On 24/1/98 8:01 pm Ross MacPherson said
>No argument on the A and B Phil, but the T series were SERIOUSLY out of date
>after the war. The TC (1945-49) was basicly a TA (designed in 1936), some
>mechanicals were updated on the TD and TF but by the end of the TF's life
>they were basically a 20 year old design, both mechanicly and aestheticly.
After the war, the UK badly needed to export products to make money. And
about the only country with money was the USA (remember those days guys?
Before Mr Reagan spoilt it all :-) ). The TC was hastely knocked together
and became surprising popular stateside. It was certainly the saviour of
MG and allowed the company to develop the A.
>
>That being said, I personally feel the TC was the high water mark of
>post-war Abingdon style if not engineering (sorry Bill). If I'd been of a
>car buying age in `56 I probably would have been one of those who decried
>the loss of real MG's on the introduction of the A. Now that I've got a TC
>as part of the family the aquisition of an A has lept to the top of my to-do
>list. ("yeah.... right" she says from the other room)
>
>As far as style for a new MG goes, put me firmly in the RV8 camp. Some list
>member, possibly you Phil, reported that the RV8 is a slug compared to the
>F. That may well be, but I'd like to see something like the mechanical
>engineering of the F wrapped in a NEW body that picks up the styling cues of
>the RV8/MGB. I'm fairly sure that here in North America and probably every
>where else, the combination would be a world beater.
The MGF already IS a worldbeater, everywhere accept the US :-)
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
|