on 5/5/03 5:33 AM, Chris Thompson at ct-mg@cthompson.com 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.
Could have easily been "MGH". But there scarcely seems enough difference
from the MGF to merit a change in designation, at all. MGF Mark II would
have been about right. And where are they going from here? MG-TG sounds just
as goofy as MGG... Maybe the next model will be the MGA?
>
> 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?
Yes, in point of fact. Names have meaning, even beyond what marketing folks
try to tell you.
If (for instance) Rolls Royce had been making a model called Silver Ghost
continuously since 1907, no one would bat an eye. But if the "new" Rolls
Royce company decided to name next year's model "Silver Ghost", you can bet
there would be an enormous controversy, particularly among the marque's
greatest admirers.
In using a name continuously (like Corvette), the manufacturer establishes a
convention. By deliberately reviving or reusing a name from the past, the
manufacturer makes a statement, whether intentional or not. Ford made an
unambiguous statement when it revived the Thunderbird as an all-new,
intentionally retro model. But what is MG trying to say when it revives the
name of the "last of the line" T-series for a slightly warmed-over F? Any
way you look at it, it seems poorly thought out.
> Heck, you could make an argument that calling a 1963 and 1980 MGB the same
> car is ludicrous.
How so? Same body shell, same motor -- how much more the same model could
they be? All that changed was the transmission, trim, and
regulatory-required items.
>
> 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.
Same thing that kept the MGF out -- Fed crash standards. If they had
intended the car for the US market from the start, they could have built in
compliance. But they didn't, so there's no use complaining. Blame MG-Rover,
not pre-existing regulations.
>
> _______________________________
> Chris Thompson
> 1974 MGB Chrome Bumper Roadster
I mean, it's OK if this "TF" designation doesn't bother you. But I totally
understand why it bothers T-series fans, and in the broader sense, it seems
completely arbitrary and not a little insensitive of the current MG brass.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|