Jump to content


Photo

MGC Engine Rebuild


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#1 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 May 2008 - 09:53

A friend is rebuilding an MGC 6 cylinder engine. Most components have been sourced (after a lot of research and great difficulty)....for example, a well known Australian piston supplier was recently taken over and guess what? The people who had all the corporate knowledge were set aside and the operation moved interstate...the company may never recover.

The OEM market is being flooded by cheap crap from countries not normally complimented for their engineering excellence :rolleyes:

A further complication is that trusted, tradional suppliers are sourcing parts from these not so excellent parts suppliers...for example, a firm which shares their name with an english knight considered very unlucky not to be a world drivers champion.

To be specific, timing chains and oil pumps are the main concern for my friend at the moment (they are too important to take chances with!) so....

Can anyone recommend a reputable, reliable, trustworthy source of MGC engine parts anywhere in the world?? :wave: Thanks in anticipation :up:

Advertisement

#2 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 May 2008 - 13:51

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
A friend is rebuilding an MGC 6 cylinder engine. Most components have been sourced (after a lot of research and great difficulty)....for example, a well known Australian piston supplier was recently taken over and guess what? The people who had all the corporate knowledge were set aside and the operation moved interstate...the company may never recover.


I used to work for a small company of ~30 folks that was purchased by a much larger outfit that more-than tripled the # of employees in the local market and had a large number of international operations. Cue 20% attrition. Within a year of that acquisition, said company was acquired by a huge multi-national with it's fingers in everything (literally). Cue another 20%. I've been lucky in my particular circumstances in that they've not done anything to drive my people out. Another division however was told they were moving from City A, State A to City D, State Z. 53 of 54 employees including all the engineering and R&D staff handed in their resignation but the division was still moved. Ain't big business great?

:wave:

#3 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 10 May 2008 - 22:14

Well... since the original parts were manufactured around Birmingham, England in the mid-20th century, one can only hope they were not copied too exactly. :D

#4 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 May 2008 - 23:38

Originally posted by McGuire
Well... since the original parts were manufactured around Birmingham, England in the mid-20th century, one can only hope they were not copied too exactly. :D


Thanks Canuck...yeah, sign of the modern world...please move on for your own peace of mind and don't let it get you down because for every small victory for common sense there are a hundred stooopid ones imposed by anonymous bean counters or corporates with agendas.

As for McGuire...I'm cut to the bone friend! :p

[but seriously, the OEM parts made for mass produced vehicles a few years back were generally made to a decent standard because engineering shops/manufacturers were plentiful and viable (I know, that can be easily challenged and there are always exceptions to the rule). Nowadays, if you can't produce stuff for peanuts off-shore you ain't in the race...a bearing race for example :rolleyes:....we are going backwards :down: ]

#5 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,982 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 12 May 2008 - 11:52

The MGC engine in essence is a BMC lorry/agricultural engine. Nothing in it surely can't be precision stuff! :lol:

#6 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 506 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 13 May 2008 - 09:19

I can put you in contact with Bill F, of Australian Precision Engine Parts. He used to make custom forged pistons in Melb and still does the odd set. He is very good.
Re chains etc, all I have see has been from india, including some parts sourced from Moss as you allude to. I think you have little choice.

#7 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 13 May 2008 - 11:28

Originally posted by Fatgadget
The MGC engine in essence is a BMC lorry/agricultural engine. Nothing in it surely can't be precision stuff! :lol:


The company had high hopes for the new generation six...it was going to be their new power unit that would set the world on fire....oh well :rolleyes:

(come to think of it...with Lucas electrics...any engine they used could have set the world on fire :blush: )

#8 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 13 May 2008 - 11:30

Originally posted by NRoshier
I can put you in contact with Bill F, of Australian Precision Engine Parts. He used to make custom forged pistons in Melb and still does the odd set. He is very good.
Re chains etc, all I have see has been from india, including some parts sourced from Moss as you allude to. I think you have little choice.


