Good quick review of the twin-cam engine. I really miss my 1960 MGA 1600. It was a single cam, but it was originally set up for race track use. Keeping the wire wheels true provided a second job for a while.
They could have saved themselves a lot of time, money and reputation by just having a look at the engine in the Alfa Gulietta which predated it by 5 years. It could produce about the same power from 1300 cc and it didn't go bang.
The same comment seems to be equally valid regarding the Lotus twin cam of 1962 which although considered by many to be successful has several Ill considered design flaws. The stupidly placed distributor under leaky carbs. The ridiculous water pump built into the badly sealed front cover. The inlet manifold integral with the cylinder head all come to mind. I can only assume that some made in Britain loyalty was the motive for its existence.
I just saw an MGA twin cam complete car for $20,000. The engine is out of the car and it is on Facebook marketplace. I know it seems like 20,000 is a lot but the car looks complete although in pieces.
I worked at the Coventry factory where the twin cam was developed. Just a little more development could have Yank-proofed the engine, and it could have been a huge success.... this engine could not survive with low octane fuel. The CR should have been knocked back to 9 to 1 which would have reduced its sensitivity to ham handed mechanics setting the timing wrong. The oil consumption was due to poor design of the piston rings. A 1600 twin cam 10 years before the Ford Escort TC!
@@nikjames2965 "YANK-PROOFED. That is a tall order. Americans are well known for not taking care of their cars, or butchering them. I worked at a BMC dealership In Calif 1968-1972. We had a few Twin Cam owners. My opinion... most Americans should stick with American iron and leave Brit and Euro cars for responsible adults. I have owned 30 Brit cars since 1964 7 of which were MGs to include a 56 MGA in which I stuffed a 3 main B moter back in 1970. Also one of the few Fairthorpe Electon Climax cars. Currently a 1963 MGB
awesome little car...my wife's dad a little white one ,,,,,sadly we had to sell it....and recently we found all the Abington factory correspondence papers of his car ,Later the car was shipped from UK(where he got to see it being built) to SA
The chassis number is still a Twin cam, and the chassis, steering, brakes, wheels and all the original TC parts are there. I would love to find a TC motor and bring the car back to original but unfortunately there are a few Twin Cam MGAs with a similar story to mine.
@@rcclassicgarage Yeah, sorry about my tone, sounded a bit contemptuous. I'm in Australia, so there are few, if any, spare here. I have noticed a few for restoration knocking around in The States. I was thinking, your car is almost a Deluxe, although I think they were sourced from Mk2 Twin Cam bodies, rather than the one you have, although I much prefer the taillight cluster on yours, compared to the Mk2.
My understanding is that when BMC discontinued production of the twin cam motor they were left with a few chassis intended for those motors. As a result they installed the 1600cc motor and voila, the Deluxe. I've never driven a twin cam or deluxe, but I would imagine that the all wheel disk brakes and heavy duty anti-sway bar would have improved the 1600 MKII significantly. It's unfortunate that the margins between competitors was so tight that had they done that at the time, more buyers would have opted for the Triumph and MGA sales would have suffered.
Good quick review of the twin-cam engine. I really miss my 1960 MGA 1600. It was a single cam, but it was originally set up for race track use. Keeping the wire wheels true provided a second job for a while.
They could have saved themselves a lot of time, money and reputation by just having a look at the engine in the Alfa Gulietta which predated it by 5 years. It could produce about the same power from 1300 cc and it didn't go bang.
The same comment seems to be equally valid regarding the Lotus twin cam of 1962 which although considered by many to be successful has several Ill considered design flaws. The stupidly placed distributor under leaky carbs. The ridiculous water pump built into the badly sealed front cover. The inlet manifold integral with the cylinder head all come to mind. I can only assume that some made in Britain loyalty was the motive for its existence.
I just saw an MGA twin cam complete car for $20,000. The engine is out of the car and it is on Facebook marketplace. I know it seems like 20,000 is a lot but the car looks complete although in pieces.
They should simply have bought Alfa Romeo engines.
I worked at the Coventry factory where the twin cam was developed. Just a little more development could have Yank-proofed the engine, and it could have been a huge success.... this engine could not survive with low octane fuel. The CR should have been knocked back to 9 to 1 which would have reduced its sensitivity to ham handed mechanics setting the timing wrong. The oil consumption was due to poor design of the piston rings. A 1600 twin cam 10 years before the Ford Escort TC!
@@nikjames2965 "YANK-PROOFED. That is a tall order. Americans are well known for not taking care of their cars, or butchering them.
I worked at a BMC dealership In Calif 1968-1972. We had a few Twin Cam owners. My opinion... most Americans should stick with American
iron and leave Brit and Euro cars for responsible adults. I have owned 30 Brit cars since 1964 7 of which were MGs to include a 56 MGA in which
I stuffed a 3 main B moter back in 1970. Also one of the few Fairthorpe Electon Climax cars. Currently a 1963 MGB
Nice pair of garage mates! Per Jay Leno, the oil leaking problem would be solved by modern gaskets.
awesome little car...my wife's dad a little white one ,,,,,sadly we had to sell it....and recently we found all the Abington factory correspondence papers of his car ,Later the car was shipped from UK(where he got to see it being built) to SA
So, it's not a Twin Cam, although to be fair, you've given us the history of a car you don't have.
The chassis number is still a Twin cam, and the chassis, steering, brakes, wheels and all the original TC parts are there. I would love to find a TC motor and bring the car back to original but unfortunately there are a few Twin Cam MGAs with a similar story to mine.
@@rcclassicgarage Yeah, sorry about my tone, sounded a bit contemptuous. I'm in Australia, so there are few, if any, spare here. I have noticed a few for restoration knocking around in The States. I was thinking, your car is almost a Deluxe, although I think they were sourced from Mk2 Twin Cam bodies, rather than the one you have, although I much prefer the taillight cluster on yours, compared to the Mk2.
......We love the Design ,but not the old Technik with Problems sometimes ! 7/2023 MX NC driver in white...greet,s
HF
If BMC had just put the money wasted here into (1) a mild wrap-around windshield and (2) wind-up windows instead.
There were fewer Deluxe models and were considerably better cars.
Agreed, they started making the Deluxe in the early 1960s with a standard 1600 pushrod engine and TC body and racing features
My understanding is that when BMC discontinued production of the twin cam motor they were left with a few chassis intended for those motors. As a result they installed the 1600cc motor and voila, the Deluxe. I've never driven a twin cam or deluxe, but I would imagine that the all wheel disk brakes and heavy duty anti-sway bar would have improved the 1600 MKII significantly. It's unfortunate that the margins between competitors was so tight that had they done that at the time, more buyers would have opted for the Triumph and MGA sales would have suffered.
@@andrewmacgregor8717 The Deluxe was fitted with a 1622. They are far more rare than a twin cam and a better vehicle.