>patrick bailey wrote:
>> 2 The new MGF I don't like the styling much too "gum drop "
>> looking as for how it drives I don't know but I would like to find out!
>>
>> Pat 79 B
> I include your car in that quote for a reason.
> How would you say an MGB looked in the 60s to a person
>who refused to drive anything but T-series cars?
> I suspect gum drop would come to mind.
> Cars change. Progess isn't always the right word, but
>cars always change.
> Nothing wrong with enjoying nostalgia, we all do
>that is why we are here.
> However, IMHO it is simply silly to insist that
>automobiles reached perfection at some date in the past
>and every change since then has been a change for the
>worse.
--
>Trevor
Trevor,
You have come to the essence of what I was thinking when I started this post.
Everything changes. We remember the "good old days" as good because the mind
tends to block out the bad. Change is inevitable.
Our 60's and 70's MGs would not have been frozen in time if the marque would
have survived. The 80's and 90's mgs would have had to meet the new safety
regulations, offer tops that did not leak, incorporate silicon chips and little
black boxes into the electronics, etc.. if they were to remain a CHEAP, fun
ride and successful ride. I still believe they might have looked like a M***a.
The second point, that I made to someone in a private post, there is room in
this world for people who drive Triumphs, M***a, rice burning cars or bikes,
American cars, etc. Live and let. Mgs are our car of choice, but that does
not mean they are the one true god. History abounds with wars because people
who were all god fearing could not accept that someone else's god did not fit
their image of what he/she should look like.
We should all enjoy our Mg's and lighten up.
|