On 15/12/97 6:22 am John McEwen said
>By going back to their roots designers have maintained a tradition in many
>successful automobiles over the years. Styling cues have been the major
>links between models for years. On MGs the original grille idea was
>maintained through every model and was always recognizably MG.
But MG's designers DID spend a lot of time working out MG's hertitage.
The front of the F is very much an MG. The idea of a chrome grille on a
modern 90s cars is naff. I know Americans like chrome, but Europeans are
less struck on it, and don't forget the F was not designed for the
States, maybe that's why you don't like it?
>Inside the car an MG always had a certain similarity with the use of round
>instruments and a generous sprinkling of octagons. This didn't change
>significantly over the years - except that the execution was cheapened in
>appearance.
Plenty of those in the MGF
>These kinds of "going back to the roots" are what I am referring to. I am
>not advocating - as the short-fused members of the list seem to infer -
>that we should go back to making an MGB. I am advocating that Rover needs
>to take a long hard look at what an MG represents and find a way to
>incorporate that soul into the new car. It will be difficult with the
>present egg obsession. A great car has visible character. Let's see some.
>Porsche did it, although it must be admitted that they started with an egg
>back in '48.
I suspect that many of the critisms about the MGF are from people who
haven't even seen one in the flesh. I'm sure you'd be pleasantly
surprised if you did.
Philip Raby
Editor, MG World
PO Box 163, Bicester OX6 3YS, UK
Tel: 01869 340061 Fax: 01869 340063 Mobile 0467 767361
www.chp.ltd.uk
|