Chris,
I agree with you for the most part. In addition it is enormously expensive,
probably prohibitively so, to launch a new brand in the US. Although we know
and love the mark to generate significant sale it would be a from scratch
relaunch of the brand.
Your right that the expense of getting through the regs is a problem.
As far as the "too expensive to redesign for the US market", I don't
completely agree. The emissions standard are coming into sync, although I
believe the California standards are still a little more stringent. The
real problem is in crash or more correctly bumper standard, although the US
reduced the standard from 5 mph to 2.5 mph. I think as far as safety Euro
standards are at least as strict or more so then those in the US but ours
are insurance driven. So car damage, in non-fatal crashes, plays a part in
the regs. Of what I've read, safety is designed in by using crumple zones to
absorb a hit, pioneered by MB and volvo. The no damage 2.5 mph has an almost
contradictory requirement, this was implemented to reduce the number of and
cost of insurance damage claims.
I too saw the statement that the F wasn't design for the US and couldn't
economically be converted, actual I read that in a couple of different
publications. I also have seen similar comments from other manufactures and
reports on what needs to be done to exotics to get approved- not just
emissions. Lastly 2 years ago I went through one of BMW plants in Germany
and they pointed out the differences between the "normal" chassis and the
US/ NA chassis.
--
Marshall Dixon
1960 Healey 3000 BT-7 (not yet on the road again)
1973 MGB-(daily driver)
Boiling Springs PA
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:12:44 -0500
> From: Chris Kotting <ckotting@iwaynet.net>
> Subject: Re: BMW commits? and is a new MG what we need?
>
> Skye -
>
> I seriously doubt it. I don't doubt that you >read< it, or even that it
> is an accurate representation of what a reporter was >told<, but I doubt
> that it was, in reality, a major reason.
>
> Why? Because the MGF is >already< sold (and was designed to be sold) in
> European nations that have as stringent or more stringent crash and
> emissions standards than the US. US beaurocracy a greater hurdle?
> Possible, but I still doubt it, BMW seems to be able to manage with
> other new cars well enough.
>
> I think the real reason that the MGF never made an appearance in the US,
> is that it was owned by BMW, who was trying to get the Z3 to be
> competitive in the market as an "upscale Miata", and didn't want to
> suffer the consequences of the MGF's price/performance point, which
> would tend to "cannibalize" the Z3's sales more than the Miata's. This
> is particularly true because the most viable dealer network in the US
> would be BMW's, which would put the Z3 and the F side by side in many
> showrooms.
>
> My $0.02 on the matter.
>
> Will Alchemy Partners actually love the MG as much as we do? Who knows?
> Will they be able to turn it around? Possibly.
> Am I rooting for an MG actually owned and operated by Brits to succeed?
> YOU BETCHA!
>
> Chris Kotting
> ckotting@iwaynet.net
>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:27:18 -0800
>> From: Skye Poier <skye@ffwd.com>
>> Subject: Re: BMW commits? and is a new MG what we need?
>>
>> Because they were never put through all the hoops you have to do to make
>> a car road legal here: crash tested, emissions requirements, etc
>>
>> I remember reading about the decision not to sell the MGF in North America
>> and the extra engineering was a major reason.
>>
>> Skye
>
> ---
|