Bruce K Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 This is a 1968 car. Low mileage and in apparent excellent condition. Reserve is unmet with one bid at $18,500. It generates 225 HP from 3.5 liters, which was substantial for the day. Amazing when you consider that our 2-liter Hondas and Ford Ecotecs routinely output substantially greater power from just over half the displacement (240 HP from the stock Honda S2000 motor): [/url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lotus-Super-Seven-1968-Westfield-V8-Only-200-Ever-Made-Extremely-Rare-/170971277178?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27ceaea77a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 >>>> Ah yes, but just think about all that dirty, filthy low end torque from that aluminum v8!! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce K Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 >>>> Ah yes, but just think about all that dirty, filthy low end torque from that aluminum v8!! :-) Sevenup, why does your description of torque sound sexual? Oh, wait! Because it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitcat Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I like that it has a curb weight "of less than pounds." That's what I call lightness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikker Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 This is a 1968 car. Low mileage and in apparent excellent condition. Reserve is unmet with one bid at $18,500. It generates 225 HP from 3.5 liters, which was substantial for the day. Amazing when you consider that our 2-liter Hondas and Ford Ecotecs routinely output substantially greater power from just over half the displacement (240 HP from the stock Honda S2000 motor): [/url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lotus-Super-Seven-1968-Westfield-V8-Only-200-Ever-Made-Extremely-Rare-/170971277178?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27ceaea77a Of course the car is just titled as a 68 for convenience; Westfield made SEights from 1991 to 2010, this one looks pretty fresh and new to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian 7 Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 It's a 1994. See the pic of the vin tag. Great engine. I have a Marcos Mantula with the 3.9l Rover V8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Canadian7, I agree, I have an MGC GT Sebring with the 3.9L also. It is a workhorse..took it on a 2500 mile trip to Palestine, TX last summer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikker Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Canadian7, I agree, I have an MGC GT Sebring with the 3.9L also. It is a workhorse..took it on a 2500 mile trip to Palestine, TX last summer.. Ha, Ha, I read your note about the trip to Palestine, missing the TX part, and was like damn, this is one devoted enthusiast ! lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Rikker, well there was one point in that trip where I felt like going to the wailing wall..but it had nothing to do with the gt :-) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikker Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 That is a great MG. I recall the MG B GT V8 from the factory was in answer to many tuners and custom builders offering the V8, but what was the story with the C and the Sebring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) When the Austin Healey could not meet the new 1968 saftey regulations production stopped on the Big Healey. In it's place was the MGC, which in reality was an MGB with 15" wheels, a modified bonnet, torsion suspension and the Healeys 2.9L straight six. The car was only in production for the 1968 and 1969 model years. Essentially, the motoring press killed it primarily for it's drastic understeer. BMC, in an effort enhance sales through the racing department, built 6 MGC-GTs with all aluminum panels, revised front and rear valances / fender flares and the 2.9L straight six poured out of aluminum. They raced these cars at Targa Florio, Nuerenburg Ring, and Sebring...they became known generically as the Sebring GTS.. My car is a clone, actually being an mgb gt with the C rear axle, and the Rover aluminum 3.9L v8. The mgb was actually designed to accept the V8 from 1968 on and the factory produced 2700 of these cars from 1973 to 1976. The gt sebring, though forminable in it's day, (250 hp @ 1600 lbs) was never competitive as it did break a lot. Although, as I recall, it did place first in class at Sebring one year. Edited January 12, 2013 by sevenup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHKflyer52 Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When the Austin Healey could not meet the new 1968 saftey regulations production stopped on the Big Healey. In it's place was the MGC, which in reality was an MGB with 15" wheels, a modified bonnet, torsion suspension and the Healeys 2.9L straight six. The car was only in production for the 1968 and 1969 model years. Essentially, the motoring press killed it primarily for it's drastic understeer. BMC, in an effort enhance sales through the racing department, built 6 MGC-GTs with all aluminum panels, revised front and rear valances / fender flares and the 2.9L straight six poured out of aluminum. They raced these cars at Targa Florio, Nuerenburg Ring, and Sebring...they became known generically as the Sebring GTS.. My car is a clone, actually being an mgb gt with the C rear axle, and the Rover aluminum 3.9L v8. The mgb was actually designed to accept the V8 from 1968 on and the factory produced 2700 of these cars from 1973 to 1976. The gt sebring, though forminable in it's day, (250 hp @ 1600 lbs) was never competitive as it did break a lot. Although, as I recall, it did place first in class at Sebring one year. Like this 1969 MGC GTS that belongs to a good friend of mine Steve Simmons. This car is exceptional in every way and is so much faster than any MGB GT or MGC I have ever driven. Takes a bit of getting use to driving on the right side but it sure is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusaNostra Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What about this STAG V8 - I thought they have the same V8? Based in Buick 215 engine per say? http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6664/stagu.