Max Heim (mvheim@attbi.com) wrote:
> I think Rocky summed it up pretty nicely... why?
> on 5/4/03 10:08 AM, Rocky Frisco at rock@rocky-frisco.com wrote:
> > Carl French wrote:
> >> The new replacement for the MGf is the TF. It is a Very nice looking car.
> > I simply can't figure why they would mess up a naming convention that has
> > been in place for over 50 years by reverting to the T-series designation,
> > and one previously used, to boot.
The current Naming scheme of MG* would have led to the car being the MGG,
and I don't think that made any of the marketing wonks happy.
Is there really any difference between a company creating a new two seat
roadster sports car and naming it the same as an old two seat roadster
sports car from their heritage, and Chevrolet calling their new
monstrosities "Corvettes" simply because the model has been in production
in between?
Heck, you could make an argument that calling a 1963 and 1980 MGB the same
car is ludicrous.
I'm not sure what piece of backwards US legislation is keeping MG Rover out
of the US market proper, but the MG TF would be a Miata killer, and I'd
love to have one.
_______________________________
Chris Thompson
1974 MGB Chrome Bumper Roadster
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|