When is everybody going to grow p and understand that MGs existed for only
one reason. They made money for the guy who owned the company. In our case
in the past it was Lord Nuffield, then later BMC and BL.
Will someone tell me what is the difference now that Rover/BMW own MG. I
don't know about Charley but I love my three MGs because of ehat they are
and not who owns them. Lets all be clear on one thing. MGs began as a
marketing exercise by one Mr C. Kimber esq. They were no or no less than a
way of selling more Morris Cars.
For me I am tired of reading this rubiish about the MGF being "nothing more
than a cynical marketing exercise". The MGF was designed from the outset to
be a sports car for the 90's and hopefully beyond. Its developement has been
well funded (unlike our beloved A's and B's), well designed and well liked
by the public. Witness that it out sold the MX-5/Miata last year worldwide.
I have done quite a few miles in an F and my only complaint is that it is a
bit cramped for a six foot plus guy like me. But then I had to alter my TC
seating to fit in as well.
So will people stop bleating about the F and its derivatives not being an MG
and instead treat it for what it is, a developement of a theme. After all
there is very little to connect an MGA or B with say a TC, except for the
badge. As for not being built in the Abingdon factory consider that many MG
owners consider anything not built in the Oxford factory to be nothing more
that a spin off from their wonderful cars.
With all due respect Charles, lighten up and please tell me what car the F
is supposed to be a spin off of.
Murray Arundell
1945 MG-TC
1965 MGB-MkI
1975 MGB GT-V8
1998 Landrover Discovery SE V8i
Would have 1998 MGF VVC if only I could drive it with my shoes on!!
|