Thank you...will get back back to you if needs be....I wish we had asked for help earlier :blush:

#9 MichaelM

MichaelM
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 13 May 2008 - 20:51

You might get in touch with Denis Welch Motorsports.
While they are known for big Healey stuff, I noticed they also
supply MGC stuff including endless timing chains (the ones
for the Healey are very good indeed).

see:

http://www.bighealey...hp?id=33&page=2

The vernier sprockets they offer make life pretty simple for
cam adjustment.



Michael

#10 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 May 2008 - 09:46

Originally posted by MichaelM
You might get in touch with Denis Welch Motorsports.
While they are known for big Healey stuff, I noticed they also
supply MGC stuff including endless timing chains (the ones
for the Healey are very good indeed).

see:

http://www.bighealey...hp?id=33&page=2

The vernier sprockets they offer make life pretty simple for
cam adjustment.

Michael


Thanks MM...we will look into that...all chains located so far are made in India (Rolon brand), so the search is on for some new old stock that might be pre-Indian made e.g. old Reynolds, not recent Reynolds (Indian made).

#11 MichaelM

MichaelM
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 15 May 2008 - 12:39

Looking at a spare Denis Welch timing chain, I see it is made
in Germany by Iwis Ketten.
Hope that helps.

Michael

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 May 2008 - 18:01

Originally posted by Fatgadget
The MGC engine in essence is a BMC lorry/agricultural engine. Nothing in it surely can't be precision stuff! :lol:


While the sentiment is correct, this is in fact a long way from true...

The C-series engine, from which the MGC engine (also used in the Austin 3-litre Deluxe sedans) was derived, was never intended to be used or in fact used in anything more commercial than a Morris Isis Countryman. It was a long way removed from the truck engine of the day, which had its beginnings in the late thirties and spawned the engines used in the A70, Gipsy, taxis and Healey 100/4.

There are some family resemblences, but it ends there.

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
The company had high hopes for the new generation six...it was going to be their new power unit that would set the world on fire....oh well


Hardly the case...

The 7-bearing C-series engine came at a time when Leyland already had its toe in the door. They had the Rover 3.5 V8 and overhead cam engines either in production or on the drawing board. It was a stop-gap at best.

#13 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:14

Originally posted by MichaelM
Looking at a spare Denis Welch timing chain, I see it is made
in Germany by Iwis Ketten.
Hope that helps.

Michael


Michael...many thanks...Iwis Ketten look like finest cherman engineering :up:

http://www.iwis.com/index.php?id=465

#14 AS110

AS110
  • Member

  • 293 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 18 May 2008 - 02:11

It's not like BMC to use a one off engine in a low production model,it wasn't their way.The C Block was changed to 7 mains at the same time as the B Block went to 5....but like the B Block,there will be a lot of stuff interchangeable.BMC were renowned for getting as much life as they could out of any item - the famous case of the 1800 doors being used for the Maxi and 3 Litre was just typical.So if you extend your search beyond the blinkered MGC,and look at other models that used the C Block you might have more success.And the C Block was used in commercial vehicles.The was a guy here in NZ who had a huge supply of obsolete BMC parts,but I'm pretty sure he's out of business now.

Check out this site for C Block info.

http://home.zonnet.n..._Enginecode.pdf

#15 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 May 2008 - 13:06

Originally posted by AS110
It's not like BMC to use a one off engine in a low production model,it wasn't their way.The C Block was changed to 7 mains at the same time as the B Block went to 5....but like the B Block,there will be a lot of stuff interchangeable.BMC were renowned for getting as much life as they could out of any item - the famous case of the 1800 doors being used for the Maxi and 3 Litre was just typical.So if you extend your search beyond the blinkered MGC,and look at other models that used the C Block you might have more success.And the C Block was used in commercial vehicles.The was a guy here in NZ who had a huge supply of obsolete BMC parts,but I'm pretty sure he's out of business now.

Check out this site for C Block info.

http://home.zonnet.n..._Enginecode.pdf


Thanks AS110....nice pick-up you have there...yeah, the friend I am helping is an MG expert...the whole point of the exercise is to highlight the difficulty of obtaining quality parts for cars older than ten years these days :(

#16 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 19 May 2008 - 18:00

I ran into the same problems with my 1972 TR-6.Solution pull the overweight inline 6 and drop in a Rover V-8.Lost almost 400 lbs and had much more neutral handling.

