MG comes full circle: MGF
Previous Page	Next Page

s the "MG Revival" section of this site clearly demonstrates, Austin Rover were very keen to see that the MG marque would not drop out of the public eye. With the plethora of saloon models and the active involvement in motor sport, there was no way that the company would allow customers to forget! Of course, the only problem with this plan was that in the mind’s eye of the average customer, MG spelled “convertible” – and no way would tuned saloons with red seat belts fit the bill.

Austin Rover was working on “proper” MGs, and had been since 1984 with the AR6-based MG Midget, but of course, these early projects were well out of the public eye. What the company really needed was a way of announcing to the world, their sporting intent for the marque.

That is where the MG EX-E came into the story.

In the closing months of 1984, the decision was made to build an all-out MG sports car prototype with the sole intention of being displayed at international motor shows and reminding people that Austin Rover were a forward thinking company with ambitious plans for MG. The new concept would also give the company the opportunity to show off to the world what BL Technology had achieved in terms of construction techniques and aerodynamic packaging. The styling team, newly headed by Roy Axe were also given the chance to flex their creative muscles; Gordon Sked and Gerry McGovern would both very publicly make their names because of the success of the new MG.

It was Austin Rover’s chairman and chief executive Harold Musgrove that ensured that the car was premiered at an international motor show rather than Birmingham – his reasoning being that Austin Rover needed to re-establish their image on the continent – and so it was: on September the 14th 1985, a raiding party from the Midlands stormed the Frankfurt motor show with the startling MG EX-E.

What set the MG EX-E as being particularly significant was the fact that the Canley styling studio had moved the MG name forward in one massive step – the styling was radical; being ahead of its time featuring a cab-forward stance and like the ECV3 before it – a drag co-efficient of 0.24Cd. The MG EX-E also boasted a structure design that was similar to the ECV3, comprising of a bonded aluminium “skeleton” clothed with plastic external panels. The concept allowed for a very lightweight car, but it was extremely expensive to employ in a production car – and the reticence of the company to commit to this in a production car was echoed in Gordon Sked’s comments: “It is a structure we are currently proving and clearly we wouldn’t risk the car if we weren’t confident in the system.” This slightly evasive comment was somewhat at variance with the motor show PR-speak, which hinted at a production run. Sked again: “We have put a lot of thought into how it might be put into production”.

The engine dipped into the more exotic end of the Austin Rover Group’s parts bin: interestingly, the decision was to use the compact and light MG Metro 6R4 engine in a fairly mild state of tune (250bhp) hooked up to its four wheel drive transmission.

The hi-tech theme was carried into the interior as well. Much thought was expended on how to optimise dashboard ergonomics, and the solution that the Canley design team was certainly startling. The main instrument cluster was presented in digital form (as was the fashion in the mid-1980s) using fluorescent red LEDs. Above that – a head up display was projected onto the windscreen, which would show engine revs under hard acceleration and road speed when cruising – the idea being that only relevant information was relayed to the driver. Austin Rover even gave this system a remarkably self-important name: the “Reflex information monitor”. Despite the title, the system certainly had benefits – especially so, considering priority warnings would also be relayed in the same way.

All in all, the MG EX-E looked like a remarkably exciting concept car – and the frisson of excitement generated by the merest possibility of its production certainly had the desired effect of boosting the image of MG no end. Roy Axe certainly received much praise for the design his studio had produced, and he summed up his pride in the EX-E by saying, “it’s nice to see a real sports car”.

Once the glare of the motor show lights had faded – work continued back in Cowley on a road going MG convertible – and one thing was for sure; it would not resemble the MG EX-E in any meaningful way.

Between 1985 and 1989, work on a neat little Gerry McGovern styled two-seater convertible, called the F16 showed that Austin Rover were keen on re-entering the sports car market. The background to why the development of this car dragged its heels throughout the last half of the decade can be put down to uncertainty over the company’s finances, the failure of the mid-range saloons on the market – and the government’s keenness to farm out Rover to private sector. The new MG convertible was not regarded a priority in Rover’s forward planning and although the F16 was advanced enough to have been mocked-up as a full-size prototype, management approval was not forthcoming.

