Had a V8 roadster since 1979. Last driven in 1982, now under some form of restoration. Sean will have seen the rolling shell in France - unless he had his blinkers on!
Toured extensively with Mr Jarman (bet you thought he was a Datsun man) who had a tuned 1800cc version. The V8 had more power, more torque and better fuel consumption.
The Datsun of course is more sophisticated but its designers had the advantage of starting with a clean sheet of paper whereas the MG was a development of all that went before, 1940s and 50s stuff.
Before slating the MGB V8 you need to think of the later versions of the Z, inevitably cars are developed into heavy, higher, slower versions of the original.
I've driven more than a few Zs, most of them tuned and they always give me a thrill but being a tintop they don't have the same "feel" as my roadster.
I realise the original poster referred to the MGB V8 which of course does have a roof thus rendering the comparison more valid.
Albrecht as usual has hit the nail on the head.
Cheers
Steve
Hello Steve - yes, I remember the Jarman-blue Roadster collecting dust like my car...
And I thought that Mr J ran a Healey before moving directly to Zs when he discovered that Healeys handle like horse-carts on your dodgy Gloucs raods ?
I believed that the MGB was an all-new conception - it begins well enough :
The basic mechanical make-up of the MGB remained pretty much as before, but the structure was completely new. For the first time on an MG roadster (discounting the badge-engineered Midget), the bodyshell was an immensely strong monocoque, very effectively styled by MG’s Don Hayter, with assistance from Pininfarina.
And then goes downhill :
The front suspension and rack and pinion steering were carried over from the MGA, the whole assembly being mounted on a detachable crossmember. Of course, by 1962, this componentry was rather long in the tooth, being derived from that of the 1947 MG YA saloon, which was itself effectively a pre-war design. Not that this mattered, because the set-up had proven to be a delight in the MGA and continued to be so when installed in the MGB.
For the rear suspension, various kinds of coil spring arrangements were tried, but in the end the old enemy of cost management won the day, and the traditional arrangement of a live rear axle, sprung and located by simple leaf springs, was employed.
This somewhat agricultural solution was deemed to offer the best overall compromise between cost and effectiveness. The springing rates were much softer than the MGA’s, in order to achieve the comfort and civility the Engineers were chasing.
But I believe yours was and will be sufficently modifed under the skin to master the extra power ?
Like for like, stock to stock....I'd still prefer a European 240Z over the coupé V8. Surely the biggest competitor in the UK was the Capri 3.0 (power vs. price) and perhaps the Reliant Scimitar also ?
SE5 - 2469 (taking last known example, including Ogle GTE)
SE5a - 6635 (using 2500 & 4030 as first and last of 45 prefix)
SE6 - 551
SE6a - 3907
SE6b - 407 (plus a few development/prototype cars, last few dozen galv)