#17 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 20 May 2008 - 09:52

Originally posted by Rosemayer
I ran into the same problems with my 1972 TR-6.Solution pull the overweight inline 6 and drop in a Rover V-8.Lost almost 400 lbs and had much more neutral handling.


Yep...nice thing to do...however, have you looked under the hood/bonnet of an MGBV8...not as much room as the Triumph. Besides, my friend wants to keep it purty close to original (with all its shortcomings :) )

#18 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 May 2008 - 21:54

Originally posted by AS110
It's not like BMC to use a one off engine in a low production model,it wasn't their way.The C Block was changed to 7 mains at the same time as the B Block went to 5....but like the B Block,there will be a lot of stuff interchangeable.BMC were renowned for getting as much life as they could out of any item - the famous case of the 1800 doors being used for the Maxi and 3 Litre was just typical.So if you extend your search beyond the blinkered MGC,and look at other models that used the C Block you might have more success.And the C Block was used in commercial vehicles.The was a guy here in NZ who had a huge supply of obsolete BMC parts, but I'm pretty sure he's out of business now.

Check out this site for C Block info.

http://home.zonnet.n..._Enginecode.pdf


That site agrees with me, these engines were never used in a commercial vehicle ex-factory...

The list doesn't include the larger engine, however, which was used in commercials in both 4-cyl and 6-cyl versions. fours ranged from 2.2 to 2.6 litres, sixes from 3.5 to 4.0 AFAIK. They were a pre-war Austin design which I'm sure a lot of people think became the C-series... but it didn't.

#19 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 May 2008 - 21:58

Originally posted by Rosemayer
I ran into the same problems with my 1972 TR-6.Solution pull the overweight inline 6 and drop in a Rover V-8.Lost almost 400 lbs and had much more neutral handling.


What did you change apart from the engine? 'Almost 400lbs' is a lot, and the TR6 engine was derived from the 2-litre Triumph unit. this cannot possibly have been as heavy as, say, the C-series engine (625lbs carburettor to clutch... I weighed one myself).

You might well have benefitted from a more rearward placement of some of the weight, of course.

Advertisement

#20 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 22 May 2008 - 13:11

Originally posted by AS110
It's not like BMC to use a one off engine in a low production model,it wasn't their way.The C Block was changed to 7 mains at the same time as the B Block went to 5....but like the B Block,there will be a lot of stuff interchangeable.BMC were renowned for getting as much life as they could out of any item - the famous case of the 1800 doors being used for the Maxi and 3 Litre was just typical.So if you extend your search beyond the blinkered MGC,and look at other models that used the C Block you might have more success.And the C Block was used in commercial vehicles.The was a guy here in NZ who had a huge supply of obsolete BMC parts,but I'm pretty sure he's out of business now.

Check out this site for C Block info.

http://home.zonnet.n..._Enginecode.pdf


MGC Owner speaks!
I am afraid AS110 is only a little bit right. The theory is correct, borne out by the practice in many examples BEFORE LEYLAND TOOK OVER! The short lived BLMC was formed just after the MGC was launched. The engine had been planned by BMC to be the new 6 cylinder engine into the future. They even designated both old and new engines as C type engine - nothing to do with the name of the MGC, that was pure coincidence. The new engine was used in just 2 cars (the MGC and Austin Princess) before the Leyland based management killed it off after its own ineptitude made sure of poor sales. There has never been a 6 cylinder petrol replacement since (except for Leyland Australia for a short time). Leyland/Austin/Rover has instead used only 4 or 8 cylinder petrol engines ever since.

The new 6 cylinder (as used in MGC) shared nothing with the previous 6 cylinder (as used by Austin, Wolseley, AH and Austin trucks) except the bore and stroke. Everything is different. Even, as I have discovered this week, the timing gear is different, which could easily have been made the same. The two engines are totally different and do not appear to share anything out of the parts bin.
END

#21 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 May 2008 - 21:06

I recall when these cars were new-ish...

One well known historic racer who had a workshop where this sort of thing would finish up looked at one. He initially thought it was a Freeway engine, so I guess (I've never had a close look at one) they're a tad shorter than the original C-series engine.