However, with the arrival and subsequent success of the Toyota MR2 and Mazda MX-5, the project was given some direction, a commitment to production looked more likely. An overall designation of, “Phoenix Revival” was assigned, and subsequent MG convertible prototypes would be given PR designations. Rover commissioned three concepts:

PR1	This was a continuation of the F16 project, being front engined, front wheel drive. Motor Panels built the running prototype and based it upon Maestro running gear, but using the 2-litre M16 engine.
PR2	PR2 was built by Reliant on a Scimitar SS1 chassis. Layout was classical – front engine, rear wheel drive and the power was provided by a 3.9-litre version of the venerable Rover V8 engine.
PR3	PR3 was produced by the Luton-based automotive consultants ADC and was a mid/rear design, echoing the layout of the FIAT X1/9 and Toyota MR2.

Rover’s special products department settled on the mid-engined layout for the new car, dubbed the PR3, because of the superior road behaviour offered by the layout – this was in the days before the Lotus Elan proved once and for all that front wheel drive cars could be made to handle as well as their rear wheel drive counterparts. Previous MG Midget and F16 prototypes may have been front engine/front wheel drive, but that was because of the ease of employing existing running gear. Although the front engine/rear wheel drive option had its fans inside Special Products, it was ruled out on cost grounds: a mid-engined car could use an existing engine/gearbox package without major modification, whereas a rear driven car would require an entirely new platform and running gear.

In January 1991, with Rover’s own design department working feverishly on the Rover 600 and the rest of the “Portfolio” range, Special Products sensibly commissioned PR3 styling proposals from MGA Developments, IAD, ADC and MGA Developments.

MGA Development’s styling mock-up for the PR3, dating back to 1991 shows that the MGF package was already pretty much defined: the mid-engined layout, body shape survived through to the final model.

Out of the three companies. MGA Development’s version was deemed the most suitable by management, and it was from this proposal that the final MGF shape was created. The design brief given by Rover was open – there needed to be a conceptual relationship with the MG EX-E, as well as more contemporary rival convertibles. It also needed to be unmistakably an MG, with an overall feeling of “Britishness”. Rover’s management reviewed MGA’s PR3 proposal and liked what they saw: Steve Harper, a member of the team that worked on the PR3 for MGA recalled their reaction, “The feedback we got was very positive. The high rear deck went down well, as did the bodyside surfacing and the car’s squat stance, but the front end treatment drew some criticism – too anonymous, not MG.”

By May 1991, MGA signed off their PR3 proposal and passed it over to Canley for final productionsation by EX-E stylist, Gerry McGovern and Gordon Sked. Many subtle changes were made at this stage of the process – the windscreen became lower, flanks were lowered and the overhangs shortened. Significantly, major changes were made to the front of the car, where fuller, rounder headlights were incorporated and a traditional MG grille arrangement that aped the post-1976 MGB. Happily, the Gerry McGovern arrangement was considerably more stylish than the rather heavy-handed original.

So the styling was an amalgam of new-age thinking and traditional MG design cues, the engineering and concept owed nothing at all to any previous production cars by the marque. The MG ADO21 and EX-E may have shared its mid-engined layout, but neither was anywhere near being a production reality.

Gerry McGovern sketch shows clearly that the MGA PR3 was a suitable starting point, but major changes to the overall appearance of the car would result from his alterations. Clearly evident from this rendering is the striking similarity to his EX-E of 1985 – especially to the rear of the hard top version.

So thanks to Rover’s insistence that the PR3 was to be as British as bangers and mash, it was heart warming to see that the Rover parts bin was raided - and no Honda at all crept into the design, a temptation for any Rover engineer during the early 1990s. There was only one choice for the power unit: the K-series engine, but surprising for observers, the suspension used was Dr Alex Moulton’s Hydragas – hardly an obvious choice, given the cars in which it was previously used.

But Hydragas worked especially well with the mid-engined MG because it could be tuned specifically to provide accurate response during direction changes, without being too nervy. As Alex Moulton related in Autocar magazine at the launch of the MGF, “it de-fidgets the car” because of its best property – the front/rear connection. Being short of wheelbase, the car was potentially very susceptible to becoming unsettled on rough surfaces – but the interconnected MG suffered far less than its rivals.

Hood up or down, the profile of the MGF looked good – the low profile hood was engineered by Pininfarina, the only part of this roadster that could be construed as not being British.

