A.D.Smith writes, in the post that dragged me from silence:
>
> As a 26 years old Midget driver, I'm sure I don't class as an old fogy, but
> I'd go with an old car any day. The new MG to me just looks like a bubble
> of plastic, very much like loads of other cars driving around the place, with
> slight (completely insignificant in my opnion) differences in the way the
> plastic bubble looks. It has no significant difference from loads of cars -
> all look the same. That back end reminds me of loads of saloon cars I see
> all over the place, like fords really (there I've said it).
For those of you with your heads in the sand, listen up: Cars are for
driving; for taking you places so you can do the things that make your
life worthwhile. Modern cars really are incredible. Cars of today are
more reliable, sturdier, more comfortable, faster, quieter, cleaner,
generally more efficient in every category than the cars of yesteryear.
Manufacturers have been given the mandate, by government and competition
alike, to wring the most out of the four-wheeled internal combustion
vehicle, and I think they've done an incredible job. Truly technical
tours de force.
In the search for higher and higher efficiency, the shapes of modern cars
are very tightly constrained by aerodynamic considerations. The task of
the designer is, then, to work within these constraints and come up with
a shape that is both pleasing to the eye and slippery to the wind.
We're not going to see any more cars with "classic" shapes a la T
series. Those days are over. These are the days of soft forms with
minimal protrusions. Granted, a lot of modern cars look generic and
sterile (Lexus LS400), but the more talented designers have been able
to successfully marry high science with high art (the upcoming Jaguar
XK8 is absolutely STUNNING). Having said all that, my personal opinion
is that the MGF's styling falls somewhere in the middle. It's not
drop-dead gorgeous, but it's not as bland as many other cars.
> Sure, it might accelerate quickly, but is that what MGs are about ? I always
> thought MGs were about good handling, not speed, and fun low cost motoring.
> I got a brochure for the MGF sent to me here at work - since when did an MG
> owner need a silly ski rack to go on top at vaste expense.
Yes, MGs are about good handling, AND a respectable amount of speed, AND
fun low cost motoring. In fact, that last item seems to be the very
core of the MG philosophy: Make the most out of what's readily
available. The MGF's engine is an off-the-shelf Rover unit (like the A
and B series were), souped up a little bit for a sporting edge (like the
A and B series were), and dropped into a completely competent and
capable chassis (like the A and B series were, in the context of their
day). Alex Moulton's Hydragas suspension, another off-the-shelf system,
enables all four of the MGF's tires to stick to the ground all of the
time. Period. Without complaint. Better adhesion means better
handling under a wide range of conditions, and THAT'S what sports car
design is all about. Not some vaguely nostalgic notion of scuttle shake
and axle hop.
> Then we get to the electronics and "plumbing". Horrid, can't even tell that
> the engine is an engine from the piccies - it looks like a square lump of
> metal. Where's the oil filter ? Where are the points ? Electronics that
> will die in a few years and be prohibitively expensive to replace (and can't
> be used from other cars) will mean the end of the F before it gets to classic
> status. British engineering should be about engineered solutions to improving
> handling and engine performance, not about stuffing more and more computers
> in there to run the suspension and steering and engine. Where have our
> engineering traditions gone ?
They've gone into improving handling and engine performance, just like
you whined about. Do you not see it? Are you so blinded by your love
for carburetors, ignition points, and leaf springs? All of those things
are totally cool, and represent the state of the art for the period in
which our older cars were built, but, as I stated before, those days are
OVER. Better systems have been engineered. Sophisticated electronics
enable the various systems to constantly monitor their functions, from
all different angles, and micro-adjust several times per second. A
carburetor can't do this, nor can a vacuum advance unit. And guess
what? Electronics DON'T die in "a few years". Today's automotive
computers are, on the whole, absolutely bulletproof. This is, in fact,
one of the reasons that the units are expensive. They don't sell many
of them. This "expensive and non-fixable" attitude is more the result
of misdiagnosis by incompetent mechanics than by any real electronic
failure.
> Will I be struck down for such heresy ? All the MG folks over here keep
> ranting on about how nice it is, well IT'S HORRIBLE. And to add insult
> to injury and ugliness, it's not even a british car anymore, it's a
> german company, so why should we even talk about it on a list dedicated
> to classic British sportscars ?
You truly don't know much about the MGF, do you? The F is a 100%
beer-drinking, hairy-chested, swearing-at-the-dinner-table BRITISH
design. The fact that BMW bought Rover just before the MGF's
introduction doesn't change this. In fact, all of the press propaganda
indicates that BMW's intention is to preserve the British-ness of Rover
as much as possible. For BMW to turn Rover into BMW-West would be both
silly and suicidal. And, for us American enthusiasts, the current
propaganda tells us to expect a new MG (though not the F) on our shores
soon!
> Flame on guys ....
You asked for it.
--
Todd Mullins
Todd.Mullins@nrlssc.navy.mil On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
'74 MGB Tourer
"I could go at any time..."
|