Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
  #1
"Outlaw" MGA
Camera: Panasonic LX100 Photo Location: Lime Rock Park, CT 
Posted By: Sailor, 07-08-2017, 03:32 PM

"Outlaw" is a name given to Porsche 356s and air-cooled 911s that have been hot-rodded and have significant body modifications. A couple of weeks ago at Lime Rock Park, I spotted what looks like an Outlaw MGA, although I've no idea what engine modifications, if any, have been made.

Anyway, I think it's a cool car that would look perfect if that incongruous roll bar were modified or removed.

Jer




Views: 967
07-08-2017, 03:44 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eaglem's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31,975
Maybe chromed as black and chrome go well together. Nice shots.
07-08-2017, 07:32 PM   #3
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,615
It's a kit. Almost certain of it.

The gauges are all modern, and although it's a small detail, the shifter is far too far forward, looks like a front wheel drive arrangement with the shifter that far forward.

Also the badges on the side are normally between the hood and the fender on the sheet metal beside the hood.

The mirrors are also modern , original wing mirrors looked like bullets

It is pretty sharp thoug.mwould love to know the chassis
07-08-2017, 09:03 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,445
QuoteOriginally posted by eaglem Quote
Maybe chromed
Put in epoxied oak 4"x2" beams

07-08-2017, 09:10 PM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,393
Nice touches...like the monochrome paint.

Reminds me of work colleague who was from the USA. He used to tell me some interesting stories about another 'outlaw' MG that a relative had put together. This MG was a early '60's MG Midget. Not much of MG was left, other than the body shell, badging, etc. The powertrain was no longer the old Austin 948c 4 banger, but a 327 cubic inch Chevy V8, extensively modified. Apparently it was used on the street. Traction was an issue that was never completely solved, but the car accelerated unlike any other MG.
07-09-2017, 03:21 AM   #6
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,615
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Nice touches...like the monochrome paint.

Reminds me of work colleague who was from the USA. He used to tell me some interesting stories about another 'outlaw' MG that a relative had put together. This MG was a early '60's MG Midget. Not much of MG was left, other than the body shell, badging, etc. The powertrain was no longer the old Austin 948c 4 banger, but a 327 cubic inch Chevy V8, extensively modified. Apparently it was used on the street. Traction was an issue that was never completely solved, but the car accelerated unlike any other MG.
Small block fords were a better choice being 100 pounds liter than the Chevy, and also 1 inch lower and 1 inch narrower, but people always complains the Ford oil sump was backwards. The deep part of a Ford sump is normally at the front, not the back . They just didn't know the parts catalogs well enough , the econoline oil sump arrangement was the same as the Chevy, you just needed the correct sump and oil pump pickup.

But either way the cars were too front heavy for the power and suffered badly when modified , of under steer

Did your colleague ever tell you how it cornered
07-09-2017, 05:03 AM   #7
Moderator PEG Judges
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 39,451
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
would look perfect if that incongruous roll bar were modified or removed
And the steering wheel put on the other way up...
07-09-2017, 06:01 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eaglem Quote
Maybe chromed as black and chrome go well together. Nice shots.
Sounds good to me, EM. Thanks.

Jer

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
It's a kit. Almost certain of it.

The gauges are all modern, and although it's a small detail, the shifter is far too far forward, looks like a front wheel drive arrangement with the shifter that far forward.

Also the badges on the side are normally between the hood and the fender on the sheet metal beside the hood.

The mirrors are also modern , original wing mirrors looked like bullets

It is pretty sharp thoug.mwould love to know the chassis
By golly, Lowell, I'm sure you're right. I was puzzled by the position of the shifter when I saw the car, but the idea of kit never entered my mind. It's a shame the owner wasn't around; I could've learned a lot more.

Jer

QuoteOriginally posted by Arjay Bee Quote
Put in epoxied oak 4"x2" beams
To match the dash!

Jer

QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Nice touches...like the monochrome paint.

Reminds me of work colleague who was from the USA. He used to tell me some interesting stories about another 'outlaw' MG that a relative had put together. This MG was a early '60's MG Midget. Not much of MG was left, other than the body shell, badging, etc. The powertrain was no longer the old Austin 948c 4 banger, but a 327 cubic inch Chevy V8, extensively modified. Apparently it was used on the street. Traction was an issue that was never completely solved, but the car accelerated unlike any other MG.
Hey, Les - I remember a guy in my home town that put a 327 in a big Healy. I've no idea how it handled or performed - seems like a bunch of weight up front.

