This is a read-only archive of the old Madabout Kitcars forum. New posts and replies are no longer possible, but every thread is still here to browse and read.
lane: Convertible might be easier. Roof wise.lower period windscreen.
Yep, could be workable. Just checked the dimensions of the 'B' - it's not too far away at a 91" wheelbase compared to 94.5" for the swb and only 89" for the MX-5.
Damn. I thought I'd finished with this building cars malarkey...
Having done a bit of surfing I reckon the gt screen is about right - the angle looks the same and the B GT and SWB are the same height.
Major differences are that the Ferrari door goes much further forward under the scuttle than the MG door does, and the angle of the door glass isn't quite the same. I think it could work, especially for those of us that don't really like modern donors...
Oh, nearly forgot, anyone know if the B GT roof is structural? I'm thinking cut it short to match the length of the Ferrari roof and graft on a fibreglass panel to give the right angle at the back end.
Having done a bit of surfing I reckon the gt screen is about right - the angle looks the same and the B GT and SWB are the same height.
Oh, nearly forgot, anyone know if the B GT roof is structural? I'm thinking cut it short to match the length of the Ferrari roof and graft on a fibreglass panel to give the right angle at the back end.
I'd think if that was done it would be an IVA test. Nice donor though (in terms of chrome and parts availability if not modernity)
I agree . Topless is the best start. Then build up from their. Also a strip down of a 250 swb door mechanism would be a advantage
starting from a mechanism that pushes the window up and down. Maybe angled slots inside to push it up at an angle. Youtube might have someone dropping a wi down and its action. Then bulid the roof round it.
Think that's where the shell comes in. Depends on the chassis. And roll cage. Something technical like that.something to bolt and bond too. Lots of oxidising paint etc,filler.
Convertibles seem quite expensive. Spose doer uppers would be the way forward with the sills being strong enough and all holes welded up or new sheets welded in.
I was only joking really! I take your point about the body shell and roll cage although the MGB has no chassis, it is a monocoque design.
I take it the roadster has additional strengthening in the sills then?
As the MGB GT donor is much cheaper and less desirable in its own right, I'd be quite happy to cut the GT roof back to the right length for the Ferrari, fit a full roll cage and run a 250 swb race replica as an everyday car. It wouldn't need any of the expensive trim, bumpers, badges etc. fitting then either. The added bonus would be a relatively simple upgrade to V8 spec at a later date when funds allow...
Mr T. As far as I understand it, the roadster shares the same monocoque floorpan as the MGBGT with no extra strengthening.
I renvovated a MGBGT once, and swore to never do it again!
With a Triumph, what you see is what you get, the MGB is different, the sill construction is extremely strong, due to a third strengthening rail which is called the " castle rail". It runs the length of the sill inside between the outer and inner sill.
It often will rust away badly, weakening the structure, but goes un-noticed.
The only way to check and repair, is to remove the outer sill.
It is very time consuming, messy and awkward to do.
Also, I found all the other welding which is required on a rusty B to be much harder to do than a Triumph.
Ditto, done a B and it was not the most pleasant of my car experiences. As Scottie said, lots and lots of hidden nooks and crannies in which rust can lurk, I borrowed a borascope for a mate to check the sills and some other areas and almost scrapped what looked like an ok shell, 3 months later I wished I had!
I take it the roadster has additional strengthening in the sills then?
As the MGB GT donor is much cheaper and less desirable in its own right, I'd be quite happy to cut the GT roof back to the right length for the Ferrari, fit a full roll cage and run a 250 swb race replica as an everyday car. It wouldn't need any of the expensive trim, bumpers, badges etc. fitting then either. The added bonus would be a relatively simple upgrade to V8 spec at a later date when funds allow...
But wouldn't it need IVA? I know the main structure MAY be the same, but would DVLA allow it. I think chopping the roof would mean IVA. Could always buy a BGT for the parts, and then put a heritage roadster new body on it - or would that be disallowed ? Good question for DVLA though (probably get several answers, and told the only way would be to do it and find out afterwards :laugh
There is a kit (of parts) on the market to enable MG BGT owners to convert their cars to roadster spec, (as its worth more)
And it does not need an IVA for that.
