We are grateful to Roger Parker for his contribution to 'Forward!' This section
is to be a regular feature and will deal with many technical aspects of our vehicles.
If you have any questions you would like to put to Roger, please contact him...
Roger Parker, 8 Rydal, Wilnecote, Tamworth, Staffs. B77 5TB (01827 287986)
MG has for decades meant something special and without doubt these letters on the Metro, Maestro and Montego of recent years has carried on the tradition, even in the face of some resentment from some quarters! They certainly do encompass many extra features not included in the mainstream models which is exactly cars were made.
Another factor common between owners of older and newer MGs is the time, effort and money lavished on the cars. This effort is not confined to just maintenance but also to areas of improvement, as MGs, whilst different from mainstream models, have always had areas in which significant improvements can be achieved.
Personally, I have followed the same route with somewhat modified MGB, which I have owned for over twenty-one years. Since 1984, daily transport functions have been undertaken by three MG Maestros, a 1600, EFi, and currently a Turbo. From 1989, a second daily car has been an MG Metro with the current car being a late spec. 1300. All of these cars have been modified to a lesser or greater extent which has provided considerable experience. I am also fortunate to have access to rolling road and other test facilities. Naturally, I have taken many opportunities to use these to evaluate numerous modifications, which has further increased my knowledge bank. It is my intention to pass on some of this in the next few paragraphs.
How many metro owners have observed that earlier cars are sharper, and in some cases, noticeably quicker than the later cars? Part of the reason can be found with an increase in weight of about thirty kilos in later cars. However, the variations between so many standard cars are so great that something else is present. Following tests of very many standard MG Metros, there is a wide variation of recorded power at the wheels, with anything from 48-58 BHP at the wheels. This is proportionally a wide variation which shouldn't really be there as the quoted standard power output at the flywheel has always been 72 BHP.
Whilst there have been minor variations to detail settings over the years,
these are not enough to explain this variation, which is of the level
expected when head mods or cam changes are carried out. The head is to
all intents the same, as is the cam shaft, as it has always been throughout
the life of the car, so there is no obvious reason here. However, there has
been a noticeable variation of up to six degrees in the cam timng of standard
engines and correction using vernier gears has provided some positive results.
I always advocate the use of a known quality rolling road as the first stage in any tuning programme as so many cars are running below par and disappointing their owners. It is a fact that many owners find that the improvements achieved through a rolling road session are so significant that the new level of performance, often with better fuel consumption, is all they wanted. The other useful point is that you can get a good idea as to whether your car is up to par for your model.
I have already mentioned the measured power expected to be found with standard MG Metros and I know from experience this can be raised to Turbo levels, still with a perfectly tractable unit. In this case, the standard turbo does produce somewhere between 80-85 BHP at the wheels, which does raise further questions about quoted flywheel power. Suffice to say that the same rolling road at Peter Burgess (01733 - 520021) has been used throughout to obtain the averages, and sufficient cars have been on to level out these results.
The guinea-pig for the uprated engine was our previous MG Metro, an early '83 'A' reg. Example. The car had be subjected to a new braking system, dampers, suspension, joints and a multitude of other running gear replacements, including clutch and gearbox. The clutch was a standard Metro item which has subsequently coped with all the raised power for many thousands of miles.
The engine was built by Peter Burgess to the following specification:
The block was overbored by 60 thou. to achieve 1340cc. Consideration was given to going to 1380cc but it decided that I could achieve all I wanted by staying with what is a standard overbore. The cam shaft was replaced with a Kent 276, which is roughly one stage up from the standard MG Metro cam. This cam in the 1275cc engine does tend to give a lumpy idle and soften the low rev. range response, but with the extra 65cc this effect is reduced to just a lumpy idle and a little more difficulty in passing the MOT hydro-carbon level!
The head Peter modified to his MUN spec. (Modified Unleaded) which has (and still would be) the key to good power production. The valve sizes remain standard so as not to loose bottom end power, yet the rest of the modifications certainly do not restrict mid range and top end power. I have seen these spec. heads fitted to otherwise standard cars produce between 30-35% more power throughout the rev. Range. On one occasion when one was fitted to a low compression 1.3 Metro van, the result was an improvement of just over 50%! For around the £300 mark, these represent excellent value.
