>
>- interesting exercise. If you take all the nay-sayer posts regarding the
>MGF, and the questions regarding it's 'MG-ness' - and cut out all the
>'MGF's, and replace with 'MGB' - then they'd all read like articles on the
>MGB back in '64 from then-MGB-naysayers! (I do have too much time on my
>hands..) Think about the F 20 years from now, you bet your purity it'll be
>an 100% MG then, just as it is now!
>
The debate on the MGF is hopeless. We all must realize by now that the MGs we
know and love are really a state of mind. The MGF can never be a real MG , not
for the reasons stated, but because its 1996 and not 1962 or 1980. Come on
folks
look at a modern car.
In the 1950's I could fix a Television. At least I could go to the local drug
store and test the vacume tubes. How many can fix a modern television
I'm no mechanic, but my 96 American Iron is so complex and computerized that I
could't change the spark plugs ( if I could find them) Lucky the car never
needs
a tune up. Yet this car is almost twice as fast with double the miles per
gallon
as the same make 25 years ago.
Now you expect the new MG to be cheap, fun , and easy to work on? Was the new
design to forget the electronic breakthroughs of the last 10 years with regard
to tune, power and gas milage? Of course not, ie any car made today is complex,
requires a degree in engineering to work on, and is expensive to develop and
produce. The simple lbc of our youth is just that, something from our youth,
never to be seen again.
However the MGF does carry on the name and legend of a great marque. If they
came to the U.S. I wouldn't have to explain to the under 20 generation that an
MG is a car! The designers and producers of the MGF at least looked back to the
old marque for inspiration but of course looked at the calender before
designing
it. I'm happy the car was done to preserve the marque, but I am sober enough to
realize that it could never resemble what had been produced at Abingdon.
Mike Leckstein
|