Hi Phil:
I've posted on this before and do share most of Bill's feelings on the
subject, but I thought I would give you an historic perspective on the cars
under discussion.
I was a car-mad teenager when the MGA made its debut. One of my friends
owned a TD at the time and another bought a brand new A in '57. I thought
the TD was cool because it was a sports car. It looked the part compared
to the modern American cars of the day. There were no sports cars here to
speak of - except for a few T-series cars and the occasional TR2 or TR3.
I saw my first MGA in the spring of 1956 and I was disappointed. In those
days I knew everything I could about every car on the road and could spot
and identify different cars and models from 1/2 mile away. I was a slave
to the yearly appearance change which was at a fever pitch from 1955 on but
somehow the MGA was a disappointment. In 1956, fins on cars were the
exciting new thing. MGAs didn't have any leading styling ideas and also
didn't look like a "true" sports car. They no longer resembled a proper
MG. I warmed to the style as time went on but somehow the MGA was not, in
my mind, "the real thing" - it was just bland.
When the MGB arrived I was in my early '20s. I didn't pay much attention
to it as it looked so much like all the other sports cars of the day. In
fact, I much preferred the styling of the Fiat sports. The B was just
another little car which even less resembled a real MG. I yearned for a
sports car but my ideas didn't really include LBCs. The new Sting Ray was
out and we were all in love but knew we couldn't afford it. I desperately
wanted a Chrysler 300 but I had never seen one, let alone imagined I could
afford one.
I had seen a few Daimler SP250s and thought they looked ridiculous while
the Sunbeam Alpine was very handsome and far better looking than an MGB but
had a reputation as a "ladies car" and was underpowered. The Datsun Fair
Lady was just coming on to the market but it looked like a cheap copy of an
MGB and everyone "knew" that Japanese cars were no good.
I loved the look of the Austin Healey, which had stayed true to its
original design, and I wanted to own one but I couldn't afford such an
expensive car. I thought the Bug Eye was silly looking and tiny, and the
Midget was just a cheap and shrunken wannabe. In those days I had briefly
owned and driven a TR2 and had loved its rugged performance but it was a
joke in terms of being the only car in my life due to its rudimentary
weather protection.
As a typical starving student I had only been able to afford ancient
Chevrolets which did nothing well but were cheap. I had owned 5 of them by
the time I was 21 and had never paid more than $100 for any of them. When
the time came to buy my first "new" car I didn't consider an LBC at all but
I didn't want a cheap American car, which was all that I could afford. It
was 1964, I was about to graduate from University and had signed a contract
for my first teaching job.
I wanted something sporting and fast, but practical. I wanted something
stylish and different but something that was typically reliable and
comfortable in our winter climate. I couldn't afford two cars and wasn't
prepared to trust my new career to the questionable reliability of Joe
Lucas. When I think back, I never considered an MGB. A new one was too
expensive for what it represented, its styling was boring, and a clapped
out used car was not what I wanted. The result? I bought a Volvo 544.
With this car I had distinctive-looking car which, in those days, was a big
hit with the general public. I had power and great handling. I could blow
off all those silly Spridgets and could take MGBs as well. I had a real
heater and a car that would start at 40 below. I had total weather
protection with decent ventilation and seats that were comfortable and
allowed a view in traffic. I had practical bumpers and a real trunk with
some room in it. I even had a back seat - which was an important adjunct
in a young man's life.
The point of all this is that as a teenager I was styling conscious and
wanted a sports car. The MGA and MGB were disapointments. The styling was
bland in a world of excess and was typically behind the times. They didn't
make me want to own them "at all costs". I knew that LBCs were unreliable
and that I could only afford a low-priced car. The Volvo was distinctive,
reliable and had a fine reputation. I drove it, raced it, slalomed it,
rallyed it and loved it. Two years later I fell in love again, sold my
Volvo and bought a brand new Rover 2000TC. That's a whole other story.
Suffice it to say that I sold the Rover a short time later and didn't buy
another LBC for 17 years.
John
>On 24/1/98 12:17 am Bill Eastman said
>
>>I don't want you to think that I enjoy arguing with you on this (I may or
>>may not. I will never tell)
>[BIG SNIP]
>
>Bill,
>
>Thanks for this interesting post. If you look back at earlier MGs, they
>have always been bang uptodate. The MGA must have been stunning in the
>1950s, and the MGB was refreshingly modern in 1963. The MGF has taken
>been influencd by these cars and, as such, is forward thinking.
>
>What would you have thought of the MGA or the MGB when they came out? I
>know at the time, some MG owners said that the new cars were pandering to
>the softies and REAL sportscars shouldn't have all the luxuries of windup
>windows and heaters. Sounds familiar?
>
>Keep on arguing! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Philip Raby
>Editor, MG World
>PO Box 163, Bicester OX6 3YS, UK
>Tel: 01869 340061 Fax: 01869 340063 Mobile 0467 767361
>www.chp.ltd.uk
|