The rest of the engine was subject to a total overhaul and use of replacement parts as appropriate specification. Once assembled and run in, the engine produced 70 BHP on the first run. Optimisation of all settings resulted in 76 BHP which was quite satisfying as the engine looked totally standard. This resulted in very sharp performance and certainly well into the turbo league. The power may have been 4-9 BHP shy of the turbo sector, but this was offset by lower weight and lower gearing. I didn't fit one but a rev. limiter would be a useful addition!
The 76 BHP was achieved with a standard MG cast exhaust manifold and a standard pattern MG exhaust. The carb. was a new standard unit and the original MG inlet manifold and air filter was retained. Whilst running on the rollers, it was apparent that power was being held down at higher revs so a K&N filter was installed. Immediately, another 4 BHP at the wheels was found, yet the power curve still indicated that further top end power was yet to be released. This further restriction was felt to be the standard exhaust, yet time and money never did allow this to be checked out.
The one negative point is that with the K&N, air intake noise suppression is poor, to the point where it annoyed me. Since I had the carb. needle created for the engine spec. with original air filter, I refitted both, lost some top end zip but regained sanity!
The K&N is certainly efficient but I feel that even more power and better throttle response could be achieved by having a filter of it's efficiency coupled to ducting or piping that allowed cold air to be picked up. With the underbonnet temperatures experienced on the rolling road, I fully expect at least another couple of BHP as well as a sharper response, and this is virtually free horsepower. A Metro turbo plenum and air filter box with K&N should do well here, with the only proviso being to watch for carb. icing during damp winter conditions.
Here is a route proven to 80 BHP at the wheels, and with some additional minor mods, 85 BHP should be quite possible. This engine was superior in every way except for idle quality which mirrored the cam's overlap. I would expect that this would be a lesser problem on a 1380cc engine which would probably give another 5 or so BHP throughout the whole range. Wilder cams, different carb. and exhaust would no doubt produce even more power, but this would tend to be an exchange situation, with top end gains being matched by bottom end losses. Still, if you don't have to drive in traffic (a rare situation nowadays) then you could certainly easily live with a higher spec.
This was a budget conversion which kept in mind one of the users who wouldn't see above 4,000 RPM that often, and which allowed it to be driven like a normal MG Metro. At other times, the car could be taken by the scruff of the neck and hustled with great respectability and pleasure.
In future issues, I will cover similar conversions on 1600 MG Maestros to up to 128 BHP at the wheels! Then raising power of the Efi to the same sort of power, but with much better torque, followed by the Twin Cam 16 Valve conversion which gives an easy 135 BHP in standard form. Finally, I will cover the Turbos culminating with my experiences with a 204 BHP at the wheels Maestro Turbo, which has performance with a capital 'P'.
Last month, I broached the subject of mild tuning for the MG Metro, based on experience with one of my previous cars, which has been confirmed with subsequent conversions. Another of my previous cars was an early MG Maestro 1600, i.e. one with the 'R' series engine, and that was subject to a degree of tuning. I have also considerable involvement with several Championship winning 1600 Maestros so this month it is appropriate to pass on some tuning tips on this model.
The Maestro range was introduced on March 1st 1993 with various 1300 and 1600cc models. The MG version was also introduced on the same date, although if my information is correct the original intention was to introduce the MG later. This was revised at a later stage following the success of what was then the recently launched MG Metro and goes some way into explaining why the early MG Maestros suffered from simply inexcusable fuelling problems.
It is fair to say that it is unlikely that many of the original cars which are around today will not have been updated to help eradicate the problems. For the record, the problem was down to excess heat transferring from the engine into the carbs. This resulted in fuel expanding and eventually vapourising, and led to very rough running when the car was driven at slow speed in traffic. These problems were minor though when you came to restart a hot engine, the car would often simply refuse to start, and when it did it would run on one or two cylinders until the hot fuel had been replaced by fresh cooler fuel from the tank.
There was a partial cure for these problems in the form of a kit which introduced thermal spacers between the carbs and manifold and a 'recirculation kit' which was a fuel return pipe running from the fuel flow sensor back to the tank. These and other minor tweaks did go a considerable way to curing the problems but the hot restart was never fully eliminated. The later 'S' series engine featured a carburettor cooling fan which operated automatically after the car was stopped for a period of time, blowing cold air over the carbs to combat heat build up.
