>Phil Bates wrote:
>
>> >1) Those who want an MGF or MGR and can afford to import one.
>> >2) Those who want an MGF or MGR and can't afford to import one.
>> >3) Those who don't give a rip about post 1980 MG's.
>> >
>> >Since I don't currently own an MGR, you can guess which category I lie in.
>> >However, if and when this changes, you aren't getting my '72!
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >J
>> >
>> >
>> There are also those that don't give a rip about post '74 (or in extreme
>> cases post'67) MGs.
>> Phil Bates
>
>
>Well, crap! This could go on forever! I know of people who don't give a
flip about
>any post-war B's... :)
>
>I just was raising the issue of the seemingly rarely-mentioned
>MGR. From what I've seen (which isn't much), it looks as though it's a
much better
>compliment to earlier B's than the MGF, and no one ever talks about it.
Why is that?
>Are there just too few out there to mention? Do they just look pretty, but
in reality
>they, well...umm, suck? What's the deal?
Hmmm the MGR. I think you really mean the MG RV8. I was enthusiastic about
it too, but just look at it. It is an MGB with a revised grill, fender
flares, a V8 rover engine, and expensive leather and wood interior. And
this for a measly sum the equivilent of $50,000US. How rediculous. A V8
conversion would cost you your car and about $2000. Even the car magazine
write ups said, who would pay this for a spruced up 1962 vehicle. And they
mentioned that the reason the MGB roadster never came in V8 form was the
body flex due to the added weight, balance of weight, and stress. This was
still a problem in (I believe it was) 1994 when the RV8 came out.
Now on to the MGF. I think it is pretty. I'd love to have one. I have
vowed to never make the extremely poor investment of buying a new car. When
there are older used MGF's in the US (i.e. never) I will certainly look to
buy one. But as for now, I'll stick with my (mostly) pre-'67, pre smog cars.
Phil Bates
58 MGA
67 MGB
75 Jaguar XJ12C
52 MG TD replicar (VW)
|