At 09:52 AM 8/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>I know that, as you have said, according to the rules, `international
>business doesn't work like that', but there are in this case some pretty
>sound business reasons why it might. Add in a dash of actual car
>interest (!) and a pinch of MG enthusiasm, and you have quite a
>cocktail. Remember that when Lutz was at Ford, he was the prime mover
>behind the Ford bid to buy Austin-Rover from the British Government, the
>intention being to extract the pearl (MG) and kick the oyster into
>touch.
One of the reasons Rover has trotted out to defend the non-return of MG to
the states is the lack of a dealer network, and legal problems left by B-L
(exactly what were those problems?). They claim the Land-Rover network is
too small and 4X4 specific to adequately sell other models.
Add BMW and the canabalizing effect of the F upon the Z3(esp. the 4 banger
Z) and it one can see that Bimmer was unlikely to alter that at this time.
However, BMW has said that ALL cars developed from now on would be designed
for the world market. That's not exactly an "MG will be sold in the US"
statement, but pretty damned close. My personal preference would be that F
like cars would be the domain of BMW, and something a bit more basic and
truly sportscar like would be the domain of MG. The Elise is more MG than
the F -- IMHO.
Chrysler is the most exciting of the American car companies. Everytime I
see a mini-van, which I loathe, I still smile a bit, knowing all the Vipers,
Prowlers and Copperheads they are subsidizing.
Michael, New Bern, NC
|