The 1.8-litre version of the K-series engine is an engine that was never originally designed for. As has been relayed elsewhere in this book, the K-series engine was an optimised package for installation in small and medium sized hatchbacks – and as a result, it was an extremely compact power unit. However, Rover Group Powertrain were faced with the pressing need to replace the bought-in Honda 1.6-litre engines – and as a result of this need, the big block K-series was born. Some very ingenious engineering solutions were employed to squeeze extra capacity from the K-series engine, chief of these were new cylinder liners, called “damp liners”, which allowed an increased cylinder size by fitting bigger bores into the same block size. The result was four cylinders squeezed into the same size block – a longer throw crankshaft effected the enlargement from 1.6 to 1.8-litres. Continuing Rover’s “loaves and fishes” reputation, the entire budget for the engine programme was, “less than £200 million”.

For the faster version of the MGF various methods of boosting engine power were investigated. Alex Stephenson, Rover Group Powertrain’s managing director stated, “we looked at everything, including turbos and superchargers, but VVC offered the best package…” Basically, Variable Valve Control (VVC) was a concept that Rover had been working on since the launch of the K-series engine in 1989. Under the codename Hawk, the intention was to boost power by continuously varying the inlet cam period – and this was finally achieved in their first development engine, run in 1993. The secret to the VVC system was a clever mechanical link between the inlet camshaft and its drive – the engine management system altered the relationship between the camshaft and crankshaft. The result was that at high revs, the valves were held open to boost power, but at low revs, the valves remained closed longer, thus increasing torque. The step-over point was at 4000rpm, it all meant that VVC enabled versions of the K-series exhibited the likeable quality of being nicely torquey and driveable at low revs, but when you wanted to press-on, the power would come in gradually above 4000rpm. The effect was somewhat akin that that of the Honda VTEC engine, but with the advantage of having better low-down torque characteristics.

When the MGF was launched on the 8th March 1995, the impact it made on the press and public was significant. Following over a decade of Rover’s Anglo-Japanese products, RV8 aside, here was the first all-British car produced by Rover since the Austin Montego. And as Car magazine related at the time, “even more heart-warming is that some of the people involved with it are figures from some of the happier chapters of BL’s troubled past. Dr Alex Moulton, engineer Brian Griffin is the son of Charles Griffin, once the engineering chief of Austin-Morris. Peter Parker, who worked on MG’s variable-valve-control system, cut his teeth on Austin’s experimental gas-turbine cars.”

The press loved the car – and the MGF was soon making friends in the showrooms, too. The MG was welcomed back into the realms of mainstream sports cars – sales were brisk and the car enjoyed a very positive image. Following the launch of the Rover 200 and 400, the MGF soon became a member of the Rover “Niche” line-up, which included the 200 Cabriolet, Coupe and Tourer – and it began to win new custom for the company. Certainly, the MGF compared with the then current crop of opposition, which included the FIAT Barchetta and Mazda MX-5. Where the MGF scored heavily against both cars was because of its mid-engined layout and cuddly, but sexy looks.

Autocar were impressed with the new car and it showed in their road test verdict of the 1.8i version: “It would have been so easy for Rover to stick an MG badge on the nose of a mediocre car and once more rely on the marque’s image to do the selling. This has not happened. Rover has instead created what is, in all probability, the world’s most complete and affordable open two-seater. From traditional MG fans to those wanting something more stylish than the chopped-about hatchbacks that pass for convertibles these days, the MGF should prove a blessing. It is an all-British car of which we can be unusually proud.”

The interior may not have been quite as avant-garde as the exterior, but it was certainly a successful effort. The “twin cabin” theme managed to look both interesting and cohesive – the cream dials also added visual interest to the fascia.

Handling and ride were marked as being exemplary – and although as a mid-engined car with its low polar movement of inertia, it should have been more ragged at its limits and it was not. Rover’s engineers had engineered a massive safety margin into the chassis, and ensured that the MGF was all-but impossible to oversteer, let alone spin. However, the Hydragas sprung chassis did exactly what Moulton promised – it “de-fidgeted” the car. The downside was that along with the electric power steering, it managed to desensitise the car a little too much. OK, the limits of adhesion were way beyond cars such as the Mazda MX-5, but that all-important “feel” was a little bit muddied. This may have been disappointing to the road testers, but as ex-Formula One driver Mark Blundell put it when speaking about the MGF, “I feel, for the average driver, that this is much safer because you can back off the throttle and bring in the front end, as opposed to trying to use a lot of ability to catch it.”

