• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Lola MG

Share this page

X

XK4

Jedi Hopeful
Offline
With the success of the Lola MG team this year I got to wondering, what is powering that car and is it at all related to the MG of the past?
Is there any chance they might market a Sports Car for the street (and even sell it here in the USA)?

It's just a thought, but it would be nice to have a British Sports Car available again (hopefully in the Miata price range) in this country. Before laughing at this idea you should realize Triumph Motorcycles has returned to the US and is doing quite well.

Jim
smile.gif
 
Are you aware of the MGF that has been produced in England for the past several years? It is a two-seat roadster but very different from both the MGB and the Miata because it is mid-engined. It has a 1.8 liter 4-cylinder with dual overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, and variable valve timing.

Unlike the new Mini, it is built by Rover. My oldest son visited a dealer in England several years ago when they first hit the showroom and was reasonably impressed. According to him, it handles more like a Toyota MR2 than a Miata.

Steve
 
But they look like a Japanese car! Ughhh! At least the Miata looks like a old Lotus that has been modernized
 
Depending on who you talk to, the MGF (or MGTF as it is called now) is either a nice little sports car or an absolute piece of rubbish. Personally, I kind of like the way they look, although they are color and wheel sensitive-some of the ones I've seen in pictures look like bars of soap, some look great. I've never seen one in person or driven one, so no opinions on that score (unless driving one in Gran Turismo counts). As for the MG/Lola, I think that the chassis is made by Lola, with MG/Rover handling engines. FWIW, the Dyson Racing MG/Lola won the LMP 675 class at the Road America 500 ALMS race a coupla weekends ago (I have a pic or two if I can figure out how to post!)
-William
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gmasterman:
But they look like a Japanese car! Ughhh! At least the Miata looks like a old Lotus that has been modernized<hr></blockquote>

Yea, but, looks aside, the Japanese are their competition--if the Japanese can steal the 1967 Lotus Elan, the Brits should be able to steal the 1995 MR2. The Miata, Honda S2000, MR2, 350ZX, RX8, etc. are killing British sports car manufacturers the same way Honda killed the British bikes in the 1970s--by beating them at their own game with cheaper, smaller, more reliable, more fun-to-drive products.

Of course the Brits and Japanese both have to compete with Audi, Porsche, and BMW, too. But take a look at the August issue of Car & Driver--they rated the S2000 and 350ZX ahead of even the Boxster and Z3 and way ahead of the TT. The Japanese seem to be teaching the Germans a lesson, too.

With BMW "stealing" the Mini, the Brits may be in even bigger trouble than they were before. After all, a Jag is now just a sophisticated Ford. And a Rolls is just Volkswagen's answer to Daimler-Chrysler's new Maybach. Right?

Hey, we all love British sports cars or we wouldn't own one (or more). But we should also know better than anyone how reliable they are when compared to a new Japanese car.

I wonder how many of us on the forum drive our British sports cars to work every day? And how many drive a Japanese car?
Steve
 
Most things unreliable on an MG are owner induced!! There should be no reason a guy can't expect trouble free motoring if somebody hasn't messed with it!!
 
Regarding the MGF (MGTF). You can rent them in North America (Mexico) for the last year. I'd like to see MG do well with the "F", but I agree with William's comment about "bar of soap" styling. They'd have to be a lot cheaper than the Japanese cars for me to consider and I don't see that happening.
I drive an '00 Miata as a daily driver (and I have a street/vintage race Spridget). I'd like to see a nice bare-bones sports car for about $12,000 (USD). I think it's possible, but the profit "margin" is much better on SUVs, trucks, etc. For more on my ideas about basic sports cars, go to the end of this thread:
https://www.britishcarforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000558
 
Cheap is relative. I suppose “sports car” is relative as well.

Relative to a $50k Porsche the MX-5, MR2 and MGTF are all really inexpensive. Relative to a Hyundai accent they’re a bit pricey.

Could anybody really build a sports car for less than $10k? Do you consider the Geo Metro convertible a sports car? All the sub $10k cars available have roughly the same characteristics so I think it’s safe to assume that anybody introducing one would produce something similar. Cars like them are cheap because they’re designed to be cheap. Performance, style, comfort and fun are secondary.

The Geo Metro was designed to be cheap. The Rolls Phantom was designed to be expensive. The Ferrari Enzo was designed to be fast. The Hummer H2 was designed to be ugly.

The MX-5 was designed to be a balance. It’s not as fast as an Aston Martin, as pretty as a Maserati or as smooth as a Jag. It is considerably faster, prettier and smoother than any Geo and gee whiz it costs a bit more too.

If a car has few amenities, like an Elise or seven, it may appear simple or basic and one might expect it to be inexpensive. I would suggest that the manufactured cost of an automobile is far more complex than that. After all, an Indycar does not come with AC, PS, PB’s, PW’s, defogger, CD player, heated seats, cup holders, tires or even an engine and transmission yet costs a lot more than a fully loaded Cadillac.

Many an entrepreneur has set out believing they could make a inexpensive sports cars. How many still exist? (Remember, Carroll Shelby’s legendary car company of the 60’s was a financial failure)


PC.
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PC:
Do you consider the Geo Metro convertible a sports car?

PC.<hr></blockquote>

Ackkk! No! Never!

