At 10:20 AM 1/24/98 -0000, Phil wrote:
>Thanks for this interesting post. If you look back at earlier MGs, they
>have always been bang uptodate. The MGA must have been stunning in the
>1950s, and the MGB was refreshingly modern in 1963. The MGF has taken
>been influencd by these cars and, as such, is forward thinking.
>
>What would you have thought of the MGA or the MGB when they came out? I
>know at the time, some MG owners said that the new cars were pandering to
>the softies and REAL sportscars shouldn't have all the luxuries of windup
>windows and heaters. Sounds familiar?
No argument on the A and B Phil, but the T series were SERIOUSLY out of date
after the war. The TC (1945-49) was basicly a TA (designed in 1936), some
mechanicals were updated on the TD and TF but by the end of the TF's life
they were basically a 20 year old design, both mechanicly and aestheticly.
That being said, I personally feel the TC was the high water mark of
post-war Abingdon style if not engineering (sorry Bill). If I'd been of a
car buying age in `56 I probably would have been one of those who decried
the loss of real MG's on the introduction of the A. Now that I've got a TC
as part of the family the aquisition of an A has lept to the top of my to-do
list. ("yeah.... right" she says from the other room)
As far as style for a new MG goes, put me firmly in the RV8 camp. Some list
member, possibly you Phil, reported that the RV8 is a slug compared to the
F. That may well be, but I'd like to see something like the mechanical
engineering of the F wrapped in a NEW body that picks up the styling cues of
the RV8/MGB. I'm fairly sure that here in North America and probably every
where else, the combination would be a world beater.
Cheers,
Ross
|