:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lew Palmer" <lpalmer@roundaboutmanor.com>
To: "'Telewest (PH)'" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; "'Rick Brown'"
<brown409@comcast.net>; "'mglist'" <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: New MG Sports Car to be unvailed next week
> Now what constitutes a "real" MG?
>
> Remember, in 1936 when Morris took over the design office for MG, the
> overhead cam MMM cars were supplanted with the T-series and the SVW
> range, enthusiasts bemoaned the fact that the new cars weren't "real"
> MGs.
>
> In 1950, the TD was introduced with steel wheels and no wire wheel
> option and were declared "not real MGs".
>
> In 1953, the then BMC was formed from MG and others, the TF was
> introduced and enthusiasts declared they weren't "real MGs".
>
> Again, in 1956, with the introduction of the MGA, without the upright
> "square-rigger" shape, - "not real MGs".
>
> In 1981, with the introduction of the front-wheel drive Metro, Maestro,
> and Montego, all Austin sedan badge engineered cars - not "real" MGs.
>
> ...and on and on...
>
> Well you catch my drift.
>
> Regards,
> Lew Palmer
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mgs@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgs@autox.team.net] On
> Behalf
> > Of Telewest (PH)
> > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:31 AM
> > To: Rick Brown; mglist
> > Subject: Re: New MG Sports Car to be unvailed next week
> >
> > >From what I have read some of the design issues that led to its very
> > mixed
> > reception when announced some time ago were caused by having to retain
> > sufficient Mangusta engineering to keep its accreditation for the USA.
> So
> > presumably 'Yes'.
> >
> > But it's not a *real* MG ...
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|