Europe's New Wankel

From Autocar Magazine, Week ending 8th November 1973

A look at Wankel engine history and the latest unit to appear, the Comotor Bi-rotor announced for the Citroen GS





ROTARY ENGINES go back in history a long way before Dr Felix Wankel's obsession with them before and after the last war. If you admit to the basic similarity between engines and pumps (the action of many engines can be reversed to form pumps), then an Italian engineer called Ramelli was the first in 1588, with his invention of the vane-type pump. Pappenheim, a German, followed this 48 years later with the gear-type pump, which did away with Ramelli’s slide valves but suffered from leaky seals, water or gas tightness being the weak point of all rotary designs.

In 1799 a colleague of James Watt adapted Pappenheim's gear pump into a rotary steam engine. Despite wooden scrapers in the tips of the teeth, there was a lot of leakage and a poor efficiency. Sixty years later an Englishman called Jones simplified the gear pump down to two double-lobed intermeshing rotors, this configuration later being adopted in the famous Rootes supercharger.

One of the first rotary engine patents was filed by an American called Cooley in 1901. His invention featured an epicycloid with internal meshing- gears and an enveloping casing with three fixed seals. In 1908 Umpleby, an Englishman, converted Cooley’s rotary steam engine into an internal combustion engine, but the gas sealing problems prevented the design from being successful.

Inventors throughout modern history have repeatedly been fired by enthusiasm for rotary engines, the attraction generally being smoothness of operation from the elimination of reciprocating parts and a high specific output for the weight and bulk, cylinders being arranged in a much more compact layout than the conventional side-by-side cylinder configuration of a reciprocating engine. Apart from the often impossibility of actually making some of the parts, in the main it has been gas sealing that has caused the designs to fail. Even when combustion was sustained, power outputs were very low due to poor combustion chamber shapes and the thermal problems of putting the cylinders so close together.

Born in the Black Forest in 1903, Felix Wankel acquired a keen interest in rotary engines during the five years he spent working for a scientific publishing house in Heidelberg. At the age of 21 he set up his own workshops and made models of rotary piston engines. Very soon he established that the weakness of all designs was the gas sealing and he set about beating this problem with a programme of intensive development. With the co-operation of BMW, he designed a practical unit in 1934 and in 1936 he received support from the German Air Ministry to set up a research organization. In 1942 the laboratories were expanded to undertake work on rotary-valve aircraft engines, but in 1945 the Allied Forces occupying Germany destroyed Wankel's whole operation.

Nothing daunted, Wankel immediately started work again in his Black Forest home and in 1951 his first contract with NSU was signed. In 1954 the discovery was made that a four-stroke cycle could be performed by the rotation of a three-lobed rotor in an epitrochoidal casing and suddenly the door to success was open. Two years later, an NSU motorcycle with a rotary-piston supercharger wiped the board in competition and took several world speed records on the Great Salt Lake.

In 1957 the first Wankel engine ran. This early type DKM was extremely complicated with both rotor and housing rotating. From a capacity equivalent to only 250 cc, 29 bhp was developed at 17,000 rpm. The next step was to make the rotor trace an orbital path and keep the casing stationary and the engine in this form (known as the KKM) successfully ran in 1958. Endurance trials the following year proved the reliability and in January 1960 at a German engineering convention in Munich, Wankel told the world about his revolutionary new engine.

Already the Curtiss—Wright Corporation in the USA had a licence to develop the Wankel engine, and enquiries poured in from all over the world. By the beginning of 1961, Toyo Kogyo and Yanmar Diesel in Japan had taken out licensing agreements, to be followed by Daimler-Benz, Alfa Romeo, Rolls-Royce, Porsche, Nissan, General Motors, Toyota, Ford of Cologne, BSA, Yamaha, Kawasaki and American Motors, to name only the automotive companies in the total list of 25 licensees. In 1967 Citroen set up a joint company with NSU, named Comotor, to manufacture and market rotary-piston engines, and in 1971 the Anglo-Rhodesian mining company, Lonrho Ltd, acquired Wankel's interest in the original design and thus became the recipient of a share of all licence fees.

European Development

The first Wankel engine to go into series production was a 300 cc unit developing 18 bhp at 6,000 rpm. lt was used as the power unit for a small water scooter controlled by a ski-mounted driver. From October 1962 onwards a total of 3,000 were manufactured.

ln 1959 the Wankel engine made history by powering a car for the first time. Two NSU Prinz minicars were fitted with a 500 cc unit developing 44 bhp at 9,000 rpm and sent out on long-term endurance testing. These cars helped convince the NSU management that the engine had potential, but it was still greeted with a lot of scepticism, all previous rotary engines having been considerable white elephants.

