Bill S. wrote:
>Actually, I believe that you are thinking of the MGA, which was a departure
>from the previous models in styling, and was met by contemporary
>traditionalists with horror because it had none of the dubious virtues of the
>T series.
>After the A, the B was a fairly derivative model, and didn't represent any
>stunning change to the accepted paradigm.
I'll start this off by stating my opinions are based on reading various
commentaries, as I was not around during the time period.
>From what I understand the A was graciously accepted, since even conservative
enthusiasts regarding the T series as rather dated. The 'B was a major change
for the main line MGs: again, as has been noted, monocoque, and, talk about
horror! no side curtains.
The 'B was no more (and no less) a derivative of the 'A than the 'A was
of the T series cars. The T, A, and B cars have the same basic suspension
design. T and A cars have a frame. A and B share an engine block. Hell,
the A had wood floors. How's the B's strong monocoque tub a continuation
of that engineering theme?
How about comments from those who were actually there?
-Keith Wheeler
Team Sanctuary http://www.teamsanctuary.com/
|