I just don't understand this attitude (stated below). By what objective
measure can it be said to be true? The TwinCam is a "real" sports car, but
the MGA 1600 isn't? How do you justify that -- just because it has an OHC
engine? That throws out the whole T series, so they aren't real sports cars,
either (despite the fact that they are credited with inspiring the entire
sports car movement in America) -- I would say that is a pretty exclusive
(and not very useful) criterion (for instance, it kisses off Austin-Healey,
Morgan, and most Triumphs, among others). And I hear frequently that the MGB
isn't a "real" sports car, but the MGA is -- why, because the B has roll-up
windows? Pretty ludicrous distinction from the point of view of the 21st
century. I suppose the Miata, the Boxster, the Austin-Healey 3000 Mk. III,
the Ferrari 250 Spyder California, are none of them sports cars, either.
Again, this sort of arbitrary, single-feature point of differentiation is
impossible to justify except as personal prejudice or (more likely)
snobbery.
I mean, you can say the MGB is an uninspired, built-to-price, unworthy
successor to the glorious history of OHC MGs (not that everyone would agree
with you, but you'd have a point), but it's silly to say it's not a real
sports car.
My 2 cents and change...
on 5/15/01 11:03 AM, Kai M. Radicke at kmr@pil.net wrote:
> MG, under anyone's ownership, hasn't produced a real sports car since the
> MGA TwinCam (also in agreeance with Bill on this). It is sad to think that
> in a 20 year span that MG had a production car producing 110ish hp... and at
> the end of the next two decades had a car producing 69hp.
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|