Jer

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Small block fords were a better choice being 100 pounds liter than the Chevy, and also 1 inch lower and 1 inch narrower, but people always complains the Ford oil sump was backwards. The deep part of a Ford sump is normally at the front, not the back . They just didn't know the parts catalogs well enough , the econoline oil sump arrangement was the same as the Chevy, you just needed the correct sump and oil pump pickup.

But either way the cars were too front heavy for the power and suffered badly when modified , of under steer

Did your colleague ever tell you how it cornered
I had the same thought about weight distribution.

Jer

QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
And the steering wheel put on the other way up...
Yeah, that drives me nuts, as well.

Jer

07-09-2017, 07:49 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,393
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Small block fords were a better choice being 100 pounds liter than the Chevy, and also 1 inch lower and 1 inch narrower, but people always complains the Ford oil sump was backwards. The deep part of a Ford sump is normally at the front, not the back . They just didn't know the parts catalogs well enough , the econoline oil sump arrangement was the same as the Chevy, you just needed the correct sump and oil pump pickup.

But either way the cars were too front heavy for the power and suffered badly when modified , of under steer

Did your colleague ever tell you how it cornered

The Ford small block V8 is a very good engine, but the Chevy small block V8's has been the choice of the hot rodder for decades. Speed parts availability / lower cost of speed parts/ rodder familiarity, etc. have been some factors. I know a number of Ford performance fans who are chagrined at the mere idea of a Chevy V8 installed in a hot rodded Ford car....whether it's an a T, A, '32 or '40 coupe, etc.

Even in modern days the newer Chevy LS V8 design appears to be the modern rodders engine of choice.

My understanding is that 'handling' wasn't a priority in this Chevy V8 powered MG. I think the driver would feel that he could invariably 'catch up' to any other British sportscar....once he got to any size straight.

---------- Post added 07-09-17 at 10:04 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
Originally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Nice touches...like the monochrome paint.

Reminds me of work colleague who was from the USA. He used to tell me some interesting stories about another 'outlaw' MG that a relative had put together. This MG was a early '60's MG Midget. Not much of MG was left, other than the body shell, badging, etc. The powertrain was no longer the old Austin 948c 4 banger, but a 327 cubic inch Chevy V8, extensively modified. Apparently it was used on the street. Traction was an issue that was never completely solved, but the car accelerated unlike any other MG.

Hey, Les - I remember a guy in my home town that put a 327 in a big Healy. I've no idea how it handled or performed - seems like a bunch of weight up front.

Jer
Jer,

My colleague told me that MG-Chevy performed very well in acceleration...when it could get traction. Handling wasn't a design priority in this modified 'Spridget' .......I believe it was a case of easing around corners...then making sure the car was pointed in the right direction before mashing the gas pedal.

Braking is another thing. If I recall these small MG's were good for about 85-90 mph with their stock 948cc four cylinder. I would think the top speed potential with an engine with over 5 times as much cubic capacity would be much greater. I don't know if the MG retained it's stock brakes. If it did, it brings to mind a story (maybe apocryphal) attributed to Ettore Bugatti, who apparently said when questioned about the poor braking performance of one of his 1920's cars, answered that he built Bugatti's to go, not stop.

Les

Last edited by lesmore49; 07-09-2017 at 09:14 AM.
07-10-2017, 02:06 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote

Jer,

My colleague told me that MG-Chevy performed very well in acceleration...when it could get traction. Handling wasn't a design priority in this modified 'Spridget' .......I believe it was a case of easing around corners...then making sure the car was pointed in the right direction before mashing the gas pedal.

Braking is another thing. If I recall these small MG's were good for about 85-90 mph with their stock 948cc four cylinder. I would think the top speed potential with an engine with over 5 times as much cubic capacity would be much greater. I don't know if the MG retained it's stock brakes. If it did, it brings to mind a story (maybe apocryphal) attributed to Ettore Bugatti, who apparently said when questioned about the poor braking performance of one of his 1920's cars, answered that he built Bugatti's to go, not stop.