It's hard to believe that it was planned as a long term solution to anything, however, when they'd put the SOHC Marina engine into the works already and it could be, as was shown by Leyland Australia, expanded to become a six. Not that it was an alarmingly modern design anyway.

#22 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 May 2008 - 00:35

Dredgeing up an old post...

Now, the A95 engine and the MGC/Austin 3-litre De Luxe engine...

I've not seen the latter, but some who have say it's actually a 7-main
bearing version of the Austin Freeway engine, enlarged to 3-litres. I don't
believe it could be, but all accounts about its reliability suggest that it
may well be true.

The C-Series 4-main bearing engine of the Isis, 6/90, A90 Six, A95, A105,
Morris Marshal, Austin Healey 100/6 (is that all of them?) was 2639cc, had
bolt-clamped little ends, angle-split big ends and a few other things the
later 2913 (?) cc engine had. Oh, that's right, there was a Riley 2.6 as
well... in the Pathfinder body.

The later engine had fully floating gudgeon pins, and in the A99, 6/99 and
first series 3-litre Princess Vanden Plas had the same head (perhaps bigger
valves?) as the earlier engine. Then, about when the A110, 6/110 and
correspondingly updated Princess came out, there was a larger diameter log
manifold cast into the side of the head.

The Austin Healey 3000 had the 12-port head that was made specifically for
it, though it's possible some were sold with the log manifold.

and what our MGC owner said....

Substantially true, though the guy was probably quoting out of a book. The
MGC (and Austin Princess) engine was going to be the new BMC 'C' series
engine. It had the same bore and stroke as the old engine, retaining
2912cc, but everything else was changed. It was made with the new thin wall
casting techniques, but still weighed a ton. It had 7 main bearings instead
of 4 and a 12 port head with a separate alloy manifold. Leyland canned it
after only 2 years of limited production. The engine went into 9000 MGCs
and about 2500 Austin Princesses (these looked exactly like the Australian
Kimberley/Tasman, but were North/South engine and rear wheel drive).

#23 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,890 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 24 May 2008 - 12:34

Excuse my butting in but WTF is an Austin Princess with a MGC motor that looked exactly like the Australian
Kimberley/Tasman? There was no such thing. Does he mean the Austin 3 litre? (The Princess and Austin names were long seperated by then.)

This is the Austin Kimberley..
Posted Image

This is the Austin 3 litre.
Posted Image

As you can see they look exactly the same. :drunk:

#24 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 May 2008 - 01:49

At least we achieved something...

We've found a car that gets uglier as it gets older!

I find it very confusing, by the way, when Mick posts in the way he's done here. It's hard to work out what's a quote and what's fresh posting. I think he's saying that his friend reckons I'm quoting out of a book, while the fact is I wouldn't even know where to find a book on this subject. This is all from my recollection of some close association with these engines.

The 'Princess' he's confusing in here, or the one I'm assuming he's getting confused about, was a very different looking car. And it had the Australian-derived OHC six.

#25 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 May 2008 - 08:30

Quote
Yes, the Austin 3 litre. I read somewhere this car was called an Austin Princess, after the older models. Perhaps I was mistaken/misled. Yes the body is the same - only the grille has changed - more badge engineering from BMC/BMH/Leyland. Underneath there must be significant differences to accommodate the different front/rear wheel drives.

I believe you will find that the body tub is the same as Austin 1800 with a longer boot and nose. I'll bet the doors from all 3 models are completely interchangeable without modification.

The point is the new C type engine only ever went into the MGC and the Austin 3 litre and was substantially different to the old C type engine as fitted to several different BMC cars over many years.

Unquote

#26 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,890 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 May 2008 - 11:12

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
Quote
Yes, the Austin 3 litre. I read somewhere this car was called an Austin Princess, after the older models. Perhaps I was mistaken/misled. Yes the body is the same - only the grille has changed - more badge engineering from BMC/BMH/Leyland. Underneath there must be significant differences to accommodate the different front/rear wheel drives.

I believe you will find that the body tub is the same as Austin 1800 with a longer boot and nose. I'll bet the doors from all 3 models are completely interchangeable without modification.

