I think that was the point I was making. They re-engineer other cars,
with no budget, that gets slashed, and turn out something better. MG
started by improving Morris cars, right?
What I was trying to say, was that the PR firm did a very incomplete job
of putting up stats. The chart should have been:
1 Old Speckled 'un
.
.
.
xxx ZR
xxx ZS
xxx ZT
xxx New TF
Telewest (PH) wrote:
>>The Metro was badge engineered. The other
>>two 80s cars, I'm not sure.
>>
>
> Drivel, but MG Rover are so sensitive about the image of the
> Metro/Maestro/Montego they rubbish them themselves. They were all built to
> the original 1920's concept of an MG - based on an existing car but with
> significantly better handling and performance. The 80s MMM cars had greater
> performance than any MG had ever had before, let alone any variant of an
> Austin/Morris saloon had ever had, and bear in mind as well that as the 20s
> these variants had appeared in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The 1600 Maestro was
> my first MG and it was brilliant, even though the 2.0 Litre was said to be
> much better. Their faults, and they did have them, is that like all MGs for
> many years before and since they were developed on a shoestring. Didn't
> stop nearly a 1/4-million of them being sold though, compare that with 500k
> MGBs of which the majority were sold in North America.
>
>
>>And pretty much the ZT, ZS and ZR are just
>>redone Rovers.
>>
>
> Drivel again. Those who have driven them (!) have been amazed at the
> performance and handling that has been extracted from an apparently mundane
> Rover. Time will tell on numbers.
>
>
>
>
--
Paul T. Root E/Mail: proot@iaces.com
600 Stinson Blvd, Fl 1S PAG: +1 (877) 693-7155
Minneapolis, MN 55413 WRK: +1 (612) 664-3385
NIC: PTR FAX: +1 (612) 664-4779
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|