In a message dated 15/05/01 9:01:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aaronw@wsu.edu
writes:
> However, anybody that has a real interest in racing
> should be waiting with baited breath. I suppose you thought the MGA
> and the MGB were nothing to get hard about either?
>
Well to start with, I react to my cars on an intellectual level; I see that
your bond is a somewhat more basic, visceral one......sorry, but looking at
cars doesn't have that effect on me.
I value and appreciate design and performance - I perhaps misled you when I
mentioned the TC, into thinking I was a fan of the pre-war idiom (of which
the T series is a part). IMVHO, the Twincam MGA is the most interesting model
since the war.
> Yeah, except in this case you can track the marque all the way to the
> present owners. Would you rather BMW was still the owner and driving
> what was left of MG into the ground?
>
If they thought they'd make money at it, they'd have been pushing MG as well.
The MG factory and all of the personell are gone; the fact that the name
continued as the property of a successor entity for years, to be revived when
they thought they could make some more money on it, does not, as far as I am
concerned, constitute a sufficiently close tie to call it the same company as
built our toys.
> Because the car _is_ related to the car I own, know, and
> love. It is funded by the same company (really!). When my car was
> made, it was a part of Leyland, which became Rover Group. Rover was
> bought by BMW, which drove it into the ground and broke it apart.
> Ford got Land Rover, the only piece with a (current) market in the US.
> A bunch of brits (heh) got MG and Rover, and are relying on MG to save
> the company.
>
Well I could argue that Leyland were a bunch of interloping Triumph people,
but I expect you weren't around when all that was happening. Had it been
otherwise, we would have had continuity of the MG models, with new engines,
suspensions, eventually bodies to suit, instead of that rubber lipped flying
doorstop they pushed to the detriment of the MGB (I make no apology for
categorising the TR7 as an automotive abortion - I drove several and stand by
that judgement - and I like Triumphs!)).
> MG-Rover (isn't it nice that the marque is getting the official
> recognition it deserves?) is funding and working with Lola to make
> that LeMans effort. It is an MG, just as much as the EX cars ever
> were.
>
>
I would differ with you there as well. Funding doesn't make it an MG - it
just gets your name painted on the car, as Qvale did for the Indy car (they
also tossed in a bit of technology with their suspension bladders).
Most of the EX cars that were intended for actual use, as opposed to styling
exercises, were built in-house at Abingdon, with sub-assemblies contracted
out as necessary. They used modified MG engines, and many other parts from
the BMC lines.
Your new 'MG' race car uses money, and as far as I know, that's about the
extent of the input from the backers. If some bright light in the
advertising department hadn't come up with the idea that the MG name might
sell to a generation of ageing baby boomers, it would have stayed in
mothballs forever.
However, all that won't detract from enjoying a good race, assuming the car
runs!
Bill
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|