Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MG\s+XPower\s+SV\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*MG\s+XPower\s+SV\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "Telewest $PH$" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:42:40 +0100; http://www.mgcars.org.uk/news/news783.html /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00654.html (7,492 bytes)
2. RE: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: Chuck Renner <crenner@dynalivery.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:49:54 -0500; Hmm...I always try to reserve final judgement until I've seen the car in person. But I can't help but think that the rear quarter view looks like a Mustang, or maybe a Mitsu Eclipse, and the nose lo; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00660.html (7,546 bytes)
3. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "Hans Duinhoven" <h.duinhoven@planet.nl>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:17:07 +0200; This is a beast! Compared with the 30's K3 models it is very special, but does it fit into the sprit of what most people see as MG an affordable true sportscar? Cheers, Hans with an affordable '71 B; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00661.html (7,906 bytes)
4. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: Paul Root <proot@iaces.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:36:34 -0500; It's not affordable. It's an image car. You might recall that Audi's were kind of dumpy, questionable cars back in the '70s. Look at them now. If it's the first step in getting MG back in the USA, br; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00662.html (8,673 bytes)
5. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: Skye Poier <skye@ffwd.cx>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:50:29 -0700; eeewww that's nasty! /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00663.html (7,269 bytes)
6. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "David Breneman" <idcb@airborne.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:56:35 -0700 (PDT); Hans Duinhoven SEZ - Well, since it has a hard top, it certainly isn't a "true" sportscar, but I think MG frequently had a "two-prong" product line. Expensive, sometimes custom-bodied coupes and salo; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00664.html (8,446 bytes)
7. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:10:46 -0700; Your comments are dead on, IMO. Methinks they kind of went overboard on the central spine accent. And it has that same arched roofline as just about every other design (Stealth, Neon, Eclipse, Saturn; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00665.html (8,051 bytes)
8. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "Rick Lindsay" <ROLindsay@Emeraldgrc.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:05:14 -0500; What can I say? A little Lotus, a little BMW, a little Rover and perhaps just a little MG. Not bad if you don't try to make it a classic MG. Take away that restriction and I'd like to take it for a; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00666.html (7,475 bytes)
9. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "Hans Duinhoven" <h.duinhoven@planet.nl>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:54:43 +0200; Well don't start to argue on hard top MG's not being a true sportscar. As a GT owner you hit me. Beware the true factory B sportiest was the BGT V8 and never was made with a soft top. Why? Body is mo; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00685.html (9,197 bytes)
10. Re: MG XPower SV (score: 1): Author: "David Breneman" <idcb@airborne.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:22:06 -0700 (PDT); Hans Duinhoven SEZ - No offense meant! There's nothing wrong with a hard top MG. But, in my lexicon a sportscar has always been a roadster. If it has a hard top, it's a GT. So, the MGB-GT would be a; /html/mgs/2002-10/msg00771.html (7,817 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]