In a message dated 10/10/02 8:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
> > My comments were made based on the following reference:
> >
> > "All cars sold in the USA had to be assessed for emissions in relation to
> a
> > class system based on vehicle weight. The MGB just managed to scrape
> within
> > one class but the MGB GT fell in the next class up - where standards were
> > tougher.
>
The salient point is not whether the standards were harder to meet for the
GT, but that they didn't even try. Deletion of the GT from the North
American market owed (far) more to marketing strategy than emissions
concerns.
BLMC wanted to push their Triumph models, and in the case of the B GT, that
rubber-lipped flying doorstop abortion they called the TR-7 would have been
in direct competition.
These marketing policies also explain why the TR models got at least decent
power-trains, while the MG got band-aid after cheaply applied band-aid.
Need ride height to pass US rules? Don't redesign the car, that costs money.
Just jack the thing up and turn it into the worst handling MG in 2 decades.
Need lower emissions but don't want to spend money on a new engine? Just tack
on power robbing add-ons to reduce emissions, and end up with a limp-wristed
car that didn't even warrant use of the name MG - less power and performance
than the MGA had 20 years before.
But that didn't matter of course, as they thought it would sell even more
Triumphs.
Idiots!
Bill
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|