A year later and an engine specifically designed for fitting to a car was ready, six Prinz Sport coupés being built as prototypes. There followed a long period of development and an increasing undercurrent of unrest amongst NSU shareholders about the considerable financial commitment. This precipitated the premature launch of a production car, the NSU Spider in September 1964, powered by a single—rotor Wankel engine of 996 cc developing 50 bhp at 6,000 rpm. Like the early experimental engines, this power unit suffered from very poor bottom-end torque and a useful range of only 4,000 to 6,000 rpm, top end performance being limited by the seal life at that time. For this reason and the fact that there had to be a premium price on a low volume output, the installation chosen was a convertible version of the Sport Prinz, the idea being that sports car drivers expected engines with these characteristics. No more than 15 per day were produced, the total built until production ceased in 1968 being only 3,200.

A lot of valuable experience was gained in service, however, often at the expense and inconvenience of the customer, although NSU have always been very quick to replace Wankel engines free of charge. We ran one of these Spiders as a staff car and suffered excessive seal wear and a cracked rotor casing.

From single rotor engines work progressed to double rotors and more, Toyo Kogyo and Mercedes eventually getting as far as four rotors experimentally. NSU's great landmark was the launch of the twin—rotor Ro80 in 1967. For the first time in Europe there was a new car designed around the Wankel engine, the compact size of the power unit allowing a low aerodynamic nose and front-wheel drive. To compensate for the still-evident deficiency in bottom—end torque, a semi—automatic transmission was employed, with manual shifting and a torque convertor. The Ro80 engine had exactly the same internal dimensions as the Spider unit, two rotors being ganged together in series.

As early as 1964, Citroen, who have never been afraid of complication or advanced engineering, established an association with NSU, the aims being to develop a joint rotary-engined car. There can be little doubt that some of the Citroen thoughts on passenger car layout went into the Ro80.

In 1967 Comotor was established in Luxembourg as the Compagnie Europeenne de Construction Automobile, with objectives more specifically towards the manufacturing and marketing of rotary engines. Two years later a large factory site was acquired in the Saar and in June this year the first phase was opened with an initial work force of 200 and an output of 30 engines per day. Eventually the plant will be four times its present size and capable of producing between 5,000 and 6,000 engines per day.

Since the original formation of Comotor, NSU have been taken over by Volkswagen, so there is now a potential of Wankel—powered cars from NSU, Citroen, Audi and Volkswagen. Of these companies, Citroen are most in need of a new engine range, especially for their big D—range of saloons. To gain experience of the Wankel engine in production, they first embarked on a massive proving trial with single rotor units using components from the Ro80 engine. Originally it was planned that 500 experimental cars based on the Ami 8 and called the M.35 would be placed in the hands of typical high—mileage French drivers for endurance testing. Later the number was reduced to 350 and in fact between 1971 and 1972 only 260 were delivered. The M.35 was a fastback coupe using mainly Ami 8 body panels but also fitted with prototype hydropneumatic suspension which was later introduced with the GS saloon.

Logically speaking the M.35 should have led directly to a twin—rotor saloon, but Citroen were nervous about the Wankel and wanted more time to prove its reliability. Consequently the GS was launched with a flat—four reciprocating piston engine while the M.35 prototypes continued to build up a total mileage of more than 18 million miles between them.

At Last, the Bi-rotor

Development wheels turn slowly when new factories and new designs are involved, but at this year's Paris Salon the twin—rotor Citroen saloon was launched officially, even though the model will not go on sale until next March. As expected, the engine is a double version of the M.35 unit, which brings it back to being very like the one in the Ro80. Equivalent swept volume is 1,990 c.c. and from a compression ratio of 9 to 1 107 bhp (DIN) at 6,500 rpm is produced. This is 8 bhp less than the Ro80 (115 at 5,500) but the shape of the torque curve has been improved dramatically. As the graph shows, the Citroen engine's torque rises rapidly to reach 90 |b.ft. by about 1,600 rpm and is then flat (apart from a slight peak of 100 lb.ft. at just over 3,000 rpm) all the way to 5,000 before it tails slowly off. On the Ro80 engine the torque rises slowly to a peak of 117 lb.ft. at 4,500 rpm and then falls off sharply.

