MG Sports Cars

The idea of a big block in an MG is intriguing but after putting a 302 in mine I think I’ll let someone else do it first; but on second thought! My daughter's boy friend lives in England and she spends a lot of time there; she says it's rare to see classic British sports cars. It's probably like here though, you never see one unless you have one and then they seem to appear out of nowhere. Before the T-Bucket, and before the MG's, I had a Hemi powered original model A 2 door sudan. I wouldn't call myself a purist or I wouldn't have put a 302 in my GT nor would I have put the Hemi in the A if it had been capable of restoration, but it wasn't within a reasonable budget, and let’s be honest, hemi torque is a turn on. Not long ago I sold my bucket and could never have sold an original T for what I got for it and it would have taken much longer. Most hot rodders today build fiberglass cars, but metal is also available for a lot more money. I plan to start a glass full fender 32 3 window Ford coupe project (Ford powered this time), but it will take place after the GT is on the road. I say on the road rather than finished because project cars never seem to get finished.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2011 05:22PM by pspeaks.

Big Block? If I can ever get home to work on it, I'll let you know how a 454 feels in an MGB! Not sure what to expect as the 350 B gets my attention already! If the engine is worthwhile it will get aluminum heads. And yes, it will get fender flares!

[www.cardomain.com]

Bill

Are you guys forgetting about the Roadmaster project... [forum.britishv8.org]?

Hi Rob,
Yeah, thanks for reminding us of the Roadmaster project. It looks great!!! I just got caught up on the progress and what it stands for. Great Stuff!

Bill

There certainly is at least one finished LS1-powered GT. I drove it to work this morning :)

Well, not FINISHED finished. You know how it is with these. But it's close enough that I was stopping in to BritishV8 to see if Curtis was interested.

Full details at slowcarfast.com, but here are the answers to some of the questions.

- I used a front end of my own design. It's quite possible a Fast Cars setup would have worked, I did have my mockup engine in between the frame rails at one point.
- I've used a T5 on another LS build in the past. The bellhousing isn't much smaller but the trans certainly is. The torque ratings on the T5 worry me which is one big reason I used a T56. And yes, my car is a 1972 chassis.
- while I did a lot of modification on the engine bay, I had to do very little to the bulkhead.

As for packaging, the LS engine is actually a surprisingly compact beast. Not as small as a Rover engine, but there are a lot more horsepowers stuffed inside :) It was the packaging that made me change from my original plan of a 302 actually. The thing about the LS is that nothing protrudes. It's all packed into a cube with no water pumps, distributors or other protuberances to hassle you. They're light, too - my car is under 2400 lbs wet with no attempt at weight loss.

Beautiful GT Keith, I’d love to see more pictures. I also wish I had the nerve to do the flares and paint mine black (my 23 roadster was black as is my Harley and daily driver), but I just don’t have the “tin man” skills. I’m impressed!

Sorry, I just found your pictures on the "Rabit Flare" post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2011 01:18PM by pspeaks.

Interesting discussion. I feel that the LS engine would be a very good choice for our British cars. It's lightweight, relatively compact, will fit underneath the hood (when using fuel injection) without modification to the "bonnet". It also produces lots and lots of power (both hp. and torque). You will also retain most of the handling characteristics that the MG had with the origional power train.

These engines are a bit expensive to build, but as time goes by I think the prices will come down .It could also infuse new blood into the hobby, and a renewed excitement about the British V8.

Most of us have an opinion as to the "perfect" powerplant for our little British cars, I just hope that we can keep an open mind about the choices. To me, it is fun to see innovation and new ideas.

So far every LSswap I have seen involved radical surgery to the bodyshell and front suspension. I would like to see someone try to do it while keeping that to a minimum.

Jim

Radical surgery?

What I saw at Mantell Motorsport didn't look that serious. Wonder if Pete has any pics of that project.

Not serious Carl? Seems to me both sides of the tunnel to firewall area were completely gone. To me that is a little radical. Do you remember what he was using for the front suspension?

Jim

Not the way I remember it, Jim. At the time, I thought it fit pretty nice. Where is Pete, anyway? We need more pics of that car. Oh, he used the wider version Fast Cars front crossmember.

Only pic I could find:

[www.mgexperience.net]

Radical!

Ouch!

I'm pretty certain that is totally unnecessary. Somebody wanted a lot of setback.

I think the first photo is after the holes were welded back up. Looks to me like there are some indentations that weren't there to start with but I will look at the '74-1/2 tomorrow evening. The second photo does look a little excessive. What is that thing sticking out at the front of the engine?

Using the FC front end is also pretty radical if you ask me. $5k is a LOT to spend on an MG!

Jim

I've been told that when dealing with an LS1 conversion (EFI) you need to add 50% plus to your budget. IMHO, the Ford set up is still the best bang for your buck, although, the LS series being the latest and greatest, don't forget that the early design had some flaws such as oil consumption problem caused by poorly designed pistons and rings (low tension) and a poor PCV system that most people ended up installing a catch can (I did) so that the oil would not enter and sit at the bottom of the intake manifold. It also had some valve-train minor issues (long story), and If you wonder how I know about these problems, it is because I've own a 1998 Z-28 Camaro that I was very happy when I finally sold it. The latest LS series motors have all of these issues resolved and, yes it is a kick ass and now reliable motor; too bad that someone hasn't tried to fit Ford's new "Coyote" 5.0L in an MG as we all know that the Detroit horsepower rivalry is back on between the three American auto makers.

My two cents, cheers!

Jacques the new Ford engines are awesome but the big problem with trying to fit them in LBC's is that these engines are quite wide. The Coyote engine looks like it it is wider than the LS engine. I imagine these Ford engines are also quite tall also. The LS engine apart from its issues in its earlier stages is very compact and it is light.

Cheers
Byron

Byron, by what I have observed, I believe that someone could drop a Ford Coyote motor in the "B". Also, let's not forget that a Fox body Mustang with a few upgrades were a handful to go against at the drag strip; why do I know? again, I went through with the Z-28 and lost. That was a 5.0 Liter against a 5.7 Liter although the Camaro Z-28 was a much heavier car.

What I do like about the new LS motors in EFI form is the unbelievable fuel mileage they deliver. I still would like to see a "B" with the Ford Racing Coyote motor shame the bigger cubic inch LS motor (LOL).......

Quote:

Using the FC front end is also pretty radical if you ask me.

Customer preference for wider track/flares. Stock crossmember will work with little to no modifying. Lots of oil pan options.

[ls1tech.com]

Found this online. Notice the difference in height

5.0L DOHC
28" Length
26" Height
27-1/2" Wide

4.6L DOHC
28" Length
29-7/8" Height
30" Wide

4.6L SOHC
28" Length
26" Height
28-5/8" Wide



LS1 engine dimensions





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2012 09:49AM by Jim Stabe.

Thanks Jim for the data; it shows to me that that the swap is certainly tight but doable. I'd love to see it, E-Rod versus Coyote.

P.S. I'd like to remind everyone that Ford is the only government "loan free" entity... :)

Cheers