The point is the new C type engine only ever went into the MGC and the Austin 3 litre and was substantially different to the old C type engine as fitted to several different BMC cars over many years.

Unquote

The Austin 3 litre was never a Princess. There was no badge engineering with this car.
The body has nothing in common with the 1800 except the doors.

#27 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 May 2008 - 13:13

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
Quote
.....The point is the new C type engine only ever went into the MGC and the Austin 3 litre and was substantially different to the old C type engine as fitted to several different BMC cars over many years.

Unquote


Nobody disputed that, Mick...

The issues that have been questioned are:

1. whether or not the C-series engine (of old) was used in commercial vehicles

2. whether there was a Princess nametag on the latter day 2912cc sedan out of Austin's

3. whether or not I was quoting from a book

4. whether the 3-litre Deluxe looked just like a Kimberley or Tasman

5. whether it was possible to save 400lbs by slapping a Rover V8 in a TR6

But there was no argument whatever about the 7-bearing engine being different to the original C-series.

#28 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 27 May 2008 - 13:20

Ray this is one with a small block ford pretty much the same with the Rover V-8.Mount as far back as possible aluminum cased trans and have the drive shaft modified.



http://www.britishv8.../DanMasters.htm

#29 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 27 May 2008 - 13:50

All this on a F1 technical forum. Why, I even met a guy over the weekend who has gained respect for Mosley because of his 'Orgy' participation. Anyway....

The first Austin Princess from 47 to 53.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

A Vanden Plas Princess based on an Austin A 110. Early 60s Pinin Farina design.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image

...Top of the line model.

Posted Image
Posted Image

The last one was based on the Austin 1800 platform. The Mini and the 1800 set the standard for modern FWD cars. Only Cadillac and Citreon have made more comfortable FWD cars. The New Zealand version carried the 'Austin' nom d' plume.

http://en.wikipedia....eyland_Princess

http://www.austin-ro...ado71indexf.htm

#30 Gregor Marshall

Gregor Marshall
  • Member

  • 1,337 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 June 2008 - 11:36

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
Can anyone recommend a reputable, reliable, trustworthy source of MGC engine parts anywhere in the world?? :wave: Thanks in anticipation :up:


Sounds like you've got it covered but I'd recommend these guys http://www.mgmotorsp...com/default.htm

Doug Smith who runs MG Motorsport used to have one of the ex-works MGCs (might still have it), MBL something IIRC and he used to help run RMO, another ex-works C owned my a friend of my late father. I only recommend Doug as he's been around for years and is very well know within the MG scene in the UK, plus I remember his MGC from being a kid (when my late Dad raced an MGB in the mid-80s) as it was a beautiful looking and original car back then.

#31 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 June 2008 - 22:08

Originally posted by phantom II
The first Austin Princess from 47 to 53.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image


I'm not sure, but I think that's actually an Austin A125 Sheerline... the same mechanically and so on...

A Vanden Plas Princess based on an Austin A 110. Early '60s Pinin Farina design.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image


The 'Mk II' badge indicates this, but the model originally derived from the A99 and its closer cousin, the 6/99.

...Top of the line model.

Posted Image
Posted Image


"Top of the line"? Or simply the new model that superseded the Princess 3-litre? (and almost gave birth to the Austin Healey 4000).

The last one was based on the Austin 1800 platform. The Mini and the 1800 set the standard for modern FWD cars. Only Cadillac and Citroen have made more comfortable FWD cars. The New Zealand version carried the 'Austin' nom d'plume.

http://en.wikipedia....eyland_Princess

http://www.austin-ro...ado71indexf.htm


Were they? We never got them here, only a few were ever imported.

#32 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 08 June 2008 - 00:10

Originally posted by Gregor Marshall


Sounds like you've got it covered but I'd recommend these guys http://www.mgmotorsp...com/default.htm

Doug Smith who runs MG Motorsport used to have one of the ex-works MGCs (might still have it), MBL something IIRC and he used to help run RMO, another ex-works C owned my a friend of my late father. I only recommend Doug as he's been around for years and is very well know within the MG scene in the UK, plus I remember his MGC from being a kid (when my late Dad raced an MGB in the mid-80s) as it was a beautiful looking and original car back then.