To increase the life of the vital rotor tip seals, Citroen use sintered iron rubbing against a nickel—silicon liner to the alloy trochoid casing. Both the rotor and its side seals are made from cast steel. To minimize the danger of over revving (rubbing speed is the critical factor for seal life), a warning buzzer is fitted which is triggered at 6,800 rpm.

The installation of the Comotor engine in the GS saloon is so neat that it must have been envisaged before the reciprocating piston engined version was conceived. Mounted transversely, the engine drives a torque converter and manual three-speed transmission in line with the rotor shafts, before the final drive which is ahead of and slightly below the gearbox. A unique arrangement is a cross-shaft with bearing on the opposite side to permit equal length drive shafts. To make the installation even more compact, the air injection pump for the anti—pol|ution equipment is mounted in front of the gearbox and driven by a thin shaft connected to the back of a jockey pulley at the other end of the engine. This jockey is driven by twin vee-belts off the rotor shaft nose, as is the water pump. A single vee-belt drives the alternator off a pulley on the air pump.

As well as air injection into a reactor, emissions are controlled by electronic ignition timing which is varied according to gear lever position, oil temperature, engine speed, air intake temperature and induction vacuum.

According to the terms of their licence, Comotor can develop Wankel engines with power outputs between 40 and 200 bhp for land vehicles. This more than covers all the Citroen needs, even the Maserati engine in the SM developing only 178 bhp. In its present stage of development, the Comotor engine would be eminently suitable for most of the D-range of cars, with the exception of the DS 23. By the time Citroen are ready with a replacement large car (1975 is my calculated guess), Comotor could easily have developed a three—rotor unit with around 150 bhp. The attraction of Wankel engineering, apart from the simplicity and small size, is that the ganging up of modules is feasible and relatively easy. For this reason I think Comotor will stick to the 67mm rotor width that has been a feature of NSU Wankels since the Spider unit designed in 1962. All the combustion development has been based on this rotor width with the radial dimension to its tip of 100mm and an eccentricity of 14mm.— However, the terms of Wankel licences stipulate an exchange of technical information with licencees and that other producer of Wankel car engines, Toyo Kogyo, have wider and bigger rotors in their Mazda RX range, so Comotor could get to 130 bhp another way.

Whatever turns up in 1975, Citroen seem to have committed themselves to a big stake in the Wankel engine and l doubt if we shall see them design another four, or even a six cylinder reciprocating engine. From what we know, the GS Bi—rotor will sell for a premium price in France next year, partly to throttle the demand and partly to allow for the possibility of trouble in service. Despite the complicated manufacturing process, however, Comotor have the advantage of starting manufacture from scratch in a new factory, so eventually the unit cost per engine must come down to the level of conventional engines. By then, Citroen believe, the few remaining snags will have been eliminated.

Austin Kimberley

Southern east-west six for north?



From Motor Magazine, September 11 1971

Former deputy editor Rob Cook is now working in Australia where he’s been trying the Austin Kimberley for us

The Austin 3 litre wasn’t the only production car with an 1800 centre section, revised extremities and a six-cylinder engine. Oh no! The Austin X6 in its Kimberley and Tasman versions is in full production in the British Leyland factory at Sydney, Australia. And it’s rather a pleasant motor car.

In fact, if you want a saloon that is really different from all the others, then the economics of importing a Kimberley aren’t all that frightening, and the majority of the spares are available in Britain unless you happen to crumple the nose or the boot.

The engine, for example, is a six with overhead camshaft which has, with the exception of the seven-bearing crankshaft, all the moving parts of the four-cylinder E series unit. Its capacity is 2,227 cc and in the two carburetter Kimberley version, it produces 115bhp at 5500 rpm with a torque of 118 lb.ft. at 3500 rpm (the Tasman, with single su, has 102 bhp and 116 lb.ft. torque at the same revs).

This engine, at 346lb, is 14lb lighter than the 1800 unit and the whole car is 34lb lighter than an 1800, giving a Kimberley power/weight ratio of 99 bhp/ton. The 1800 had 75 bhp/ton so the increase is 32 per cent.

The gearbox is the 1800 one and the unit is mounted east-west, driving the front wheels. However, the radiator is at the front and cooling is assisted when necessary by a thermostatically controlled electric fan which ems in at a water temperature of 205°F.

Other changes from 1800 specification include, 1.5in greater ground clearance and, since this increases the drive line angularity, constant velocity joints have been fitted to the inboard ends of the drive shafts as well as the outers.

The Australian engineers have played around with the valving in the Hydrolastic suspension and fitted rubber helper springs at the rear to reduce attitude changes under full load and pitching. They have succeeded in full measure.

