Andrew Mace wrote:
> > character will find a solid niche in the market. And, if the car is
> > named Triumph, and maintains that character, all the better. I just
> > don't think it will ever happen with a re-badged anything. That's just
> > marketing BS, and that will show through. As was said in the `60s,
> > "cream rises."
>
> I have to agree almost completely. However, and to be realistic about all
> this, any "new" Triumph will have to be either badge-engineered to some
> extent or at least make massive use of the BMW/Rover parts bins, as did
> all other previous Triumph sports cars. Otherwise, we'll be drooling over
> a TR9 with a $125k price tag, which doesn't appeal to me any more than
> would a Z3 with a Triumph Globe in place of the blue-and-white BMW
> roundel.
I would guess that the more BMW in one, the less it would feel like a
Triumph and the higher the price... German parts are _expensive_. And
the more it would look like a BMW. It's very true that many Triumphs
shared parts with Rovers, but my guess on that is that, in later years,
that might have been mandated by B-L for the sake of economic order
quantities, and in all years, due to what parts were available from
British vendors.
> But the MG name did survive, perhaps partly BECAUSE it was used on the
> otherwise mundane Metro sedan, right? Maybe some of the new Rover sedans
> supposedly destined for the U.S. could be called Triumphs here. Won't be
> the first time that the Triumph name has been used in North America for
> its better name recognition or image (witness the Standard/Triumph 10).
But, hopefully, not on an MG.... <smile>
Cheers, Andy.
|