MG T-ABC

I've been fitting my rear wings and have encounted a dilemma. TC Forever states that the wing should stick out ca. 1/2" from the edge of the running board. However, if I do that then the wing does not sit parallel with the body. You cannot really see that, but when the wheel is back on it's fairly obvious that it's not parallel with the wheel. To get it near parallel with the wheel and the body and still fit snugly into the rear curve of the tub, I have to reduce how far it sticks out from the running board to a little less than 1/4".

What's best - having it stick out the correct amount or have it parallel to the wheel/body. I favour the latter.

(P.S. the filler that you can see is just a thin skim as my hammer and dolly work is not good enough to leave it as bare metal)

Nobody will knock off points for a 1/4" one way or the other. These panels were pretty much made up by hand and my rear wings have a slightly different curve lower front from one to another, hence this dimension is also off. However it is something that the eye really does not notice since there are so many more interesting lines to focus on a TC. Just my thoughts. About the skim of filler, by the time I was finished that skim pretty much covered the entire wing............

There are earlier discussions on this forum about the rear wing outer rim distance from the edge of the running board.
Factory drawings show the rear wing wheel well outer rim exactly even with the running board edge.
However several original TC's - that I have seen and verified - have the rear wing outer outer wheel wells that protrude as much as 1/2" or more from the outer edges of the running boards. My own is this way on one side more than the other.
This variation can be attributed to normal assembly variation of the type that will occur on a production line that is human as opposed to robotic.

Thankfully these TCs were assembled by humans.

Looking at the Factory Drawings make me think that some designer wanted to draw everything "Lined Up" as an unrealistic ideal that is not possible in the real world -- when tyres have to clear the wheel wells and running boards have to fasten to wood timbers and panels.
This area of the frame chassis where it meets the coachwork body tub is hard to get just right because there are 3 axis to jibe together -- fore/aft; up/down; in/out. So if there is no more than 1/2" protrusion you have it good and "Factory Original"!!

Octagonally yours,
BOXLEY (Robert and MGTC 0820)

To me the important thing is that the car looks right even if that means some dimensional inaccuracy. Given the relatively unstable nature of much of the structure (wood), the - by today's standards - wide tolerances on panel work and the intensive assembly labour, I suspect there was considerable variation between one car and another as they 'came off the line'.
Any restoration will face challenges in replicating the original and if using any reproduction parts some give and take is essential. The only original metal panels on my car are the scuttle, the bonnet, the bulkhead foot plate and the prop shaft tunnel. The tub was made in England, the wings I suspect in India and other parts are from a wide variety of sources. I had great trouble getting the car to 'look straight' while trying to retain original dimensions. In the end I just stood back, assessed the lines and made any necessary fitting adjustments to achieve a shape pleasing to the eye.
Among the many compromises I ended up with, the running boards are about an inch low at the rear to achieve a smooth curve through the join with the front wing...... My rear wings are flush with the line of the running board. The gap between the rear of the running board and the wing is much larger than original...... .....and I needed to double up on the rubber spacers between the rear wing and fuel tank..... I've no doubt a Concours judge would find many deviations from standard (never mind the 16" wheels), but given the limitations of the parts I had to work with, the final result is pleasing to the eye (at least to mine!) When you've got the car together, check that in plan view it's rectangular, that there's a continuous curve through the join of the front wing and running board, that the bonnet side hinge is perfectly in line with the lower edge of the scuttle top and that the tips of the wings are at equal height from the ground side to side. If those aren't right, they'll catch the eye far more readily than any 'non original' dimensions.

Thanks for the confidence building advice. I had a feeling that I was being too picky.

Antijam, if my car ends up anywhere near as good as yours looks then I'll be a happy bunny.

Although I admit to not having done it myself- hindsight!!!!! Perhaps detailed photos of such things before starting a renovation would mean that it would at least be returned to as was. That is of course assuming the car has not been previously dismantled.

Just to emphasise that compromises on rebuild can crop up anywhere, the eagle eyed among you will immediately have spotted in this picture another change I was forced to make.... For those of you with less than eagle eyes, I've arrowed one side of the problem.
What you should see where the headlamp bracket attaches to the radiator is a chromed bolt head; what you actually see is a chromed nut. The brackets (original) are handed and I've had to swap them side to side. If fitted correctly the profile of the foot of the bracket was a very poor match to the local profile of the wing and when bolted up would have put a noticeable local distortion in the wing shape. Obviously my new wings had a rather different profile in that area than the originals. I found that swapping the brackets side to side produced a much better match, however this meant that the stepped bolt attaching the bracket had to be inserted from the rear instead of the front. I could have attempted to re-profile the foot of the brackets or the wing itself to accept the correct side, but in the end the swap was the simplest solution.
The car will never win a Concours, but that wasn't the aim - it looks right.

You could probably turn down the bolt to fit backwards if it bothers you.

Hi Steve,
I will be approaching your point of assembly soon and I think the fuel tank needs to be set in position to help align the fender mounting \ rotational fit...

Other that have completed this: Correct?

Hi Mark,
I found that fitting to the fuel tank and then rotating into place didn't work - I guess because variations in fitting the rear quarer panels of the tub (I did a complete rebuild of the tub) meant that I couldn't get a good fit on the rear curves that way.

What I found worked best was to first attach the wing using an undersized screw about half way back from the top of the arch to the rear of the tub and then working backwards and forwards from that first using clamps and bits of wood as props to position the wing correctly. I had to slot the holes a little so that I could rotate the wing to get the tip the correct height off the ground (actually, measure relative to the chassis rather than the ground). I got a couple of the holes wrong at the first attempt, but it's easy enough to close them with a bit of welding.

All screws are undersized in diameter and length at this point as I didn't want to weaken the wood too much by taking the wing off lots of times. On final fit I'll drill the holes to take the corred size screws. As it turns out, the holes for the fuel tank bolts are not far out, but I will need to weld them closed and drill new ones. Note also that how you position the hole on the 'back plate' of the wing to fix to the inner wing can introduce a twist to the whole wing when viewing the rear tip side on, so be careful with that.

Before you finalise the exact fixing, put the wheel back on and check to see that the wing is parallel to the line of the wheel. I also ran a centre line down the axis of the car and measured from the rolled edge of the wing to the centre line at various points (you need to use a spirit level to project a vertical to clear the side of the tub). I ended up getting it parallel to within 3mm (1/8").

HI, Steve-

Finally getting around to mounting the rear wings, and I do want to get the fuel tank on to help confirm the rear wing mounting hole that mates with the tank end.

I dont have at hand the rubber buffer pads that go between the tank and the backboard; Would you know how thick they are? I want to ensure the tank is in the correct position before using that side wing mounting hole as a reference.

Also: The moss catalog shows rubber pads in the tank foot area; Do they go under the feet, between the frame the the bottom of the foot, or ?

I do have sheets of closed cell foam I can cut stack up to the correct thickness, once I know how thick the real pads are and where they go in and around the fuel tank.

Thanks!