The all-new Front Page News Feed is now live   Read the announcement
MGExp

MGC Forum

Does every MGC have or had a sump that looks like this?

Moss Motors
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor

JMA Avatar
JMA Silver Member John Anderson
Donvale, Victoria, Australia   AUS
I knew the sump was pretty bashed up, pretty obvious really, but it was only when I removed it that I became aware how bad.

On pic 380 after spending half an hour cleaning the sludge, the pick up screen had imprinted itself on the bottom of the sump, if the pick was of a design that only picked up from the bottom my engine wouldn't have lasted 50 years. The brazing beside the drain plug is 3/4" thick.

. Hide this ad & support a small business by becoming a Gold Supporting Member

Attachments:
IMG_0379.JPG    47.7 KB
IMG_0379.JPG

IMG_0380.JPG    32 KB
Sign In or Register to view this photo
IMG_0382.JPG    34.6 KB
Sign In or Register to view this photo
Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
keesl Avatar
keesl Kees Leseman
Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands   NLD
1969 MG MGC
John,
The one on my car looked the same.

Regards, Kees

Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
chormy Avatar
chormy Gold Member Shaun Holmes
Norwich, Norfolk, UK   GBR
1963 MG MGB MkI "3330 PE"
1964 MG MGB MkI
1967 MG MGB GT "BABE"
1967 MG MGC    & more
Plenty out there like that, there is a Alloy sump being made as I speak in UK. Guy (no me) is trying hard to get costs down.

Very few sumps in good nick around.


Member Services:
MGC Racing , Alloy parts and uprated items for the C, Engine rebuilds to full race or EFI. Secondhand parts available. Facebook page "Holmes racing" www.holmesracing.co
Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
Ken Plumstead Avatar
Smithers, BC, Canada   CAN
1965 MG MGB
1968 MG MGC GT
The front and bottom of mine was caved in and after much beating and cursing it now looks like this. The front is still a bit concave. The internal baffle interfered with the pounding process. I used a BFH and a piece of hardwood dowel to do the reshaping.

Sorry, no before pic.

Ken



MG: Transforming gasoline into Fun!!!

. Hide this ad & support a small business by becoming a Gold Supporting Member

Attachments:
IMG_0431.jpg    53.3 KB
IMG_0431.jpg

Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
billh1963 Avatar
billh1963 Bill H
Beaufort, SC, USA   USA
1963 MG MGB MkI
1967 MG MGB GT
1968 MG MGC GT
1968 MG MGC GT    & more
Some are much better than that. Ron Neal talked me out of a nice one smiling smiley

Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
Bob in Vancouver Avatar
Bob in Vancouver Bob Elwin
Vancouver BC, Canada   CAN
1968 MG MGC
1969 MG MGC GT
You'd think BMC would have made the crossmember slightly deeper to avoid the sump being the first thing to hit an obstruction!

Perhaps they thought a sump was easier to replace/repair than the crossmember. In any event I expect the engineers had to accept a number of compromises both up and down to fit what was basically an engine too tall for the vertical space available.

Canting the engine to one side like a slant six Chrysler would be an expensive redesign and would create space and accessibility issues within the engine bay. I wonder if they could have made the sump slightly shallower and wider to retain the same oil volume. Tricky to press perhaps but in the end speed and simplicity apparently won out. Cheers, Bob.

Was this post helpful or interesting?
Yes No Thank
PFT-000 Bruce Ibbotson
Brisbane, Australia   AUS
1968 MG MGC GT "The Truck"
1968 MG MGC GT "The Truck"
Bob,

The people in the UK car industry always looked backwards, never thinking of a different way to make things.

BMW have canted their engines over for decades, it was logical to have the exhaust side down and the induction side up to create space and design more efficient engines and manifolds. The MGB & MGC were too narrow to allow this type of engine to be fitted so it is just wishful thinking.

How good was the BMW 328 in the 30's, they knew about torsional ridgity and good suspensions, that 2 Litre engine (which after WW2 became the Bristol 2 Litre) was advanced for it's time, it was vertical in a narrow body.

Vertical is the only way to go, "Grand-Pa" always made everything like that, why change (or have a new thought) "Old Boy".

I actually measured my 325i engine carefully to see if it would fit the MGC engine bay at one time but it was far too wide so the GGL had to be vertical, I wish I had of known that the Toyota Supra engine & gearbox will drop into the MGC with little modification required, what a good car the one in the UK is with this sensible conversion. Not a true BMC MG but a really great car anyway.

Morris always bought in engines [Hotchkiss] right from the start, they never designing a good 6 inline engine in their history, they were all all heavy and gutless. The so called new 'C' Series engine in the MGC only managed 123.7 bhp on the Dyno, some new 3 Litre engine.
Downton estimated that as installed in the MGC it probably managed 115 bhp at the flywheel. The Sales Litrerature quoted 145 bhp, that became gospel, probably because the old 4 bearing engine in the 'Healey 3000' was quotes at 145 bhp.
MG probably got conned with this incorrect figure when they fitted the 3.307:1 diff to the early cars before changing to the 3.7:1 diff towards the end of production.

The Morris 10 inline 4 [XPAG for MG] being one engine (although obsolete in the 50's) that did wonders in the hands of tuners.

This one will get expected "Flak" from the UK. My father was British so I am a partial Pom.

Bruce.

Was this post helpful or interesting?
+1 Yes No Thank
. Hide this ad & support a small business by becoming a Gold Supporting Member

To add your reply, or post your own questions




Registration is FREE and takes less than a minute!


Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or contact the webmaster