on 6/4/05 4:30 AM, William Killeffer at wkilleffer@comcast.net wrote:
>> Repeat after me... "They... will... not... sell... MG TFs... in...
>>> the...
>> US".
>>
>> If MG Rover couldn't swing it, TVR certainly isn't...
>
>
> Why the pessimism? I hate to sound this way, but did you take your fiber
> caps or Metamucil this morning? Do you perhaps need something to open up
> the passages in your mind as well?
I don't know -- have you been hitting the crack pipe? I don't see any reason
to get personal...
> Admittedly, it's a bit of a long shot with the future of the company
> looking somewhere between grim and non-existant. But don't let's write
> it off just yet.
"A bit of a long shot" is the understatement of the century. We're talking
about a nearly obsolete design, from a company that no longer exists. Might
as well ask if they will revive the Jensen-Healey for sale in the US.
> Several people have lost their jobs in this debacle, and that's
> unfortunate. But I can't help wondering if that might not be in the best
> interest of the MGTF. I certainly don't mean to offend by that
> statement, so please try to hear me out.
>
> It looks as though the "rights" to that car and its design will get
> sold. Maybe to someone in Britain who will be able to continue
> production there. The reason that car isn't already here is because
> Leyland/MG-Rover let the US dealer network fall apart when everything
> went south on that side of the pond as well. Present management of MG-R
> either didn't want to or couldn't afford to get things back together
> over here. My money's on the latter. Also, they would have had to sell
> an expanded product line in addition to the MGTF to make it practical.
> Admittedly, that does complicate things just a bit, but doesn't make
> them impossible with the right leadership.
I don't where this assumption comes from, that the entire problem was a lack
of dealer network. If they (MG Rover) had been serious about it, they could
easily have swung some kind of co-marketing agreement with some other
specialty car manufacturer. For a while Morgan had only one or two dealers
in the US, but they maintained availability.
> Now, it looks as though this car will be able to pass US emissions and
> safety standards. That should probably be the least of anyone's worries
> if they're going to try and bring this car stateside. When it comes to
> those issues, where there's a will, there's a way. Even if engine swaps
> have to be done.
This is the crazy assumption -- where does everyone get the idea that this
aging design could meet current US safety and emissions standards, when to
all appearances it wasn't even designed to meet the standards applicable at
the time it was first manufactured? An engine swap is not a simple
proposition for a mid-engined vehicle. But I really suspect that
crashworthiness is the fatal flaw. This is a feature that cannot be
tacked-on after the fact. I am sure the MG Rover management knew this all
along, which is why they never even hinted over the entire life of the model
that there was any consideration whatsoever being given to exporting it to
the US.
I think my scepticism is firmly based on the available evidence
(particularly the historical evidence), while the opposing view seems to
fueled entirely on speculation (or what I would call 'wishful thinking').
Fine. Judge for yourself. But don't go around insulting people who are
merely stating what seems to be obvious.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
|