to yield a clumsy lump.
MGCs are rare, and much rarer with an automatic…but they are not a very appealing restoration project, as you can spend a fortune to end up with a finished product not worth a third of what you put into it. While not all restorations are done for their monetary value, I can’t see too many people eager to buy this project…except at a much lower price and only for parts. I wish the seller good luck.
The MGC was unloved from the beginning. Another cynical BMC attempt to get maximum bucks from minimum bang.
I had an MGB GTV8 which was a much better car than the MGC. It was still a very poor old fashioned bag of nails.
The motor in the MGC is not the same as in a Healey. It is a later development, which as usual for BMC, means it is not as good as the Healey motor.
Mr. Horrocks, I referred to the MGC’s motor as that of the Austin-Healey 3000 because in a brief, TEN LINE post I was not going to start detailing small differences between the MGC powerplant and that of Donald and Geoffrey Healey’s sports car. In a figurative manner of speaking, most automotive writers don’t talk about the MGC without prominently mentioning the Austin-Healey 3000’s engine as part of the saga, because as of the demise of the Big Healey, its basic powerplant HAD BECOME AVAILABLE. Both the BJ-8 Healey motor and the MGC’s are close cousins, both derivatives of Austin’s C series six first developed for ambulances in the 1950s.
If, Mr. Horrocks, you wish to say I am wrong about something, then so be it…be my guest. Even the Austin-Healey applications of the C series had significant differences over the years, from 2.6 litres with siamese heads and 117 bhp to 2912 cc Mk III 148-50 bhp outputs…not to mention the variants of the engine used in various saloons and commercial vehicles… Thus, if you wish to split hairs about the MGC engine not being exactly the same as that of the Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III, the MGC version of the 2912 cc BMC C series variant was slightly shorter, slightly lighter…but with a flywheel four pounds heavier (32 lbs)…and rated at five horsepower less.
I don’t know if I would go so far as to say not worth restoring, but given that top dollar on this will never be high enough to pay for the costs of fixing it up, you would probably better off looking for a better car for a bit more money to start with.
I am a fan of the running refurbishment, but it looks like there would be a whole lot of refurbishment here before you could get anywhere near the running part.
As many have commented before, it is sad to see so many cars that end up like this one – left outside (or inside) to decay.
Guessing that there’s no title either. Lotta rust in those rockers.
It’s a shame that the MGC was/is so reviled as a poorly engineered mess. Triumph put a 6 in the TR4 – the TR5/TR250, lightly rebodied as a TR6 – which was an excellent car (I owned one of each). I guess Triumph managed to do a much better job reworking the suspension.
Tom: the tractor four and the more modern six had very similar weights, while the original MGB four and the Austin 2912 cc powerplant had a considerable weight difference. Like trying to stuff a 454 into a TR-6, the laws of physics start to overwhelm any tinkering with the suspension that one might try.
@Laurence – According to Wikipedia, the MGC engine was 209 lbs heavier than the 4 cyl engine. The TR5/250 curb weight (couldn’t find a reference to just engine weight, but there are few other differences beyond the engine) was about 130 pounds. The weight difference is therefore pretty significant for the TR as well.
(BTW, be careful referring to the TR4 engine as a tractor motor … that can raise some ire on this site!)
Tompdx: I am not quite sure what you are trying to tell me. We all know that the BMC/Austin six was quite a bit heavier than the already somewhat heavy MG 1800 four. As for calling the TR powerplant from the TR-2 to the TR-4 a “tractor” motor, rest assured I did not mean that in a negative manner. My very first car at age sixteen was a TR-4! Mentioning the tractor origins of this bulletproof engine was, if anything, a testament to its sheer ruggedness.
As for the weight differences between the TR-4 motor and that of the TR-5/250 2.5 litre, they were indeed quite close. The six was but a bored-out version of the small, two litre version used in saloons and the Spitfire-based GT-6 fastback coupe. The slightly heavier weight of the TR-5/250 over the TR-4 was due to its IRS over the TR-4’s lighter live axle and its heavier twin exhaust..