Thanks Gregor and to everyone else who contributed....some of the UK contacts suggested have borne fruit...Cheers, Mick

#33 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 08 June 2008 - 16:13

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
Thanks Gregor and to everyone else who contributed....some of the UK contacts suggested have borne fruit...Cheers, Mick


Is that your apology?

#34 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:54

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Is that your apology?


What part of THANKS don't you understand Tinker?? Onwards and forever upwards :up: :smoking:

#35 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 11 June 2008 - 04:09

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
.....and forever upwards


Yep... looks like it...

#36 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 June 2008 - 11:18

Originally posted by Fatgadget
The MGC engine in essence is a BMC lorry/agricultural engine. Nothing in it surely can't be precision stuff! :lol:


No it it was completely new 7 bearing engine designed for the 1968 Austin 3Litre it shares some components with the highly revised version of the B series engine that was only used in some early versions of the JU250 van

Parts for the these engines and body parts for the 3litre dried up very quickly after production stopped

The Austin 3 litre was essentialy a 6 cylinder rwd version of the 1800 landcrab with Armstrong self leveling acting on hydroelastic suspension. One of the first vehicles to use PAS incorporated into steering rack.
Problem was it was released to the public at the same time as the first Jaguar XJ6 ---- no contest !


Austine 3Litre 1968 to 1971 the only other vehicle to use the same engine as the MGC

Posted Image



#37 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 11 June 2008 - 13:12

This is certainly something I'd like to know more about...

As mentioned before, one mechanic well versed in BMC engines looked at the first one he'd seen and declared it was a 7-bearing 6-cylinder B-series engine. The general belief, however, is that it's more C-series derived.

So what parts does it share with the B-series? Bearing in mind that the largest B-series was the MGB/1800 engine, it's hard to see it comfortably taking to the near-3-litre capacity.

That said, of course, there were MGB engines here fitted with Peugeot pistons to take them out to 2-litres or a tad more.

#38 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 June 2008 - 09:35

Istr the engine did not have siamese inlet ports ---- although I may be wrong please bear in mind it is 40 years since I lifted the bonnet on one.

The cam followers were I believe B series.
I also recall a number of other changes from previous BMC(Austin) engine design practice -- the rocker resembled those used on Ford engines and was held in place by crosshead screws round the edges.

The engine was very smooth running almost turbine like as long as excessive revs were not used and was gave the heavy 3 litre a fair turn of speed. Very early in production the compression ratio was dropped to cope with the then planned withdrawal of 5 star fuel in the UK

One problem I do remember on these engines was heavy oil consumption once they past the 70,000 mile mark.
On the 3 litre self leveling rear suspension which had rams in series with the rear hydroelastic displacers gave continual problems with seized control valves.


Some versions of the JU250 van used a revised 4 cylinder version of the B series some features of which resembled the 3 Litre 6 cylinder engine externally.

#39 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 June 2008 - 22:21

What I'm trying to find out is about the 'architecture' of the engine...

Is it derived from the C-series or from the extended B-series as used in Australia?

Advertisement

#40 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:49

Originally posted by Ray Bell
What I'm trying to find out is about the 'architecture' of the engine...

Is it derived from the C-series or from the extended B-series as used in Australia?


The only thing the MGC engine shares with any previous engine is the bore and stroke....they had a target of saving 175 lbs with the shorter block and thinner casing...but only ended saving 45 lb over previous designs.

#41 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 June 2008 - 21:21

From memory, the bigger C-series engines had three pairs of siamesed bores. I may be corrected on that one...

This would mean that making an engine any shorter would be unlikely if it had the same bore, I'd think. Fitting in the extra main bearings shouldn't have been too hard, they would add weight in both the block and the crankshaft, it's not surprising that it was still heavy.

#42 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:03

Originally posted by britishtrident
Istr the engine did not have siamese inlet ports ---- although I may be wrong please bear in mind it is 40 years since I lifted the bonnet on one.

The cam followers were I believe B series.
I also recall a number of other changes from previous BMC(Austin) engine design practice -- the rocker resembled those used on Ford engines and was held in place by crosshead screws round the edges.