Russell Bulgin put it in these terms when comparing the MGF to its arch-rival, the Mazda MX-5: “The MGF is for chaps, the MX-5 is a bloke’s car. Chaps like to reminisce about the MGB, talk about their purchase down at the pub. All a bloke craves is a quiet road with some invigorating bends and the odd off-camber surprise. So why have Rover been clever with the MGF? Because there’s a strong argument for saying that, to the everyday user, the MX-5 is too much sports car. The MGF feels amiable for commuting and would be a great motorway companion, too. Roomy inside, with a decent boot and a civility, which is more than skin-deep, this is a sports car for the driver who isn’t too sure about sports cars. Is satisfying that person such a terrible mistake for Rover to make?”

Of course, the answer was “no” – and sales of the MGF backed this opinion.

Unfortunately, plans for exporting it to the USA were put on ice by BMW, who felt that it would threaten their own newly launched Z3 model. The company cited homologation costs as a reason, but engineering the MGF to be as user-friendly as it was points to a development programme aimed squarely at the US market – and BMW did not want their British division to spoil the party.

MGF Trophy 160 signalled the company’s new found sporting intent.

The MGF was left pretty much untouched during the “BMW years”, but scant months after the formation of MG Rover, new versions of the car began to appear – the intention was to increase the driver appeal of a car that had been criticised at launch for being uninvolving. The first signs that the regime was serious about MG and its products was the arrival of the MGF Trophy 160 – an uprated version of the VVC car, which sported firmer suspension settings, redesigned bumpers and larger wheels. The Trophy may have not been subtle, but it certainly signalled the intent to give MG a harder image than perhaps BMW had cultured during their tenure.

Plans were already afoot to thoroughly update the MGF, though – and in January 2002, the results were launched: the MG TF.

The renamed MG TF evoked memories of its 1953 forebear, but only the nameplate was common. The new car was totally contemporary – and unlike many facelifts, the results of Peter Stevens’ work were totally successful.

The MG TF gained handsome styling, but lost its Hydragas suspension – some people mourned the loss of one of those features that made the MGF so unique in modern terms, but it did allow MG Rover to tune the chassis to give more sporting, immediate response.

Indications are that the MGF is selling well for MG Rover – and is good enough to go on and lead a long life… It will need to because in the first few years of the new millennium, the company faces some tough times formulating a programme of replacement for their mid-range cars. Seven years into the life of the “F-type” MG, it looks certainly looks fresher than the MGB ever did.

What the MGF achieved in its lifetime was to re-establish the marque in the eyes of the buying public, but also re-invent the brand. Following the closure of Abingdon, there was a misty-eyed nostalgia for the products of MG, and yet although they never offered anything more than simple, crude convertibles and badge engineered BMC and then Austin-Rover. There was definitely magic in the name, but a real risk that as MGs fans aged and moved on, the brand could have gone to seed – Rover were clever with the MGF because although they played lip service to the products of the past, they engineered an advanced car which looked forwards.

Because of the brave and bold decision to make the MGF the car it was, MG moved forwards.

Had there been no “F-Type”, the future of MG Rover might have looked a whole lot more bleak that it does. Let us just hope that the new company does more for the MG TF than BLMC did for the MGB. And the indications are that they will.

MGF Facts

·   The MGF was so-named because the ADO21 was called MGD during development and the MG EX-E covered the MG-E name nicely. Even though the MGD name was used during the development of the car, the media for once were wide of the mark when the speculated that the new car would be launched as the MGD.

·   The MGF was not the first production MG to sport a mid-engine - that accolade went to the MG Metro 6R4.

·   The bore and stroke measurements of the 1.8-litre K-series engine were all but identical to the B-series found in the MGB - 80.0mm x 89.3mm compared with 80.3mm x 88.9mm.

·   Rover's VVC system started life with piston manufacturer AE. Then the patent lapsed and Rover keenly stepped in.

Copyright © 2002 Keith Adams