Chris:
That wasn't a flame! I expected more vehement protests, actually.
I guess I mis-wrote about the GT design source. I know Maserati didn't
design it, so I guess I was off there, I was referring to the general talent
of Italian designers that auto companies can tap if they have the will to do
so.
As far as the LeBaron, ugh. The Sebring, though, I'll grant you, it's a nice
car but more in the league with Cadillac than a roadster (ahem) Hence my
statement about a Neon-chassied roadster. Although a RWD roadster would be
the way to go...so maybe not!
As for the MGF, I only said IF there were a reputation of unreliability. I
wasn't automatically assuming the consumer advocacy stuff was correct. I
think that MG DOES have a bad rep here among the general public, though,
deserved or not. The F is nice, but this market just won't support it, and
my pessimism about BMW still stands.
The mid-late70s were a bad time for most cars while the industry tried to
meet the govt. standards any way they could, regardless of the effects on
performance and reliability. MG (rather B-L) gave up, and gave us the TR-7,
when it died a sad death, the Brits never took the chance to make it up with
a good sports car, so the last impression is what sticks, I'm afraid.
The plain fact is I wouldn't buy an F for the same reason I wouldn't buy a
brand-new Miata. Too expensive for what I get while I can have my '73 B for
a fraction and all the nostalgia and simplicity that goes with it.
My whole point is that a GT-like car, that had a price of approx. $15K,
would tickle my fancy, since I would keep my B and have a chance to replace
my wife's Mazda Mx-3! In fact, I'd pay a bit more for a well-sorted small
GT/roadster, but no more than $20K, period.
The reality is, and I think this was my point, that any company who wants to
crack the code for a Miata-beater here will have to mass-produce, and make
it inexpensive, fun and infinitely upgradeable performance-wise (simple and
have a common drivetrain to something). The real sleeper to this would have
to be a (yes, I mean this) badge and design that evokes memories of "the
good old days". If this precludes Rover, so be it.
The other reality is that the "big three" are the only ones with any
possibility of doing so, and Chrysler leads the pack in innovative,
efficient design/production techniques to make it happen.
Maybe I'm a dreamer, and the days of inexpensive, mass appeal/high sales
sports cars are gone for good. But I just can't help thinking that this it's
possible. Even if the MGA/B/Midget won't be reincarnated.
Dan
73 B
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Delling <saschris@flash.net>
To: Dan Ray <danray@bluegrass.net>; mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: MGF and roadster thoughts WAS Re: terrible joke -
>Dan-
>
>Sorry to flame ya, but I think you're WAYYY off base on a couple of things.
>
>Chrysler does in fact own Maserati, but they (Maserati) had nothing to do
>with the design of the MGBGT. MG was having problems with the roofline of
>the GT, and ended up contracting with a Italian design firm - Pininfarina I
>believe - who may have been responsible for the design of some Maserati
>coachwork, but was not a part of Maserati.
>
>The LeBaron and more recently Sebring convertibles have had HUGE commercial
>sucess. The LeBaron may not have been a "good car" but it certainly sold
>well. The Sebring has met with substantial critical praise from the
>automotive press, in addition to it's sales numbers. I will allow that the
>K-car convertibles of the early 80's were total shit. however.
>
>I am not sure, but you seem to indicate that the MGF would not be
>commercially sucessful in the U.S. due to a poor reputation for quality
>associated with MG. Here I think you are wrong once again. MG's quality
>reputation was excellent until the last part of the 70's, when the design
of
>the B did not come close to meeting the standards of the day. There were
>far too many band-aid engineering jobs, which resulted in cars that had a
>lot of problems. I think that you would basically be looking at two market
>segments for the F - people like us, dedicated MG lovers, and secondly a
new
>group of younger people, who are excited about a new sports car. The
second
>group would be too young to associate any quality problems of a 70's
vintage
>car with a late 90's modern sports car.
>
>>From the articles I have read, the F was never designed to be built in
large
>quantities, or to provide the low costs that this style of manufacturing
>brings. It was expected to be a lower volume market. This approach,
>according to MG, would not work here, as they view the U.S. market as
>favoring a higher volume/lower cost vehicle than the F is capable of being.
>Whether this is true or not can be debated.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Delling
>
>
>
|