WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/19/02 7:16:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
>
>
>
>
>>Listers,
>>What constitutes a Honda, Chrysler, Chevy, Cadillac,
>>Jaguar, etc. etc. etc. Stop already. If it is sold
>>as an MG and you like it, it's an MG. If it's sold as
>>a Jag and you like it, it's a Jag.
>>
>>
>
>These arguments never seem to convince anyone on either side of the validity
>of the logic offered by the other side, and they go on, and on, and.....
>
>Perhaps we could agree that when there has been a clear discontinuity in the
>manufacturer, that the new car shares nothing but the name with the old?
>
>Examples of this are the newer version called Bugatti, and the recent (RIP)
>car called the Jensen. No ties to history or tradition, just someone that had
>the money to buy an established name to try and market a completely new
>product through name recognition.
>
>Now as to where the name MG fits in here........
>
>Bill
>(IMNVHO, 'real MGs', if that term can be used, ceased in 1980, although
>Kimber would have been rolling in his grave from about 1975 on....)
>
By that logic, the latest you could clain a real MG would be before
Leyland did their leveraged buyout
of BMC. Actually, before that with other mergers. I was looking for
Skye's British Car family tree, but
can't find it.
Paul.
'77B
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|