On the manual gearbox version, the gearing gives 16.9 mph per 1000 revs and on the automatic, 17.9. Almost needless to say, the automatic box is the Borg-Warner Model 35.

The boot is almost big enough for a country dancing class— 5 cu.ft. bigger than that of the 1800, but for some reason which escapes my limited intelligence, the fuel tank remains at 10 gallons, giving a range of 230 miles if you keep a quart in reserve, but that’s cutting it a bit fine and the gauge is of the usual "rough estimate" type, but very fail-safe - zero equals l.5 gal.

I went rushing off in a Kimberley to the next city—some 600 miles—and despite thinking that various things could be improved, ended up liking it rather a lot. The weather was pretty foul with a raging gale at right angles most of the time (blowing straight from the south pole), and I have never been in a car less affected by such gusty conditions. Only if the accelerator were suddenly raised did the wind have any effect on the steering, and that was fairly minimal.

The suspension I found firm but jolt free and roll something that doesn’t happen. Plenty of feel in the steering with very little front wheel drive reaction, and what there was only became apparent at low speeds during my "getting to know you" initial few miles.

The gearbox was rather noisy—a deep whine in the intermediates—with very good synchromesh, and the cable-operated change absolutely horrible. It felt as though the cables were in dire need of greasing and I’m told that as the miles build up the situation improves but if you can imagine stirring a crowbar through a drum filled with cobblestones, you’ll have a fair idea of the feel of the thing.

Oddly enough, this doesn’t matter a great deal because the engine has so much torque that you hardly ever change down once on the move. The non snatch speed in top, is 5 mph, and a normal pull away from a stand-still can be made in third.

The engine will certainly never be wrecked by over revving because the camshaft/valve spring set up is such that when you get to a given speed in each gear, the power curve just goes horizontal and the only way to go faster is to change up. The unit hustles up the range with a gradually increasing sound of cams thrashing on valves, reminiscent of a Rover 2000 unit getting frenzied, but once you reach 32 in first, 55 second, 82 third and 98 in top, that’s it. Full point. With a long downhill grade you might just top 100 but it’s rather an academic thing and doesn’t matter a great deal, because the comfortable cruising speed is between 85 and 90 and it will do that all day long.

In fact, I averaged 84 for half an hour on one stretch without topping 90 which is as much a tribute to the car as it is to the road because the gale was really wild. Yet it was a one hand steering job, completely relaxed. On this run, by the way, we did 23 mpg and that seems to be the figure that most folks get with Kimberleys, whether in town or on flat out inter-city belts.

The acceleration figures aren’t all that startling with 0 to 30 in 4.6sec.; 40, 6.7; 50, 9.1; 60, 14.9; 70, 19.2; and 80, 30.0. The standing quarter needs 19 seconds. But there are two points to bear in mind: 1) this is better performance than that of the larger engined Austin 3 litre; and 2) it isn’t an easy car to take acceleration figures with from a standing start. The driver has a choice of wheel scrabbling, clutch slipping, a combination of the two, or neither.

I found it hard to decide which gave the best results and one early attempt at 0 to 40 gave 7.8 seconds against the final 6.7. It doesn’t matter a lot—what does matter is that when you press your foot down at 30 mph, the Kimberley slides smoothly up the scale to its cruising speed and only the wind roar really indicates that you are going rapidly.

Road noise is acceptably low, even on coarse granite chips, and the good through flow ventilation means that you can keep the windows firmly shut, and the seals were fairly noiseless. But one of the eyeball air inlets whistled in its closed position and stuffing Mr Kleenex into it seemed to be only cure.

I reckon that a competent mechanic could improve the gear change cables and, with that done, there would seem to be little or no need for the automatic version because top gear is very nearly in the steam-engine category. The seats aren’t all that clever because the cushions are too short and the backs non-adjustable, so when you import your Kimberley, get it without
seats and then fit 1800 or Wolseley ones. Forget the Tasman—it is the cooking version.

In Adelaide I drove a three carburetter version with stronger valve springs and modified seats and it gave me a pretty good idea of the car’s hidden potential, but, even as it stands, it’s a very pleasant piece of mechanism, very safe, very comfortable, and easy on the eye.

The economics of the deal might be a little frightening, though. The shipping costs aren’t too bad at about £150 and there might even still be some sort of Commonmarketwealth preferential treatment when it comes to import duty (note the tinge of bitterness creeping in) but when the whole deal was over you mightn’t have a lot of change out of £3,000. And you’d have to make the arrangements direct with British Leyland in Sydney because, of course, the X6 isn’t listed in the UK.