The original 1600 'R' engined Maestros were powered by a single SU carburettor and achieved 81 BHP. The MG engine featured modifications to the cylinder head and the obvious carburettor change to twin Weber 40 DCNFs which resulted in a 21 BHP increase over standard to a peak of 102 BHP. This was still short of the main competitors of the day who were operating with between 105 and 115 BHP and, in conjunction with a bigger and heavier body, resulted in performance which was not as sparkling as was hoped for. Nevertheless, acceleration to 60 MPH in about 9.5 seconds and a top speed in excess of 110 MPH were still respectable.
In July of 1984, the 'S' series engine was introduced across the range with the innovative digital ignition. In single carbed form, the engine produced a higher 86 BHP yet the MG with similar twin Webers was quoted at 103 BHP (depending where you read the info). This engine was only available for a few months as the impending fit of the 'O' series 2 litre was an open secret by that time.
As with most cars, a rolling road session is usually worth a few horsepower and much improved driveability. In the case of the 'R' engined MGs, they usually average between 75 and 80 BHP at the wheels whereas the 'S' MGs average about 5 BHP more. From this starting point, it is not that difficult to move the power to 100 BHP at the wheels and not only retain driveability but also to enhance it! The secret of good power production lies in the modification done with the cylinder head. This applies to both the 'R' and 'S' engines, even accounting that some subtle changes were introduced for the MG versions of the 'R'.
My own road going car was subject to something of a rush job, brought on by premature head gasket failure. So instead of obtaining a spare head and carefully planning the mods, the whole job was completed within 48 hours. The results were quite pleasing with a gain of 11 BHP to the dizzy heights of 86 BHP. I did try one of the foam type air filter conversions which release a further 3 BHP but the induction noise from the Webers soon wore me down and I was back to sanity with the original air box.
The exhaust system, originally a three box type, was replaced with the later two box, was replaced with the later two box type with it's larger tailpipe bore. There was no difference in power and neither was there any difference in noise. Later, some interesting results were achieved with improved driveability by the use of a metal shim gasket between manifold and head, where the shim intruded into the port space. In essence, the whole wasn't round but was 'D' shaped which was intended to combat what was believed to be a sound wave problem upsetting carburation. Maximun power remained unchanged.
If a rush job could release 11 BHP, then there should be more to come from proper development. The demand for this arrived with the inclusion of the Maestro in certain club racing classes. Initially, a similar head to mine was used in Nigel Petch's Maestro to win the MGOC Championship in 1988 with 92 BHP at the wheels. This had risen to 112 BHP for Mick Weidner to win the same Championship in 1992. This was with an 'S' engine yet the 'R' was at the same level by this time and even a couple up. This demonstrates what a good head can achieve, yet this is artificially restrained by regulations. A further 6 BHP can be found through subtle block modifications to unshroud the chamber, a simple mod which has a significant effect. A series of other modifications including a cam change has resulted in 126 BHP being seen at the wheels of an 'R' engined car being used in the Falken Tyres series. To put this in perspective, this is way above that of the Efi and in the league of the 16 valve conversions! What is more, the gearing of the 1600 is lower than the 2 litre cars so these 1600s are able to offset their lower engine capacity to achieve better performance in some areas. If you look at the racing scene, you will see that the quickest Maestros are invariably 1600s.
With the 1600 being quite cheap, they are an ideal choice for club racing, but for road use they have been overshadowed by the less fussy Efis. If you want to escape engine management systems and want to upset Efi owners, let alone Fords and Vauxhalls, then take a closer look at the MG 1600 for (relatively) cheap thrills!
Twin Cam 16 Valve conversions
This conversion has received a degree of coverage over the last few years, probably because it is such an effective and straightforward conversion. It is now four years since I did my first twin cam Maestro and whilst I no longer own the car I still carry out maintenance work on it. It has now covered in excess of 120 thousand miles and apart from a couple of niggly things, such as a tired original gearbox and worn front hub, it still runs well.
The mileage and use my old car has been subjected to does reinforce the viability of such a conversion, and the success that others have had following the same route, really does show how Austin Rover missed the boat with what would have been a cracking model.
In the years since doing my car there have been a number of significant developments to ease the route of the those who wish to follow. When I originally did mine I said how easy it was to do, and now I have to say the job is even easier. If you can contemplate changing an engine then you will be quite capable of changing the engine for a twin cam 16 valve unit.