The Triumph motor might not have been a tractor motor, but it does share some components from Massey Ferguson (both plants were in Coventry).
Knowing this little tidbit has saved me a lot of money and time. I’ve had to replace an alternator and starter. I would have had to special order these parts but they are on the shelf at most of the agricultural shops here in rural Ontario.
Fountain Inn,S.C. had an awesome classic car junkyard back about turn of the century.Spent many happy days there.Lots of good,reasonable parts.Frontage Road,off the highway.Almost towed a 1930s Packard home to FL.
The 6 cylinder car was a good idea, but the better idea was the aluminum Rover V-8 mated to a 5 speed.
This translated into a better balanced and more powerful vehicle. The 6 cylinder fell between the cracks. Too bad, and I am into classics on a shoestring, but if I had a deep wallet I would go for the Rover/ Buick power plant.
And in a nutshell that is the tragedy of the straight 6.
As with the MGA Twin Cam, the penney pinchers at BMC shut off the tap for R&D money before Abingdon was ready for the market. The boys at Abingdon knew the C needed more development. Had they been allowed to finish the job, the result would have been a much better sports car.
What isn’t mentioned in this piece, or any of the comments so far is that we now possess the technology to “finish the job”. Downton Engineering designed proper manifolding now available through Maniflow. Together with some massaging on the head, and a lighter flywheel, these bits serve to “wake up the beast”. While they built cars with anti-sway bars back in the day, ASBs are much better understood these days and there are vast improvements, along with Spax front shocks, that really improve things in the handling department. I can attest to this from my own ’69 C/GT.
So I regard all MGCs as DIY projects. You can do what the factory would have done with a bit more time and money. And you end up with a world-class Touring car.
Even in original condition, my MGC/GT is an incredible Grande Tourer. I couldn’t begin to appreciate my own car just using it around town. My first 2500-mile trip in it was a true eye opener. Even sitting on my 84 year-old bones, I can drive this car 500 miles per day and get out still feeling fresh and comfortable. I did make one improvement in the drive train. My 4-speed overdrive-equipped car came from the factory with a 3.7 rear end. The automatic-transmission cars came with a 3.07 rear end. I put one of these in my car. A trifle overheard perhaps? Maybe, but oh so smooth and unruffled on the interstates if I have to long distances in little time.
From what I see, this car is salvageable. It will take a bit of welding, and yes it will turn you upside-down in the market. But the lucky buyer will love the result. It might be just a tad overpriced, but probably within negotiating range. Please, somebody, SAVE THIS CAR!!!!!
Some videos that may whet your MGC appetite.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/the-ultimate-sleeper-1969-mgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwsLo1swxf8
I had a 68 CGT that I bought it 78.
Ten years and it was already rusty, in fact two years later one of the rockers broke and it sagged in the middle, had it repaired by a mobile welding guy.
As said, with a 4-speed + overdrive it’s a great long-distance cruiser, but back in the day the engine was gutless below 3000 and thrashy above, and the handling was carp.
In 81, I totalled mine in a 50mph head-on, the engine made a great battering ram.
I can’t see not going upside down restoring this car. This is compounded by the fact that The Roadster Factory burnt to the ground a couple weeks ago. Now finding decent used spares will be like finding Hens teeth. Just repop stuff from Moss Motors now. Very sad time for British sports car owners.
I certainly agree that the Roadster Factory burning down is a great tragedy, but they were in a different market and their absence will not affect the availability of MGC parts. There is another tragedy, the death of Robert Kirk, the only North American specialist in MGC parts, that indeed has crippled the knowledgeable supply of MGC parts. I understand Kirk’s family is holding on to the assets and inventory of his business – perhaps in hopes of finding an appropriate new owner. In the meantime, there is a small network of knowledgeable MGC enthusiasts divided up between two clubs: the North American MGB Register (which caters to the MGC also), and the American MGC Register Association. There is help! Great help!! Start with the MGC forum on MG Experience.