However, the model is being exported to a few countries around this segment of the globe and there would be no harm in having a word with your friendly Austin dealer. When he says "A what?", show him this article. Tell him I said it’s a fair dinkum beaut motorcar.

I’m sure he’ll understand.

Driving the new Volkswagen K70

From Motor Magazine, Week Ending October 3, 1970



To place the K70 we have to look briefly back into NSU history. When NSU marketed the R080 they were aware that its public acceptance might be a bit of a gamble, that they still had a great deal of piston engine manufacturing machinery to use and that there was a vast price gulf fixed between the inexpensive rear-engined models and the costly rotary-engined car. All this pointed to an intermediate model with a piston engine and this is how the K70 was born. It was announced very early in 1969 for the Geneva Show and then withdrawn again when VW took over NSU and formed the new subsidiary called Audi NSU Auto Union AG in April 1969.

Withdrawn but not suppressed. On the contrary, VW thought it was such a good car that they decided to give it their own name and produce it in very much larger numbers than NSU could possibly have afforded. In the meantime they have built a new factory at Salzgitter, not far from Wolfsburg, with a potential capacity of 500 K70s a day. And, of course, development has been continued by both NSU and VW.

We described and illustrated the K70 early this year (Motor, w/e March 7). To recapitulate briefly, it is designed very much after the lines of the Ro80 with front-wheel drive, a very long wheelbase and wide track, a short overhang body with rather similar lines, MacPherson Strut front suspension and irs by semi-trailing rear wishbones and coil spring /damper units. It has anti-roll bars at both ends, inboard disc brakes at the front and outboard drums at the rear with a pressure limiting valve and dual circuit operation. Steering is by rack and pinion but unlike the R080 (and contrary to earlier reports) it does not have power assistance.

The big difference, of course, is in the power unit which has a strong family resemblance to that of the Prinz 1000 series (but water-cooled) with a single chain-driven overhead camshaft operating V inclined valves in hemi-spherical heads through rocking fingers. The engine axis is longitudinal, the four-speed, all-synchromesh, all-indirect gearbox is behind the engine and the final drive is underneath it. Because of this the Ro80’s low bonnet line is not possible, even though the engine is canted 32° to the right to keep it low.

Two versions of the 82 X 76 mm. short stroke 1605 cc engine are available, both with five main bearings and a twin-choke side—draught Solex carburetter; one version has a compression ratio of 8:1 and gives 75 bhp (net) at 5200 rpm on 90 octane fuel, the other with 9.5 ratio needs 98 octane but gives 90 bhp at the same engine speed.

So much for the broad outline. Of course the last 18 months’ extra development has brought some further changes to the original design but most of these are of a very minor nature. The wheel size, however, has gone up from 13 to 14 in. and the 4.5j rims have 165SR radial tyres. Many of the engineering modifications have been inspired by VW’s production expertise and of these the most conspicuous is the change from a light alloy to a cast iron cylinder block.

The first public appearance of the K70 will be at the Paris Show but we recently had the chance to drive it for 150 miles in France. The question which obviously arises is, how does it compare with the Ro80, a car which has had rave test reports all over the world? In some ways it compares very well—it is a roomy five-seater car with an enormous boot of 24.5 cu.ft. capacity. It isn’t, of course, as fast. VW claim a maximum speed of 98 mph for the higher·powered version as against our test figure of 113 mph for the rotary car although the 0-60 mph figures are very similar. Road noise is very low and the K70 has that rigid, rattle-free feeling which adds so much to driving enjoyment on rough roads. The ride is generally good although it is characteristic of stiffly damped cars—a bit jerky at low speeds, but smoothing out at higher speeds.

Wind noise is also low and the ventilation system, a high flow, low velocity system, gives a draught-free air movement which is all you need up to quite high ambient temperatures. The engine is not as smooth as a Wankel but for a piston engine it is very smooth at high rpm, even if you take it right up into the red sector at 7000 rpm.

Probably the most disappointing feature relative to the Ro80 is the handling; the car is unusually stable, predictable and vice-free but the Michelin ZX tyres squeal at quite low cornering speeds and understeer builds up as you go faster until you can find yourself practically on full lock on sharp bends. We would want to try higher tyre pressures than the recommended 21 lb. all round—certainly much higher at the front on a car with 60 per cent of its unladen weight at this end.

