At 12:36 AM 11/8/96 -0500, you wrote:
>OK, let the flames begin...How can the MGF even be called an MG when it did
>not roll off the assembly line in Abingdon? Now you are going to say that,
>well, MG's were made in Oxford before Abingdon. But there is a big
>difference. Mr. Kimber started M.G.'s (might as well write it correctly) in
>Oxford and his team of talent went over with him to Abingdon to continue the
>production of what became the most popular sports car in the world. I'll
>bet not a single Abingdon alumnus had any part in designing or producing the
>MGF. Rover just owns the name and can (and did) stick it on any piece of
>crap they desire. Their recent action of hassling the keepers of the flame
>that use the logo means to me that they don't have a clue of what the logo
>means to most of us! As far as I'm concerned they can keep the MGF in
>England and Japan, sure its a British designed/produced sports car (or
>another modern jelly bean) and probably a pretty good one, but IMHO it is no
>M.G. There can never be another real M.G. M.G. ceased to exist in 1980.
> They made it so. It is a badged engineered world now. You will probably
>soon see a MG motorcycle with horizontally opposed cylinders!
Couldn't agree more! It's like wishing the name Duesenburg would start up
again. Let's enjoy the old MGs and stop worrying about a German company
capitalizing on an old Brit car name.
Needed a project for 97 - bought a very straight late 48 EXU TC with a
garage full of spares. Why do I keep doing this?
Bill Harkins
|