(no subject)

[Jorolibb@aol.com]

Add my name to the growing list for a badge.

John Libbert

[Jbtc48@aol.com]

It is really a shame that we are loosing members because of a few intolerant
members that believe that their way is the ONLY way to treat a MG.
We all bought these cars with the intent to enjoy.
Geoff and a couple others have jammed this communication link with a vendetta
against anyone who doesn't believe that there way is the only way.!
If I sell any of my unused and restored parts you can be sure it won't be to
any of those extremests.
If this cannot be a membership of friends all enjoying a great hobby then I
might join the group that is leaving. I feel self sufficient to go it alone
if necessary.
I have two MG's that I have have been restored to the highest order possible,
at considerable expense.
One is as original as possible (a show car) the other is a racer with
aSherrock blower, bored , B&G head, larger exhaust, 1500cc,racing clutch, new
spindles, chromemolly half shafts, and numerious modern seals, etc. etc.
All of the original and restored parts are still in house, and will not be
sold without the car so that a PUTIST like Geoff can't pick the inventory to
pieces at a cheap price. I will trash my parts before he gets them
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SINCERELY
Joe Bernert
2 MG's

[Geoffrey WHEATLEY]

Joe,I feel your comments are both unfair and unrelated to anyone else
who may have a different view from you. I do not push my views down your
throat so don't push yours down mine. My comments is simple.
I DO NOT PUT ANY THING ON MY CARS THAT WAS NOT INTENDED. YOU CAN DO WHAT
YOU LIKE BUT DON"T MAKE IT A CRUSADE THAT HAS TO BE PROMOTED TO EVERYONE
ON THIS LIST..AND DON'T PICK ON PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO STILL FEEL THAT A T
TYPE MG SHOULD BE A
T TYPE MG NOT A MIXTURE OF BITS FROM OTHER CARS.

Regards Geoff

[Gene Gillam]

In every group you're going to have differences of opinion. Be glad that in
this one there's only two - those that feel one way about originality and
those that feel another. Either group is considered *extreme* by the
other - but both groups love their MG's so what difference does it make?
Live and let live.

Gene

[Geoffrey WHEATLEY]

You are right Gene, just get the other group to BACK OFF!

Regards Geoff

[Awini Ambuj Shanker]

Hi all,
I was wondering how old the MG owners on the list are, I have just turned
27,am i one of the youngest?with one of the oldest TCs?
regards
Awini A.Shanker
TC 0365
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[MikeMarjot@aol.com]

Sorry Larry and Octagonal ones,

My research is crap as is my arithmetic. Re body numbers for the TF I should
have said:-

Body numbers started at 10000, Bearing in mind the chassis started at TF501
(following BMCs rules rather than MGs, although there were two prototypes
TF250 and TF251) we need to take 9500 off of your number to get 2842. So your
TF should be somewhere around chassis TF 2850. If it was, then it would
probably have been produced in February or March 1954. This seems to be in
line with the information you have that this is a 1954 car. While BODY
numbers are not a particularly reliable guide on date, they are some help.

Sorry.

Mike

[Larry Cogan]

To All The Good Guys: A simple thank you doesn't begin to express my
feelings for all the "right now" help I received from around the world.
What a priviledge it is to be associated with such a group of folks that
dropped what they were doing this morning and took the time to research and
pass along detailed information that pulled my nuts from the fire. I feel
overwhelmed.
Now the results....The current Florida title is in error....it carried
the body number as the vehicle serial number. The "Chassis ID Plate" (Moss
nomenclature) is missing. Had it been present, the problem would have been
obvious. The error on the title is apparently 20 years old and has been
carried thru three titles. I (with help from the list) located the chassis
number on the front left side frame horn. Armed with all this information
the seller offered to refund all money. Once everything fell into place,
numberwise, I was happy, so the deal was closed (again). So...... for
those who are interested, the year is 1954. The body # is "TF 12342", the
chassis number is "TF 3013" and the engine number is "XPAG-TF 32806". There
is a convoluted way to "fix" the Florida title, but now that I know that
all the numbers are proper, I probably wont pursue it. Besides, the gas
tank needs cleaned, the fuel pump replaced, the carbs rebuilt, and several
leaking freeze plugs need attention.
Finally thanks to those who have pointed me towards the right books and
web/e- lists. It's not my dream TC, but one must make do sometimes....
Larry Cogan....Melbourne, FL