I would guess at a re-body inspection only.
Viatron put it better than I did, they are a bitch to weld.
op2: looking good geoff, only thing i'd say is flow and proportion. rear bumper section mold as the lowest point is probably best point to work from so it has that sleek look of the swb. front end has hardly any over hang at the bottom gonna be a balancing act. cant wait to see it evolve.
Here is a couple more and no I am not having an AC Coupe built , although it could be a very simple! way of building a Cobra , I am sure our leader could be persuaded with copious amounts of the folding stuff , Geoff .
lookin pretty tasty that is. hats off to you boys. im so impressed with that. it would make a fantastic late model style Cobra / Ferrari , whatisit type coupe. you could trendy it up with later lights and stuff and fit big ferk off ali's to it and people at the yacht club wouldn't have a felching clue what that was. got me thinking now you bad uns.
That's fantastic progress Geoff, you must be chuffed.
I'm in awe of Chris and Dan's ability to make wonderful things out of nothing. I appreciate that this is at an early stage of a long journey but would like to raise a couple of points that I think are important. Please accept them in the positive spirit in which they're meant.
As it stands, the slope of the rear is too shallow and the haunches look too overpowering. If the whole back end was pivoted lower around the B/C pillar at the area around the top of the door, this would benefit by increasing the slope of the rear window, lower the rear scuttle, lower the high point in the wing haunches, and lower the wheel arch around the tyre, benefiting also because the suspension wouldn't need to be lowered. It would help the rear wing to trail down towards the rear like the genuine article does. Once this is done, the rear wheel arches might need to be re-profiled to suit. Also, the tail looks too long after the rear wheels, and lowering the whole panel might make it appear shorter.
On the original car, the rear screen wraps into the side pillars which makes them appear more slender and lightens the design. I've spoken with Pilkington who unfortunately don't have the moulds to make a new screen. Specialists have estimated a cost of £2.5k to replicate. I thought polycarbonate would be a cheaper option but was quoted £3.5k! I spent most of a day at the recent Classic Car show with a tape measure and the owner's permission measuring their cars to find a lower cost alternative screen. The closest I could find was on an Aston DB5 which blows the cost saving idea. A 240Z looked useful, but the MG is an understandable and clever way to provide a low cost solution. The Alfa Bertone 105 looks to be useful if the screen can be cut to width (the original screen curves too much, but a poly screen costing a more reasonable £190 could be cut). But there were a lot of 'ifs' in this paragraph. I wonder if there's a laminated front screen off something that could be cut to suit?
The other design element used by Ferrari to slim the rear pillar is the heavily rear-sloping door glass, and I believe this is something to be replicated by adding a triangle of steel at the top, rear of the door to continue the angle up and backwards, reshaping the door slam shut line to suit, and fitting a triangular quarterlight to split the single, large rear pillar, into a B and C pillar.
I suppose the proper way would be to re-shape the door, fit new glass rails, make a new window to the right profile, and re-shape the door shut and B pillar lines. Perhaps that's too obsessive and not worth the effort.
I think the front is brilliant too. If Chris and Dan can somehow get it to sit much lower - and that will be difficult because of the strut tops - then I think that shape will look great. I like the Cobra wheel arches.
It is well known in car design that an indication of sportiness is perceived by decreasing the height of the wings above the wheel/tyre tops. The old BMW E38 7 series is an example of how to make a giant saloon car look sporty - look at the front wings. Again, I believe this will be important to the design, but also appreciate that the strut tops determine the wing and possibly upper bonnet height.
But if anyone can pull it off well, it's going to be Tribute. Who else could build something so good on a Toyota base that Bentley became very angry indeed.
best of luck
Steve
That's coming on nicely Geoff. I can't get over how Chris and Dan can make such wonderful cars from nothing. I love the tweaking process it'll go through to make it look right
lane: Convertible might be easier. Roof wise.lower period windscreen.
Think that's where the shell comes in. Depends on the chassis. And roll cage. Something technical like that.something to bolt and bond too. Lots of oxidising paint etc,filler. 