Now let’s clarify something else. Of course you’re going to go upside-down restoing this car! Who, pray tell, restores any MGs or Triumphs for a profit? It doesn’t happen. Not if you truly restore the car. Ya, maybe a few guys make a few bucks here and there “fixing ‘em up”, but seriously now, there just isn’t enough margin on the value of these cars to cover a thorough restoration and turn a profit. But that’s not why we own British cars. It’s the pleasures: of working on them and then driving them. Do it for the love of the cars. They aren’t making any more of these, and MGC values are escalating – so you won’t get burned too badly. But if you’re hoping to turn a profit, let alone just hold your investment, you need to buy something more than fun – it has to be exotic – and you better keep it in spotless condition, etc, etc, etc. Then keep asking yourself if you’re having fun yet.
You wanna go upside-down really fast? Buy a new car, and watch what happens to the value the moment you title it. Before you’ve even driven it off the showroom floor, once titled, you’re upside-down.
I know, I’m not making any friends here. So I’ll shut up. Buy it, fix it up, restore it, drive it. Drive it a lot! Yep it will deteriorate. But think of the fun you’ll have. Cheers!
Couldn’t agree more. I have a ratty 1500 Midget and love it.
It is a bit better every year as I get around to fixing this or that.
One day it will get new paint.
As soon as the snow goes I’m DRIVING!
@bachldrs I think that comment should be salted away to be got out every time someone starts talking about being upside down.
You know what would be the least enjoyable thing for me… to have an immaculate restored car that I had to worry about.
I recall a chap in the TR Register, long-time owner of a TR3, said ‘I enjoyed my car much more before I restored it’.
@V8roller: Amen to that! I went a little overboard on my MG ZB Magnette. That was 14 years ago and the car still intimidates me. Result: I don’t enjoy it as much as I should.
I’ve done lots of work on my C/GT, including the interior, but it still wears its “Earl Scheib” type paint job that must be over 30 years old. It looked tired when I bought it over 20 years ago, and it hasn’t improved any with age. I worked hours buffing it before this picture – and that’s as good as it gets. Even so, it has NO rust, and still gets comments everywhere I drive it – and I DO drive it EVERYWHERE – without a care in the world. Up until about three days ago, that is. The white stuff and the greenish-blue stuff are both on the streets up here in Michigan – so my jollies are now exclusively within my shop.
And they are jollies! Amateur that I am, I love wrenching on these wonderfully simple old machines – doing stuff that was beyond my wildest dreams back 30 or 40 years ago. ‘Think it’s the learning part that is so satisfying…
I like it! Its a driver and its looks good for its age. If you paint it again, please get rid of the those ugly side reflectors. I am redoing a 69 BGT and it will look retro a few years back to a 66 BGT with no side markers and installing knockoffs instead of the octagon nuts! Viva la pre-70 BGT’s!!!
Sweet car there sir!
Thanks @Joe Bec. Note that I do have a winged KO on the left front – just to get an idea how it looks. It really does look better than the octagonal ones – at least on my faux Donlop wheels. ‘Think I will paint it – maybe next year but won’t detail the engine bay. That’s a change for me, but even at a robust age 84, I’ve gotta think that my future enjoyment of the car is somewhat limited, so I want to drive it rather than engage in time-consuming projects on it. I have other projects.
‘ Sure hope somebody takes on this red one for sale. I suppose it has some rust, but new floors, sills, inner sills, castle sections and doglegs should do most of it – and it ain’t rocket science. I’ve done quite a bit of this kind of stuff. It takes care and thoughtfulness and the ability to ask questions when you feel over your head – preferably before you make a serious mistake.
Such satisfying work! Wow, I’d like to get my meathooks and MIG wire into this car.
Well… I took another look at the pictures. Needs some door skin repair and a little on the front wings. Still worthwhile. I’m still bullish on this car. ‘Wonder if seller is considering offers…