At 07:35 AM 8/14/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Here is an idea - if listers will send in a brief specification (not too
>long or too detailed, but basically body type, engine type, engine size,
>engine location, drive type, style (modern vs. retro), "essential"
>features etc., I will undertake to pass them on to the company as a
>cross-section of mainly American views. Of course "we" are only a small
>part of the market, but since our age range is considerable there must
>be some representative enthusiast customers amongst us....
I think MG had a good formula imperfectly executed with the B & BGT. My
opinion offers that two cars, same general platform. One would be a 4 banger
with V6 option, front engine, but NO fwd. Light, light, and lighter still.
Retro looks, but not losing sight of function. Sticky suspension. Steering
with feeling taking precedence over power assist. Roadster. Airconditioning
is probably a must offer in todays market, as would be an automatic. .
.though one would hope that the nature of the car would make the auto a
scarce choice. The coupe version would probably ride on an extended version
of the platform, offering something more of a true 2+2 capability than the
BGT had. Otherwise, it would be the same car. The coupe would probably help
those with young families remain in an MG. Both cars could have various
suspension packages to suit the tastes of the buyer. Both cars would
probably be low volume production . . . rather like the F.
In each relative era, MGs were most notable for their agility above all.
And all were rather cocky. I like the F, and it seems agile, but not cocky.
And yes, the B and the Spridget had that cheekiness when first introduced.
Michael, New Bern, NC
|