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) MKHFlyer52, I used to communicate with Steve a lot many years ago..as I recall he also has a 1966 mgb....(and others, T series) I remember his frustration about storage of his cars...didn't he build onto his existing garage in a unique way? BusNostra, the Stag was definitly not the aluminmum v8, it was two iron 4 cylinders cast together...might have been Spitfire but think it was a swedish design 4...they had a lot of head gasket problems.. A few more pics of my sebring clone: http://s1281.beta.photobucket.com/user/foto8mike/library/#/user/foto8mike/library/mgb%20gt%20V8?&_suid=135809203111304397417280309497 Edited January 13, 2013 by sevenup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHKflyer52 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) MKHFlyer52, I used to communicate with Steve a lot many years ago..as I recall he also has a 1966 mgb....(and others, T series) I remember his frustration about storage of his cars...didn't he build onto his existing garage in a unique way? sevenup, The third photo is Steve Old Garage that he lifted the roof to fit some of his collection of cars. (The MGC GTS is in the midle.) The first photo is the new garage that he is building as he needed more floor space and has move from where the first photo was taken...much nicer digs even though the first home was very nice the new one is way nicer and much larger. The new garage from the one entrance looking in...:drool:... Edited January 14, 2013 by MHKflyer52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikker Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) What about this STAG V8 - I thought they have the same V8? Based in Buick 215 engine per say? http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6664/stagu.jpg No, they developed their own engine, at great cost actually, even though there was the tried and tested Rover( Buick) V8, it was said that even though they were part of BMC then Leyland, that they wanted to keep it more "Triumph" like the old days, the engine, sadly, was not very good. Edited January 14, 2013 by rikker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 All, I guess the true Stag engine answer is in here (from Wikipedia) someplace: The initial Stag design was based around the saloon's 2.5-litre engine, and Harry Webster intended the Stag, large saloons and estate cars to use a new Triumph-designed overhead cam (OHC) 2.5-litre fuel injected (PI) V8. Under the direction of Harry Webster's successor, Spen King in 1968, the new Triumph OHC 2.5 PI V8 was enlarged to 2997 cc (3.0 litres) to increase torque. To meet emission standards in the USA, a key target market, the troublesome mechanical fuel injection was dropped in favour of dual Zenith-Stromberg 175 CDSE carburettors. A key aim of Triumph's engineering strategy at the time was to create a family of engines of different size around a common crankshaft. This would enable the production of power plants of capacity between 1.5 and 4 litres, sharing many parts, and hence offering economies of manufacturing scale and of mechanic training. A number of iterations of this design went into production, notably a slant-four cylinder engine used in the later Triumph Dolomite and Triumph TR7, and a variant manufactured by StanPart that was initially used in the Saab 99. The Stag's V8 was the first of these engines into production. Sometimes described as two four-cylinder engines Siamesed together, it is more correct to say that the later four-cylinder versions were half a Stag engine (the left half)it has sometimes been alleged that Triumph were instructed to use the proven all-aluminium Rover V8, originally designed by Buick, but claimed that it would not fit. Although there was a factory attempt by Triumph to fit a Rover engine, which was pronounced unsuccessful, the decision to go with the Triumph V8 was probably driven more by the wider engineering strategy and by the fact that the Buick's different weight and torque characteristics would have entailed substantial re-engineering of the Stag when it was almost ready to go on sale. Furthermore Rover, also owned by British Leyland, could not necessarily have supplied the numbers of V8 engines to match the anticipated production of the Stag anyway.[3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 MHKflyer52, wow, I remember he lifted the building etc. but did not remember the cars being so tight in there....as I recall that was his only option and I would say he did very well....looks like his new garage has plenty of extra room! thanks for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHKflyer52 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 MHKflyer52, wow, I remember he lifted the building etc. but did not remember the cars being so tight in there....as I recall that was his only option and I would say he did very well....looks like his new garage has plenty of extra room! thanks for sharing His old garage (the photo with the five cars) has the two on the lifts lowered so he could take the photo showing all the cars in the garage. When up all the way I was able to walk under them an I am 6'2". That is a standard two car garage door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenup Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Thanks Martin, that information makes a lot of sense...that pic had me going for a while :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.902b4b1e564bc89b66557a601da61d57.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now