The O2 engine was used as the base for the twin cam 16 valve engine developed for the Rover 820 range, introduced in 1986. In simplistic terms it is just a new cylinder head using the original block. However, as I mentioned with the Turbo engine swaps, there are many other detail differences, so the cheapest and easiest route to go 16 valve, is to obtain a compete engine. Fortunately there is now a reasonably plentiful supply in breakers yards.
This twin cam 16 valve engine gained the designation M16 and whilst mainly fitted to the 820's it was fitted to the earlier versions of the 220 and 420 range. It continued in mainstream use until 1991/2 when it was replaced by a further developed version redesignated the T16. The T16 first appeared in the facelift Rover 820's, the ones with the chrome grille, and shortly after in the 200, 400 and latterly 600 ranges.
The M16 is available in three basic specifications, Single Point Injection (SPI), Multi Point Injection (MPI) and turbo MPI. The T16 is also available in three basic specs, naturally aspirated MPI, 180 bhp turbo MPI, and 200 bhp MPI. The SPI M16 is rated at 120 bhp, the MPI M16 at 140 bhp or 135 with a cat, and the Turbo MJ6 at 180 bhp. The MPI T16 has 136 bhp, with the two turbo's as quoted, and they all have to put up with a catalyst!!
Now the beauty of these engines is that they all use the base 02 block for whatever model year they were built. That means that if Maestro's and Montego's were built at the same time then they all use the same common block. This means that if you fit a 1990 M16 into a 1990 M.G. Maestro then mating engine to gearbox and clutch will be as for the original engine. Even if you have proposals to fit a late T16 turbo unit to a 1986 Efi then there won't be many difficulties and these can still be solved by using parts from the Rover parts bin. Certainly the simplest route is obvious.
Keeping things simple will enable the conversion to be completed in a weekend, if you plan correctly. To achieve this will mean using an M16 MPI, non turbo unit from an 820I. This engine uses the same basic Lucas engine management system as the Efi so many parts are interchangeable, and those that are not are easily fitted, and are compatible!
The advantage with this conversion is not just the fact that the engine will mate to the gearbox without modifications, but also that the original gearing is just about perfect for the M16. The clutch is exactly the same, whether it be Efi, 820, 220 or 420, so no problems there. The only problem areas will be found in the right hand engine mounting and exhaust. The engine mounting problem is easy to solve as there are now several sources for a custom made mounting bracket which fits to the chassis, and mates with the original 820 mounting. The exhaust is at worst a fiddle, if you do it yourself, or easy if you visit one of several exhaust manufacturers who conversion. On the exhaust from you must be aware of the sensitivity of the engine to exhausts, and the fact that the standard Efi system will stifle the M16. In testing between the best and worst 'sports' systems was a huge 18 bhp at the wheels. Also the M16 creates different exhaust frequencies which often the Efi type of sports systems are not able to silence, resulting in resonance. Also beware that silent systems may be baffled and this stifles power too.
On your shopping list should be a complete engine from an 820, preferably an 'i'. 'Si', or 'SLi'. The engine from the 'e' badged single point injection cars is almost identical, but you will still have the problem of locating a Mpi manifold, so hold out for the former. Once you have located a donor car, preferably post 1988 with the 'ribbed' cam cover (as opposed to smooth), you want to extract the complete engine and all the ancillaries hanging off it. That means alternator, power steering, inlet manifold inc. throttle body, exhaust manifold, and all the water pipes that go round the engine. Other parts required include the ignition ECU, the fuel ECU, inc. its plug and several inches of the loom.
(NB 220/420's use MEMS MPI)
With these bits you now have the basis for the conversion. To improve sump to ground clearance a 220/420 sump is a good move, along with it's pick up, as this one is about 10 mm shallower. If your car has power steering then you have to consider either cutting and welding a small section of the front box of your car (under the rad) for the post '88 820 pump, or obtaining the parts from the '86 to '88 820 type, which is driven of the end of the inlet cam. It's worth noting that the earlier drive system was changed following some cam belt failures!! If your car doesn't have power steering (the majority) then your will want to source the alternator brackets from the '86 to '88 820 along with that models drive belt.