55 Ford T'bird
60 Frogeye
70 Midget
and.....ta da....54 MG TF (not running but pretty as all hell)

[GRaw505@aol.com]

I'm going for a complete set!
So far a '34 PA, a '47 TC, a '70 BGT and a '98 F. Does anyone know of a good
MGA?
Regards, Geoff
TC 4495

[MikeMarjot@aol.com]

Patient T-ABCers (I hope)

I am embarrassed to write to the list since I know there was quite a long
thread recently about 'white smoke' from the exhaust and the terrible things
it might presage.

I regret to say that I did not pay a great deal of attention and, although I
have over 2000 e-mails stored, this thread is missing. Just my luck.

I went to the MG Octagon Car Club annual 'Wings Run' on Sunday last, ending
up at Abingdon. I had a fabulous day out and TinkerBelle my TB was a real
sweety. It was all country lanes on the way up but the hundred or so miles
back was motorway. I travelled at 55 to 60 mph the whole way, revs at 3500 to
4000. She drove beautifully, lots of oomph and good acceleration. I stopped
at my local garage to fill the tank, restarted then drove home, parked the
car while I cleared the drive then restarted again and put the TB away. All
fine, started first time each time, no smoke no nothing, drove sweetly no
hassles. Today Monday I started her up to go to my local Natter. She started
almost immediately, as she does when used recently, but as I backed out of
the garage she stalled. This is almost unheard of unless I foul the clutch or
something. I rolled backwards out on to the drive and restarted her. It was
then I noticed thick clouds of white 'smoke' from the exhaust (I was
enveloped in it!). I was running on more choke than usual but when I put it
in (which I can always do almost immediately) she stalled again. Each restart
has proved more difficult than the last and at the time of writing she won't
start at all.

I am ready to swear there were no 'dirty' emissions on Sunday at any time
over 200 miles. I am almost certain there was no white smoke the first time I
started her today, but there was when I restarted on the drive.

I have not apparently used any water. (The level was the same throughout
Sunday and the level of coolant is at its usual position now.)

There may be oil leaking from the cylinder head gasket on one side, on the
other hand I suspect it is actually from the rocker cover gasket, which does
leak a bit. There are also, unusually, a large number of spots of oil on the
paintwork under the bonnet, though this is 'cleanish' oil and may be the
result of over enthusiastic servicing before the run. I use EP140 oil not
grease.

The exhaust pipe did NOT drip any water from the white smoke and the inside
of the exhaust was dry soot, no moisture. The engine was still effectively
cold, it had only run long enough to build up oil pressure.

Any ideas? I am assuming it is a blown cylinder head gasket, but the 'White
Smoke' thread I think suggested other possibilities.

Also, while looking (hopefully but in ignorance) under the bonnet I noticed
that the join between the manifold and the exhaust pipe is weird. There is a
very thick two part gasket (thin black plus thick white) but the funny thing
is the bolts holding the two items together are different. One has a nut at
each end, the other has a nut underneath but the bolt itself sits flush with
the top surface and has no nut. Someone suggested to me this might be a bolt
which keys into the top of the manifold flange and is tightened into place by
the bottom bolt. This would make the bolt with two nuts the non-standard
item. Does anyone know which is right? The gasket looks like it is not
properly sealing, I have to admit, but on the other hand there seems no loss
of power or noise from the joint. I thought the bolt might have sheered, but
if so it was a long time ago as there is no clean bright surface, as you
would expect from a sheared bolt.
I am assuming this has nothing to do with the 'white smoke'.

With apologies for re-raising a 'dead' strand.

Desperately octagonal, or octagonally desperate.

I haven't tried a rock yet Badger, but appreciate it's an option, probably on
myself!

Mike Marjot