Les
Loved the Bugatti story, Les.

Regarding small block Ford and Chevy engines, I've had plenty of experience with both. I had a D-Code 289 and an A-Code 289 in my '64.5 Mustang and '67 Cougar respectively; my '69 Mach I had a Windsor 351 (2-V). I owned successively '71, '75 and '82 Camaros, with - again respectively - 307, 350 and 305 versions of the mouse block.

The D-Code engine (4V; 210 HP) was only produced in the spring of '64 to power the Mercury Cyclone and as an option in the Mustang. Remarkably, Ford had only one 4-speed tranny to manage the torque of an American V-8, the famous top loader, which my Mustang did indeed have - overkill all the way. In July production (for the '65 models), Ford upgraded the D-Code mill with the higher-compression A-Code motor (225 HP); the rock crusher was replaced by a cheaper 4-Spd, which I think was sourced from Britain (but a could be wrong).

Jer
07-12-2017, 03:59 PM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,393
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
Loved the Bugatti story, Les.

Regarding small block Ford and Chevy engines, I've had plenty of experience with both. I had a D-Code 289 and an A-Code 289 in my '64.5 Mustang and '67 Cougar respectively; my '69 Mach I had a Windsor 351 (2-V). I owned successively '71, '75 and '82 Camaros, with - again respectively - 307, 350 and 305 versions of the mouse block.

The D-Code engine (4V; 210 HP) was only produced in the spring of '64 to power the Mercury Cyclone and as an option in the Mustang. Remarkably, Ford had only one 4-speed tranny to manage the torque of an American V-8, the famous top loader, which my Mustang did indeed have - overkill all the way. In July production (for the '65 models), Ford upgraded the D-Code mill with the higher-compression A-Code motor (225 HP); the rock crusher was replaced by a cheaper 4-Spd, which I think was sourced from Britain (but a could be wrong).

Jer
Jer,

You have certainly experienced a wide range of small block Ford V8's. I've had a few Chevy small block V8's...the 327 in my '67 Camaro RS, the 350 V8 in our '76 Impala and our Chevy 4.3 liter (262 cubic inches) Vortec V6 that powered our '97 Astro van. I count the 4.3 liter V6 as a Chevy small block...being that it was essentially a 350 (5.7 liter) CSB with two cylinders cut off. Sorry for all the metric/Imperial measure stuff that peppers my post.
Part of being an older Canadian who learned the British Imperial system as a young lad at school, then learned the Metric System which was phased into Canada starting in the early '70's. Funny thing is, I still 'think' in Imperial measurement' and then convert to Metric in my mind. But I digress.

We only had one Ford small block V8. It was in my wife's 1976 Ford Granada. She bought it used, it was her first car, had the 302 V8 two barrel. She bought it from a local Judge. Her view was that if you can't trust a Judge ...then who can you trust. Well, I'm not sure I follow her reasoning , but it was a reliable car.

The Ford Top Loader was a great 4 speed standard, transmission that was used in all Ford car applications , including the mighty 427 side oiler V8. I'm sure that it would of ben a lifetime transmission behind a Ford small block V8, considering the HP/torque that the 427 generated.

Les
07-13-2017, 02:13 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,615
Back to the op's post, and I feel a little responsible for bringing out all the gear heads, but while the car and the shot are both great,miss anyone got an idea of exactly what this apparent kit car is based on?
07-13-2017, 02:45 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,394
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Back to the op's post, and I feel a little responsible for bringing out all the gear heads, but while the car and the shot are both great,miss anyone got an idea of exactly what this apparent kit car is based on?
No help from me, Lowell. I did a quick Google search but didn't dig deeply enough to learn much of anything.

Jer
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
block, camera, chevy, choice, colleague, engine, flickr, ford, front, jerry, mg, modifications, photo, v8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black & White Steel Outlaw Sailor Post Your Photos! 4 10-12-2015 09:12 AM
"Click" in between "C" and "MF" mode on focus selector? K-50 maxwolfie Pentax K-30 & K-50 3 01-29-2015 04:19 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Suggestion Can we call "Register" - "Sign in" or "Sign in or register"? Laurentiu Cristofor Site Suggestions and Help 7 11-21-2010 04:39 PM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top