Kai Radicke wrote:
Now of course, the first reproduced MGB body shells weren't of very
good quality... but that is another story.
I think the whole issue of production replication for BMH on not only
MGB bodyshells but TR6 and others could well have been fraught with
the many difficulties of building bodies to order in a new location,
rather than shunting 'x' number down the line to meet a production
quota. There may well be other reasons too?
For the record, I have today spent a most enjoyable seven hours at the
wheel of an MGB roadster to be rebuilt with the first bodyshell from
BMH. I've driven it on odd occasions round the Heritage Centre's roads
in the past but this is not the acid test of driving it on normal
roads. All I can say is that having driven more brand new MGB's than
I've probably eaten hot dinners, this first example of a reborn car
was a revelation of the most pleasureable kind.. After 9000 miles of
odd journeys with many different
drivers over the last ten years, TAX192G is, IMHO, what every other
MGB should have been but never was - at least as far as the many I
drove when new. The panel fit was outstanding, there was not a creak,
rattle or squeak anywhere in the structure and its rigidity over
indifferent road surfaces was of such a high quality that I left it
with much regret at the end of the day. As an avowed Triumph
enthusiast, I can only say that if the first examples of BMH bodies
for the B were allegedly of questionable quality, then the current
ones must be in the realms of paradise. I was so impressed with the
general condition of this car that if I was able to afford it, I would
not hesitate to add an MGB to my collection - but on the sole proviso
that it had a BMH bodyshell.
My only regret is that BMH don't do a TR5 bodyshell. I've got the full
engine, transmission and driveline to go in it!
On the logics of why BMW didn't keep BMH, it doesn't make commercial
sense to be involved in the fringes of old car replication outside
your own core business - unless it is ultra profitable and brings in
mega profit numbers. While BMH is and has been profitable, such
profits would be neither here nor there on a BMW balance sheet. I
suspect Ford was of much the same view. When it bought Land Rover,
part of which deal was the R&D unit at Gaydon. In a tiny 65 acre
corner of a much larger site, was a museum with old Brit cars in it.
Commercially, Ford taking over the museum didn't make much commercial
sense - but taking over a money-making Conference Centre which is
really what the museum constitutes that's sitting in your own backyard
was another kettle of fish. Ford and BMW are in the new car business
and sentiment for what once was - especially if you didn't make the
cars originally, doesn't figure too high in the list of money making
priorities.
Whatever BMH's future is under its new owners, providing the money is
there, then my view is that this new found *independence* could be the
best thing that could have happened to the operation. It gives BMH
through Legacy, the flexibility to do what they have proved they can
do well. If this could translate into another RV8 or a Spridget with a
Rover twin cam 16 valve lump and five cogger - or whatever, then good
luck to them.
Jonmac
MG 4305 DLO 1970 Triumph 2.5PI, TED 152318 1950 Ferguson TED20
"Children in back seats cause accidents.
Accidents in back seats cause children."
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|