Chris Thompson wrote:
> Max Heim (mvheim@attbi.com) wrote:
>
>>I think Rocky summed it up pretty nicely... why?
>>on 5/4/03 10:08 AM, Rocky Frisco at rock@rocky-frisco.com wrote:
>>
>>>Carl French wrote:
>>>
>>>>The new replacement for the MGf is the TF. It is a Very nice looking car.
>>>
>>>I simply can't figure why they would mess up a naming convention that has
>>>been in place for over 50 years by reverting to the T-series designation,
>>>and one previously used, to boot.
>
>
> The current Naming scheme of MG* would have led to the car being the MGG,
> and I don't think that made any of the marketing wonks happy.
>
> Is there really any difference between a company creating a new two seat
> roadster sports car and naming it the same as an old two seat roadster
> sports car from their heritage, and Chevrolet calling their new
> monstrosities "Corvettes" simply because the model has been in production
> in between?
>
> Heck, you could make an argument that calling a 1963 and 1980 MGB the same
> car is ludicrous.
>
> I'm not sure what piece of backwards US legislation is keeping MG Rover out
> of the US market proper, but the MG TF would be a Miata killer, and I'd
> love to have one.
>
At that price, it'd have to be a Boxster or S2000 killer to sell to
anyone other than MG-ophiles like us.
And I can't even the Miata at half the price.
--
Paul T. Root E/Mail: proot@iaces.com
600 Stinson Blvd N.E., Fl 1S PAG: +1 (877) 693-7155
Minneapolis, MN 55413 WRK: +1 (612) 664-3385
FAX: +1 (612) 664-4779
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|