Well,
I thought they'd want to start over as well, since MGG
would sound pretty dumb. But I thought they should have started
over with new series. Then they'd have the Z series for saloons
and the _ series for sports cars.
You wouldn't want to use the P or T series (opps). How about S?
And start with A. Except it's not a completely new car. So the F
was a carry over from the MGF.
On the other hand, the Z series is a re-birth so why not the T?
TS? TR (nope :-), TT (nope :-), TL (nope :-)
I'd still go with SA, or is that too close to Super America?
Maybe they want to save S for SUV's, gasp.
Paul.
Max Heim wrote:
> I think Rocky summed it up pretty nicely... why?
>
> on 5/4/03 10:08 AM, Rocky Frisco at rock@rocky-frisco.com wrote:
>
>
>>Carl French wrote:
>>
>>>The new replacement for the MGf is the TF. It is a Very nice looking car.
>>
>>I simply can't figure why they would mess up a naming convention that has
>>been in place for over 50 years by reverting to the T-series designation,
>>and one previously used, to boot.
>>
>>Seems pretty silly and clueless to me.
>>
>>-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
>
>
> --
>
> Max Heim
> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> it's the primer red one with chrome wires
--
Paul T. Root E/Mail: proot@iaces.com
600 Stinson Blvd N.E., Fl 1S PAG: +1 (877) 693-7155
Minneapolis, MN 55413 WRK: +1 (612) 664-3385
FAX: +1 (612) 664-4779
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|