<<FWIW, I agree with Bob (I know that this will come back to haunt me) abo=
ut
the T series having as much style as the A. They are just a little slow
for the type of use the A sees. Of the two, the A is a better compromise
between style and practicality for me. Hence the pinnacle of MG
development. The B is a wonderful car and the design is efficient and
handsome but it does not illicit the same level of emotional response as
the classic 50's British designs.>>
***Sigh. Well, I had to jump in here, can't just sit here and watch the fo=
ul
calumnies heaped on the poor MGA and leave it undefended. The T type is be=
st
viewed when at rest =97 it is handsome in a rather runtish upright way =97=
when it
moves, I find the lurching and squeaking tend to distract one from reflect=
ing
on the styling.
You are too kind to the B. You say euphemistically that it doesn't elicit =
the
same response as an A. Indeed, the less politic among us might say that it
elicits more yawns than smiles! At least the C has a bit of power (sadly
offset by more than it's share of the old avoirdupois) under the bonnet.
For those that lust after comfortable shoes, the A coupe offers comfort an=
d
additional storage space, tempered by somewhat compromised styling. Best o=
f
all, of course, is the thoroughbred Twincam roadster that by combining the
wonderful styling of the A with a decidedly non-agricultural powerplant,
attains the acme of MG-hood.
Bill S.
(who actually does rather like the B GT styling =97 it has aged quite well=
, no?)
Note that I defer to Bill's greater experience with the Wonderbra, and off=
er
no comment thereon.
|