The engine was very smooth running almost turbine like as long as excessive revs were not used and was gave the heavy 3 litre a fair turn of speed. Very early in production the compression ratio was dropped to cope with the then planned withdrawal of 5 star fuel in the UK

One problem I do remember on these engines was heavy oil consumption once they past the 70,000 mile mark.
On the 3 litre self leveling rear suspension which had rams in series with the rear hydroelastic displacers gave continual problems with seized control valves.


Some versions of the JU250 van used a revised 4 cylinder version of the B series some features of which resembled the 3 Litre 6 cylinder engine externally.


QUOTE
Mick,

BritishTrident is closer. Yes, the ports are not siamesed, unlike BMC A and B series engines. Mine is a 12 port head.

I just bought 12 cam followers - it looks like an MGB part number (lower number series), but I can't be sure.

The original rings were absolute crap. The more common figure quoted to me has been that they last about 60,000 miles, then you get the chance to replace them with other manufacturer's rings since nothing else is worn. In my experience (twice!), 60-70 thousand miles is about the most you'll get before an engine rebuild. I expect to get double that on better rings.
UNQUOTE

#43 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 June 2008 - 19:09

Only other engine fault I remember on them was the front pulley/vibration damper would work loose and rattle, usually fitting a new key and generous amounts of green Loctite would cure it.

The Carbs were SU HS6 and suffered from breakage of the flexible pipe going into the bottom of the jets.

The gearboxes were basically an upgrade version of the MGB boxes (the manual overdrive box was I think exactly as used in the MGB V8)---- the manual overdrive boxes tended to suffer from jumping out of 3rd gear. The autobox was the BW35 --- the shift quality in this application was poor also it didn't half take the edge off the acceleration.

#44 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 June 2008 - 20:48

In an effort to increase Australian content (for tax reasons), BMC Australia used the B-W 35 behind the C-series in later Series 2 6/110s and A110s...

This was a total failure, the B-W 35 having been built for engines in the 1500-2000cc range originally.

Later, however, Borg-Warner Australia made a version of the 35 with bigger clutch packs and, presumably, other mods to make them suitable for bigger engines. They were used behind the Ford Falcon six of 3.6 and 4.1 litres and the Chrysler 'Hemi 6' of similar and even larger capacities, going to 4.3 litres. BLMC's Leyland P76 used it with its 4.4 litre (Rover based with taller banks) alloy V8.

They must have been marginal there, recognised by Chrysler in their fitment of the Torqueflite A904 in any car ordered with a factory 'tow pack'.

Could it be that this was the version of the 35 used on this engine?

Still hoping for more information about the engine itself.

Which manual gearbox was it, by the way? A bought-in 'box or a development of the C-series box, perhaps as used in the Series 2 6/110 and Healey 3000s? Surely it would have been asking for trouble to mount the B-series MGB 'box behind the Rover engine?

#45 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:51

Originally posted by britishtrident
Only other engine fault I remember on them was the front pulley/vibration damper would work loose and rattle, usually fitting a new key and generous amounts of green Loctite would cure it.

The Carbs were SU HS6 and suffered from breakage of the flexible pipe going into the bottom of the jets.

The gearboxes were basically an upgrade version of the MGB boxes (the manual overdrive box was I think exactly as used in the MGB V8)---- the manual overdrive boxes tended to suffer from jumping out of 3rd gear. The autobox was the BW35 --- the shift quality in this application was poor also it didn't half take the edge off the acceleration.


QUOTE
Mick,

British Trident is correct again. I can certainly attest to the first fault he mentions! No problems with my SUs - yet (EDIT: I can remember saying "is that pulley supposed to be loose like that?" :blush: )

I believe the MGB Mk II, MGC and MGBV8 gearboxes are all exactly the same design, the only differences being the various ratios used in different models and the MGB had a smaller bell housing. The MGB Mk I used basically the same gearbox as the MGA. The MGC and MGBV8 engines are not that much more powerful than the MGB, but the gearbox strength is marginal. The weak point on both the MGC and MGBV8 is the diff, hence crown wheels and pinions are now made of rocking horse poo. I have just purchased a slew of gearbox parts for my MGC (no gears, though) and the part numbers are all MGB.

