Hi,
I know that I won't make any friends, but I feel a need to add my two cents
worth to this thread. Sorry Bill, I'm not one of your fans. Your posts tend to
automatically lead my fingers toward the Delete key. It's a feeling of
pomposity.
However, I have to agree with the theory that you are espousing. The world of
MGA's is shrinking. Please, don't butcher any more of them. There are enough to
go
around that already have been converted to V8's. You Shelby-wannabe's can easily
find them and take them to their ultimate.
When I found my 52TD it had been converted to a Volvo B16B. I switched it
back to an XPAG. If I wanted a Volvo-drivetrain TD I could find at least three
within a week.
I believe that there is a real need to try to preserve more of these machines in
their as-the-factory-may-have-done-them state as we can reasonably do so. Back
in
the 50's it was not uncommon to see a TD with a Ford V8-60 in it. Nowadays those
are rare collectors items. There were less than 30,000 TD's made, about 20,000
were exported here to the states. How many are still running as representative
of
the car as it was purchased by enthusiasts? How about MGA's? Why advocate
reducing
the number? They are already an endangered species.
Let the flames begin.
Bud Krueger
52TD
DANMAS@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-07-04 10:26:41 EDT, WSpohn4@aol.com writes:
>
> > if you must indulge your knuckle dragging tendencies
>
> Bill,
>
> In one sentence, you've wiped out all my respect for you that grew over the
> year or so I've been reading your posts. I will not get into a debate over
> this, but I will say one thing.
>
> There is nothing sacred about any of these cars, MGA, MGB, TC, TD or any MG.
> They were guilt by Abingdon for one purpose, and one purpose only - to make a
> profit. Abingdon was driven to produce the MG by precisely the same reason
> that GM is driven to produce a Caprice. Any mystical or spritual
> characteristics you wish to ascribe to these cars comes strictly from your own
> personal tastes and interests, not from something inherent to the cars
> themselves. They are simply pieces of machinery, mass produced machinery
> produced to a budget to satisfy a bottom line at that, to be enjoyed as is,
> modified, or not enjoyed at all, depending on ones taste. As such, there is no
> real distinction between an MG and a hot rod or a street rod, or, for that
> matter, a low rider. Yes, in operation, they serve totally different purposes,
> but the primary purpose of all is the enjoyment recieved by the owner.
>
> You want to claim that these cars are a work of art, and should be treated as
> such? Yes, unquestionably, the DESIGN of these cars was indeed a work of art.
> The DESIGN, not the cars themselves. The design deserves to be preserved in a
> museum for posterity. To that end, a few of these cars should be preserved in
> museums so that the designers art can be enjoyed. Once the design was
> completed, the art was done. After that, the drawings were turned over to a
> team of engineers to produce the stamps and dies to mass produce them as
> cheaply as possible, while maintaining a minimum quality level. I'm sorry, but
> I can't get emotional about a piece of machinery that was stamped out on an
> assembly line, by semi-skilled workers.
>
> If I am a knuckle dragger, then I am in very select company, company that
> includes such automotive legends as our own Cecil Kimber. After all, it was
> his "knuckle dragging" desires that motivated him to modify his first Morris
> automobile that led to the production of the MGs that you have elevated to the
> status of a shrine.
>
> I will enjoy my cars the way I wish, without any need for your approval, thank
> you very much!
>
> Dan Masters,
> Alcoa, TN
|