Fitting the engine will follow the same route that is applicable to the original engine, excepting the right hand engine mounting. Detail work on the cooling system pipes will involve a mix and match of 820, 220 and Efi parts. The airflow meter, air filter bracket will have to be modified to move the meter/filter towards the front of the car as the new inlet manifold comes round further than the Efi one. The 820 throttle potentiometer will have the wrong harness connector, and it will be easier to change this one for an EFi type. As colour codes will vary just note wire positions into the pot and fit them into the same relative positions in the plug.
The 820 ignition ECU just plugs in place of the EFi one, but the fuel ECU doesn't. Whilst the work involved to change to the 820 Fuel ECU is not difficult, you may find it easier to leave this job until you have got the car up and running. The M16 will run quite happily on the original ECU's but it will not be giving anywhere near it's best. Leaving the ECU changes till after the new engine is running does make fault diagnosis easier, should the new engine not run. Once running you may feel happy with the use of the original ECU's, or just the M16 ignition ECU, but note that you will be missing out on much efficiency, unless you use both M16 units.
Once installed and running you could have anything between 110 and 135 bhp at the wheels. This variation will depend on whether you are on the M16 ECU's and whether you exhaust system works. Certainly anything over 125 bhp would be acceptable. This compares with the 140 bhp, quoted maximum flywheel output in the Rover. On the rolling road an 820i usually yields around 115/120 bhp, and is held back through it's exhaust system. With a good system allowing the engine to breathe another 15 bhp is there for the taking!!
Power is not the only advantage of this conversion. The M16 is so much smoother, especially as revs rise, quieter, and refined, when compared with the base 02 engine. It does lose out slightly below 2500 rpm in the torque stakes over the EFi, but not by much, and the advantages far outweigh this. Lastly but not least is the fuel efficiency available with use of the M16 ECU's, which should average out at about 10% better overall, with some remarkable returns achievable on long steady runs.
So much for the base M16 conversion but what about the Turbo version? Well to fit this will involve the same work as for the base M16, excepting that the exhaust will be slightly easier to fabricate. Additionally the turbo will help to silence the exhaust so noise and resonance should not be a problem. Definitely a big bore Turbo sports system should be used and subject to someone testing different ones then those available off the shelf should do nicely. The engine management system is very similar to the other M16's excepting that the airflow meter is larger. It is the same unit as used on 3.6, 4.0, later V8 Range Rovers and V8 Discovery's.
Fitting this engine, which is rated at 180 bhp, should be accompanied by the use of it's gearbox, or one from a Maestro/Montego Turbo. The Rover box will fit once the clutch operating system has been swapped for the EFi type. (Hydraulic Vs Cable) This is only a very quick and simple swap and presents no problems. The Turbo boxes have the appropriate gearing and greater torque capacity.
As the 820 Turbo was not the most common of cars on the road I don't see that many will be available to be broken, however that will not be the case for the later T16 Turbo, but now we have a number of other problems to sort.
The T16 has evolved from the M16 and should be compatible with any of the 2 litre type gearboxes. The main differences, for our purposes is the different cylinder head and relocation of the water pump, alternator and power steering pump to a single multiple mounting/drive arrangement, which will be where the alternator is on the M16. There may be slight problems of space, as is the case for the later M16 power steering pump, but this shouldn't be beyond solving. Basic positions of all other components are as before.
The T16 in all guises uses the MEMS Mpi which is not compatible with the Lucas systems. However it appears to me that the injectors and all the engine mounted sensors are the same, or compatible with the Lucas system. It also seems that the Lucas type throttle body can be bolted straight onto the manifold block, so it should be possible to utilise the rest of the EFi system and the M16 ECU's, whether it be naturally aspirated or turbo. On the other hand there is nothing stopping you from converting to the MEMS system, which is simpler as it has a single function ECU, and is all contained within the underbonnet area. Personally I favour the total conversion to MEMS.
Well that just about covers the engine options for the 2.0 litre 'O' series and it's offspring. There are another couple of options which I will mention just for interests sake. Prior to doing my M16 conversion I looked at going the Turbo route, with a Montego lump. I also actively considered a 2.5 or 2.7 V6 from the 800 range, which would have pre-empted the Golf, Cavalier and Mondeo V6 cars by 3 years!! It still would make for a superb conversion, although it would be nowhere near as straightforward as the 2 litre swaps.