All MGB and MGC autos used the BW35. There were no production auto MGBV8s made, but the factory briefly experimented with fitting autos to prototypes.

#46 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,072 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 June 2008 - 10:12

Originally posted by phantom II


Posted Image
Posted Image


This was the 4 litre R with the Rolls Royce engine from a batch that were ordered for a MOD military vehicle and then cancelled . RR offered this batch of engines to BMC at a much reduced rate.

#47 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 30 June 2008 - 13:27

A quick Google. Was there life before Google?


http://www.redlemon....4lthistory.html car

http://www.redlemon....cess/rolls.html engine

http://www.uniquecar...s_4_litre_r.htm Behind the wheel.

Trivia fact: Vanden Plas 4Litre R: The Rolls Royce 6 cylinder all alloy FB60 Overhead inlet sidevalve outlet engine was from the same family that produced the 4 for the Austin Champ and an 8 for the Alvis Stalwart amphibious vehicle. BMC Chairman, Sir Leonard Lord, ran a 4litre R as his chauffeured car in 1964. It was originally registered BMC 1 but he had the plates changed after he became tired of being harangued by BMC customers annoyed at the quality of the cars they had bought. A single 4 Litre Estate car was also built for HM The Queen.



Source: "The Cars of BMC" - Graham Robson (Motor Racing Publications, 1987)

What is the car in front of the VW? Looks American, could be Simca.



Originally posted by RTH


This was the 4 litre R with the Rolls Royce engine from a batch that were ordered for a MOD military vehicle and then cancelled . RR offered this batch of engines to BMC at a much reduced rate.



#48 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 30 June 2008 - 20:32

Originally posted by Ray Bell
In an effort to increase Australian content (for tax reasons), BMC Australia used the B-W 35 behind the C-series in later Series 2 6/110s and A110s...

This was a total failure, the B-W 35 having been built for engines in the 1500-2000cc range originally.

Later, however, Borg-Warner Australia made a version of the 35 with bigger clutch packs and, presumably, other mods to make them suitable for bigger engines. They were used behind the Ford Falcon six of 3.6 and 4.1 litres and the Chrysler 'Hemi 6' of similar and even larger capacities, going to 4.3 litres. BLMC's Leyland P76 used it with its 4.4 litre (Rover based with taller banks) alloy V8.

They must have been marginal there, recognised by Chrysler in their fitment of the Torqueflite A904 in any car ordered with a factory 'tow pack'.

Could it be that this was the version of the 35 used on this engine?

Still hoping for more information about the engine itself.

Which manual gearbox was it, by the way? A bought-in 'box or a development of the C-series box, perhaps as used in the Series 2 6/110 and Healey 3000s? Surely it would have been asking for trouble to mount the B-series MGB 'box behind the Rover engine?


1n 1968 Jag were using the type 35 in the XJ6 intially only in the 2.8 but by 1970 it was in the 4.2 as well --- The 4.2 suffered from broken brake bands, first symptom was loss of drive in 2nd ratio.
In the XJ6 the shift quality was much better than the 3 litre --- might have been partly down to different fluid type.

#49 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 82,240 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 10:16

By that time Borg-Warner had developed a 35 with a slightly bigger housing to contain slightly bigger clutches...

It was used on cars up to the 4.4-litre $8 in the Leyland P76. But Chrysler still didn't trust it in heavy working conditions... if anyone ordered a 6-cylinder Valiant with a 'tow pack' (including factory towbar) they didn't get the B-W 35. Instead they had a Hemi 6 engine with a change to the casting at the rear of the block and the 'small block' V8 bolt pattern substituted (not hard, much of the bolt pattern was already the same) and a Torqueflite transmission was bolted up to it.

#50 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 02 July 2008 - 10:44

There were many models of Borg Warner 3-speed automatic transmissions and they all look fairly similar. What the manufacturer's literature may call a 35 may often be something else, like a Model 65 or 66. If it's air-cooled and has an all-aluminum case it's probably (but not certainly) a 35. If not, it's not.