In a message dated 10/19/02 9:51:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, proot@iaces.com
writes:
> By that logic, the latest you could clain a real MG would be before
> Leyland did their leveraged buyout
> of BMC. Actually, before that with other mergers. I was looking for
> Skye's British Car family tree, but
> can't find it.
>
That's the difficulty with MG - you have to accept the various mergers - no
reason not to, as there was continuity of personnel and usually even of
manufacturing sites - but at what point (when they 'kill' the marque name by
discontinuing it, when they arguably do the same thing by applying it to
sedans that originated elsewhere.....) do you have to say they ceased to
exist as 'MG", whatever that may mean?
I'd probably have to exclude some of the contemporary models made during the
period when the factory was still open - the Farina Maggots sure seem far
from being MGs in concept.
I could readily agree that anything made before 1980 was still what most
would accept as an MG, I was just pointing out a personal opinion that the
single carbbed rubber bumpered models sent to North America were so far from
the previous models (I call them Marina convertibles) that they are as
repugnant to many, to call MGs as the 60s Magnettes were to the purists of
that period (and before someone else says it, than the MGA was to the T
series faithful).
By all means buy whatever you want and enjoy it as much as you can, but to
think that a new 'MG' will fit right in with the old MG history is asking a
bit much or the old guard to swallow (show up at a Bugatti owners meet with a
new 'Bugatti' and see how much time they have for you!;-)
Please don't anyone respond by telling me how wrong I am - I've already said
that I am just stating a personal opinion, AND that I would not expect any
amount of discussion to result in any consensus.
Bill
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|