Another engine which is could enter the frame is the 'K' series. It is some years since I had experience of a 'K' engined Montego development car, and that was impressive. Take the new larger capacity versions about to appear and we have one of the most advanced production engines in the world, being able to produce more than adequate power, and being even smoother than the T!! Hmmmmmm.
Local MG 'M' people:
|Dave Williams||South Cheshire MG Owners' Club||(01270) 67643|
|Chris Aplin||Swindon MG Owners' Club||(01793) 642646|
|Roger Pratten||(01604) 718285|
MG 'M' gatherings:
|Area:||Milton Keynes / Bucks|
|Meet:||Kingfisher Lakes, Deanshanger, Milton Keynes 1st Friday of month, 8.00pm|
|Contact:||Steve McGarry (Tel: 0589-464804)|
For those who wish to achieve more than 110 ish bhp at the wheels then an engine conversion can be the most cost effective route to follow. Simply because you can find your tuning bits in a breakers, without highly polished price tickets! However don't expect a conversion costing a song, as a proper job will involve quite considerable work, but the overall cost will be peanuts, be it Turbo or M16, when you see what a similar conversion would have a cost a Ford, Vauxhall or Peugeot owner.
To convert an EfI to a Turbo is straight forward, if somewhat extensive. The Turbo engine uses the same basic 02 unit, but there are some significant internal differences. The main ones are uprated big end bearing material and stronger con rods, featuring fully floating small ends. Pistons are of course specific to the individual application.
It is quite possible to convert an Efi engine to either Turbo spec, but the list of parts required to match the factory specification is such that this route isn't viable. Complete engines are so cheap in breakers that this is the route to follow. In fact an accident damaged write off would provide everything you would need, and may only cost you a few hundred pounds. (scan the Autotrader salvage section)
Specifically, to convert to Turbo spec you would need all of the underbonnet bits from a Montego Turbo. The fuel supply and return is the same as the Efi but almost everything else under the bonnet is different. Apart from the engine it would be wise to fit the Turbo gearbox too. The EfI box uses the same ratios, but the final drive is too low to live comfortably with power band of the Turbo engine. In fact a slightly tweaked turbo makes it's longer gearing feel too short!! The Turbo gearbox has another advantage in that it is uprated over the normal boxes, by quite significantly in the case of early turbo's, not so much for later boxes.
All of basic Montego Turbo hardware would bolt into the engine bay, in fact a 1600 could be converted although some captive nuts and mounting holes would be different or missing. It would to this point be a very simple change over, but what complicates matters is the engine management, or rather the change from Efi to Carb. There are differences on the ignition wiring too, as the engine coolant sensor doesn't connect to the ignition ECU, rather there is a intake air temperature sensor instead. Apart from these problems there is the additional consideration of the carb cooling fan and control.
You could always fit a manual choke conversion and not wire in the carb cooling fan which would simplify matters. Certainly the 4CM carb ECU doesn't have a very good reliability reputation, so manual conversion could offer advantages. Similar problems also occur with the carb cooling fan, and most of the time you would not notice the loss of the fan. Attempting to restart on a hot day a few minutes after a 'quick' run will be when you see what this fan does!!!!
Another way round the wiring differences would be to modify the Efi inlet manifold, so that it can be fitted with the turbo exhaust manifold, and retain injection. This could provide a number of advantages and it does work, as displayed by Motobuild's 'D' reg. project car of a few years ago. Detail work would be required to optimise fuelling, but if done properly then not only should there be more top end power, but throttle response, off boost performance and turbo response time should be better. Additionally a correctly mapped system may also provide better fuel consumption. I have some detailed thoughts on how to achieve all of this and at some time may employ them on the Maestro Turbo, but that's another story.
Previous tuning of the 2 litre should result in up to about 20% increase in top end power, with something less than 10% in the mid range. That level of increase can be accommodated by the original suspension, brakes etc. if in good order, and being enthusiasts I expect that they are! In fact most cars will have already been tweaked in the suspension and braking areas as they can be made better road cars for it. This area will be covered in a future issue giving a few options.
However, with our Turbo transplant we must ensure that brakes and suspension are to turbo spec as a minimum. After all a standard turbo produces up to 40% more power at peak over the Efi, and more in the mid range. This result in a quick car turning into a very rapid one and the ability to achieve high speed so quickly needs the ability to go round bends and stop in the same way!!!!
More on the late MG saloons
More on the MG'M' Club