Hi Phil:
>That's my point, really, the MGA and MGB were not retro in their day,
>they were seriously modern. as is the MGF. But today you're yearning
>after a retro look like an A or a B!
Sorry to disagree but I stated that the MGA and MGB were not leading edge.
Remember that I was viewing these cars through the eyes of a young
car-obsessed person. They were anything but seriously modern and neither is
the MGF. They were rather pedestrian designs in an era which saw the most
radical changes in automobile styling of any decade yet (1955-1964). They
maintained attributes of the past - notably in the grille and the
proportions but they were not revolutionary simply evolutionary.
To be revolutionary, the A should have been introduced in 1948 and the B in
1954. There were many sports cars which were more attractive and
interesting at the time and at least as contemporary. Austin-Healey, Volvo
P1800, Sunbeam Alpine, Fiat Sports, Any Alfa and all Porsches especially
cabriolets.
Other examples of evolutionary designs - but failures - are the TR4, the
dreadful Chrysler-designed Sunbeams, the bug-eyeless Sprite, the Jag Mark
10 and S-Type, the Triumph Vitesse and every Austin built in the '70s
particularly the four-eyed monster and all Mercedes sports since the 450SL.
The best example of a leading edge design which abandoned its roots is the
Jaguar XKE. The basic proportions and profile were not new but Jag was the
first to execute them in a popular marketplace. The car was revolutionary
not evolutionary. Mind you, I have never liked it as well as the earlier
XKs which were evolutionary - but the evolution took place from a
revolutionary design - the XK120, which I consider one of the greatest
automotive styling creations. The change from SS100 to XK120 was even
greater than the change to the E-type. The shift from T-series to MGA was
nearly as great, but it wasn't new - and the result was not stunning -
merely nice.
The MGF has to all intents abandoned its roots but has failed to score
anything like the styling triumphs of Jaguar or Porsche. Perhaps it is
this classic roots/dramatic leap forward that we would all like to see. The
Boxter and the XK8 come closest today.
I suspect that the Miata was the only tradition BMW had in mind when it
created the MGF.
John
>On 24/1/98 3:34 pm John McEwen said
>
>>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,
>
>Thanks for this perspective.
>
>That's my point, really, the MGA and MGB were not retro in their day,
>they were seriously modern. as is the MGF. But today you're yearning
>after a retro look like an A or a B!
>
>Of course, the F has the advantage of being as reliable as any other car
>on the road and boasts a superb suspension system that combines a great
>ride with amazing handling. Not many cars you can say that about, as
>you'll know if you've driven the agricultural (and retro-styled) BMW Z3.
>And it looks good
>
>What more do you want? Apart from a new 996, of course. Now, where's my
>lottery ticket...
>
>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
|