Right hand drive K70s will not reach the UK until October 1971. In Germany, where the first batch will all be sold, its chief competitors will ironically be two other products of the VW group—the VW 411E and the Audi 100. No British price is yet available, of course, but the best possible estimate would put the current price at about £1600; in a year’s time it will probably be higher. Excellent though it is in many ways, it isn’t sufficiently distinguished we feel to command large British sales in this highly competitive price category. CHB

University Motors MGC

From Autocar Magazine, Week ending 17th December 1970



It is hard to say exactly what killed the MGC, but the most likely cause was the bad press the car received, together with its failure to sell in the USA. Our own road test, published in 16 November 1967, was far from enthusiastic about the engine, gearbox, handling and fuel consumption. Exactly when production ceased is hard to determine, but it was sometime last year. University Motors bought the last batch of cars and have been selling them successfully since. Their theory was that, with only a little attention, the model could be improved significantly and as they still have some 20 or so cars in stock, we decided to test one to find out for ourselves.

Basically they are offering an MGC GT in standard paint, with wire wheels, delivered with number plates, seat belts and four months tax for £1,370. At the Motor Show in 1968, the listed price was £1,337 without any of these extras, or even a heater. By today's standards this is about £130 less than a Triumph TR6 coupe and not very much more than a GT6 delivered to the same specification.

To improve the appeal though, they are also offering a long list of extras, most of these being fitted to the test car. Added together these came to another £460, making the test car £1,830, or about as much as an Alfa Romeo 1300 GT or a little more than a BMW 2002. Some of these make so much difference as to be near essentials, while others like the stereo tape player and radio (£92) are pretty obvious luxuries.

Items like the Downton engine conversion make such a difference as to qualify as essential extras and the overall effect on the car leaves one wondering why it could not have been made like this in the first place, and if it had, would the fate of the model have been more successful? It would certainly have been much more enthusiastically received by our staff.

As a single item the Downton kit costs £l75 fitted. It comprises the usual kind of head improvement, coupled with special manifolds and a complete transformation of the induction system. In standard form the MGC is a real pig when cold, developing hardly any power until warm and never idling reliably. The Downton—converted car suffers from none of these troubles, pulling eagerly straight after a cold start. More than just this, the conversion gives the engine the "right" kind of sporty response, which it never displayed in standard form, climbing "on to the cam" at about 3,000 rpm with a real bark to its straight—through exhaust. In many ways it reminds one of the works rally Healey 3000, both in overall response and the noise it makes.

Actual improvements in acceleration time are not spectacular, but very worthwhile none the less. In top, for example, about 2sec is knocked off each 20-mph increment. Standing start times show similar slight improvements, and we could probably have made the differences greater if we had not been fooled by the rev counter, which over—read by almost 500 rpm at the top end.

As well as improving the performance, the conversion works wonders for the overall fuel consumption. Driving the car hard we got very nearly 20 mpg, which compares with only 17.5 mpg for the standard product.

The standard gearbox, with its enigmatic choice of ratios, remains unchanged, as does the final drive ratio with its long-legged 26.95 mph per 1,000 rpm in overdrive top. The test car was fitted with Cosmic light alloy wheels (£60 for five) which did little for the roadholding, but improved the appearance no end. They were fitted with the standard Dunlop radial-ply tyres.

Another worthwhile improvement came from the substitution of Koni dampers (£16 the pair, fitted) at the front and a 15in. dia. Motolita laather-trimmed steering wheel (£12 12s). Standard wheel size was 16.5in., so the steering becomes that much more responsive and the view out ahead that much better. Wooden packing strips under the seat runners also improved the driving position, which on the standard car was far too low for anyone much under 6ft tall.

Giving less leverage, the smaller wheel increases the already heavy steering effort, making fast cornering quite a muscular struggle. Excessive understeer from the extra nose weight of the six-cylinder engine makes the MGC a much less lithesome car than the MGB, but it is impressively stable in a straight line as compensation. Poor turning circles (almost 36ft between kerbs) hamper one when manoeuvring.

It would be wrong for a true sports car enthusiast to look at the MGC and expect it to be one better than the MGB. In the vital qualities of handling and engine response, it is no match for the four-cylinder car. But as a long—distance touring car, where a lot of the distance covered will be on motorways, it definitely has a place and in University Motors' guise begins to look much more attractive. At £1,545 (£1,370 plus the essential Downton conversion) it has few direct competitors, and anyone worried about spending this much on an obsolete model can take comfort in the fact that its rarity alone may one day make it a sought-after classic. According to factory records, only 2,199 MGC GTs have been delivered in the UK.