I know what you are all thinking. Third post in one day? Give that guy
something to do! Well, I have some time on my hands so you will all have
to suffer for my complete lack of a real life ;-)
The subject of MGF styling and styling for the new MG came up last week.
As I get older, the aesthetics of my cars become more important to me.
When I was a teenager, I my interest ran toward women who looked good and
cars with hearts of gold. Now my priorities have taken an about face. (I
have also become much more monogomous in both areas.) I find that the
appearance and feel of a car is much more important than the technical
specifications. This is probably why I like LBC's in general and MG's in
particular since MG (along with Jaguar until the XJS) has consistently
produced good looking cars.
To me the two most important elements of a car are the wheels and the
engine. The designs that I am drawn to are those that emphasize these
features without going over the top. To me the best comparisom to show
this is the F and the Midget. Both are very small cars so you are limited
to how many styling gimmicks you can employ.
If you were to draw a rectangle around a Midget, I expect that you would
find that the difference between the final shape and the rectangle is
fairly minimal. The fact that the designers could get som much character
into such a simple ship is really quite an achievement. In the front, the
Midget fenders draw attention to the wheels while grill lets you know where
the engine is on the Midget. On the F, the wheels are stuck into cutouts
of the jelly bean with no emphasis and the grill, meant to remind us of the
rubber bumper B's (why these, I wonder?) is not a strong statement. Unless
you knew, you could only guess where the engine is. At the rear, the
fenders on the Midget again draw attention to the wheels without looking
like tail fins while the F hides the engine and again treats the wheels
like an intrusion, not a design feature. Because of this, the F comes off
more as an appliance to me than a sports car. It is a decent looking car
but it does not hit any of my buttons.
Here is a list of cars that, in my opinion, look good and not so good.
Very nice:
MGA (surprise!)- excellent flow and good mix of large radii and sharp
transitions to develop tension. Grill could use a little more muscle (too
square, chrome) but very nice.
Porsche Boxter- an excellent job of combining modern design with
traditional sports car cues. Too bad it's German.
Austin Healey 100/3000 more muscular than an MGA but still nice. Lose the
hoodscoop, though.
Triumph TR-6- Really good looking for a grain truck masquerading as a
sports car.
AC Ace / Cobra 289 A good compromise between litheness and muscle.
Nice but nondescript:
MGB- a wonderful front but fat in the middle. OK from the back. Has aged
well.
Miata- Pleasant but too slick for its own good
MGF nice. Maybe too nice. No grit.
Over the top- caracature of the original concept:
427 Cobra- although sometimes too much is just enough
Triumph TR-2- cheap and looks it
Damlier SP 250- Aesthetics of a camel
BMW Z-3 the more I see this car the uglier it gets. And these are the
people who own MG now! May the saints perserve us. The new Mini is pretty
tasty however and I have seen some ZO7 concepts that are striking so maybe
they fired the Z-3 guy.
I am sure that other have different favorites and that is OK. Opinions are
like armpits. Everyone has a couple and most of them stink.
Regards,
Bill Eastman
61 MGA
|