>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
>A lot of MG folks attack the '7 as being the end of
>MG. Well, I may be mistaken, but I remember hearing
>something about them English folks still building MGs,
>but then I'm from Arkansas, so I may be confused.
>>>>>>>>>>end of snip<<<<<<<<<
Keith,
I'm not going to buy into the MG v Tr discussion. I claim to be
an old car enthusiast but lean towards MG as my first love in cars. However
I must refer to the book by Chris Harvey to address the comments made by you
in the snip of your original message. {included} He writes it like this.
British Leyland's chairman, Sir Micheal Edwards, explained why he had to axe
Abingdon and the MGB. There just wasn't enough money to develop a new model
and a rise in the value of the pound against the US dollar was making it
unprofitable to market MGB's at their currant price in the biggest export
market, America. What he didn't emphasise was that British Leyland had just
launched their open version of the Triumph TR 7 in the United States. To
quote the influential Motor Magazine: 'The bitter tragedy for MG is that a
previous Triumph-oriented management poured what resources were available
into the development of the TR 7 and the tooling-up of Speke for it's
production, instead of spending the money on the more highly-regarded MG
name and retooling Abingdon to build the new MG'
*************
So I guess a management decision to go for the TR 7 did spell the end for
MG.
In this book is a cartoon drawn by Tim Holder of a 'suite' hovering over a
Leyland logo, holding a TR with a 'Seal of Approval' rosette in front of
it's windscreen and kicking backwards with one foot an MGB with a banner
attached to it saying 'Golden Anniversary 50 Glorious Years'. In the
background are the MG factory workers with plenty of MG flags, all looking
despondent.
My apologies for raving on, this is a bit long, but interesting all the
same. I'd suggest the author is a tad biased. Eh?
Regards,
Scotty,
Adelaide,Australia.
Been driving MG's since 1962.
|