Actually, I think the Miata is prettier than all the contemporary Maseratis……probably just as “smooth” as most Jags too (of course, those are relative terms too…..I doubt the differences would be terribly significant).
I agree that low-volume cars cost more to build, even if they’re quite simple. And it’s unlikely that even a simple car like a Seven could even be built in the quantities of a Hyundai….not enough demand; thus increasing the cost due to lack of “volume scale”. What I’d like to see (for sale in the U.S.) is a light, spartan roadster built around the components of a cheap, high volume car. This is exactly what MG, Triumph and AH did in the ‘50s.
The Suzuki Cappuccino (with it’s Metro-derived mechanicals) is a good example of this….but I don’t think we’ll ever see them in North America……not while the demand for those ugly (and profitable) Hummers is as high as it is. Too bad though.
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MGA Steve:


I wonder how many of us on the forum drive our British sports cars to work every day? And how many drive a Japanese car?
Steve<hr></blockquote>

I drove mine every day to work for 19 years and still would if I were not retired.

I do own a Japanese car(my first) and it is my main family car but I use the MG every time I need to go somewhere and my wife has the Honda.
 
"What I’d like to see (for sale in the U.S.) is a light, spartan roadster built around the components of a cheap, high volume car."

I agree, Aeronca.

That's exactly what BMC did with the Bugeye Sprite....and it worked brilliantly. A minimalist, spartan, inexpensive sports car, straight out of the BMC parts bin.


BUT....we sports car nuts back then were willing to accept a stripped little fun car. I wonder how many of the new breed of buyers today would feel the same.

When I read the thread "What's the least you'd need in a sports car today", it really shook me up. It seems that buyers today think a sports car needs AC, roll up windows, CD changer, power seats, and an electronic foxtail for their stereo (with quad speakers) digital radio.

I guess we were just a hardier breed back then.
 
I’m all for spartan (anybody out there have a Westfield Eleven they want to sell?) but I doubt if any of the cheap mechanicals out there could make a production car that I would find entertaining to drive.

As it is there are a few new vehicles in that price range that I’m lusting after. And talk about Spartan, no AC , no PS, No PB, no AT, no CD, no airbags, no trunk, no doors and strangely enough some of them are made by Triumph. The others are made by Ducati and Aprilia. (I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Laverda)


PC.

[ 09-09-2003: Message edited by: PC ]</p>
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gary Lloyd:
Most things unreliable on an MG are owner induced!! There should be no reason a guy can't expect trouble free motoring if somebody hasn't messed with it!!<hr></blockquote>

Gary,

I agree in part, but there was a previous forum topic called "Lucas--Prince of Darkness." And I had a friend in 1978 who had his 1972 MGB headlights go out in the dark at 65 mph for no apparent reason. Took the MG shop two weeks to find the problem--a short in the wiring harness.

So I don't think reliability problems are all the fault of the owner/mechanic. Of course, some of the current problems are obviously just age--after all my MGA is now nearly 48 years old (built in January 1956). I just wish I were still that young!

Steve
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> BUT....we sports car nuts back then were willing to accept a stripped little fun car. I wonder how many of the new breed of buyers today would feel the same. <hr></blockquote>

Do you remeber when the Miata first came out in the 80's they were around $10K and perfectly filled the gap left by MG and Triumph. As I recall Mazada couldn't make enough of them and dealers wanted a premium.

In a similar manner look at the new Beetle and PT cruiser. Inexpensive and huge sellers.

[ 09-11-2003: Message edited by: John Moore ]</p>
 
John...maybe MG should take a hint & build an inexpensive Midget for the world market instead of concentrating on the expensive MG TF!
 
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MGA Steve:


Gary,

I agree in part, but there was a previous forum topic called "Lucas--Prince of Darkness." And I had a friend in 1978 who had his 1972 MGB headlights go out in the dark at 65 mph for no apparent reason. Took the MG shop two weeks to find the problem--a short in the wiring harness.

So I don't think reliability problems are all the fault of the owner/mechanic. Of course, some of the current problems are obviously just age--after all my MGA is now nearly 48 years old (built in January 1956). I just wish I were still that young!

Steve<hr></blockquote>
 
Sorry, I messed up!! Anyway, believe me, the wiring isn't all that good on a 40 year old american car either!! I do believe that ucas should have used relays for the headlites, but you can add those easy enough!!
 
Actally, there was recent move by TATA (in India) to bring back the Midget. As I understand it, the project is on hold at the moment and Rover has denied further involvement....but it's kind of interesting.
As for the mechanical systems of most new "cheap" cars....even the "cheapies" seem to have twin-cam, 16 valve, FI hemi designs making at least 1 HP per cubic inch...and most of them are light too. As bad as it sounds, even a Hyundai engine is sportier than my Sprite engine....and the Z-Tec Ford or new Civic engines are amazing. Of course the other stuff (like the front-wheel-drive) is of little interest to me, but modern engines are great.

Here's the "new" Midget link:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/ae_news_story.php?id=33139
 
The current crop of motors like the Ford and Honda are great. Wrap some basic but decent mechanicals around them and you get a $13k car. Now build a low volume production line for a roadster chassis, add in the cloth top, mechanisms and bracing and guess what? You have a $17k car (like the MX-5). Now drop off the AC, PS and PB (which no car company would really do because they wouldn’t actually sell enough of them in the US to bother) and you have a $15k car.

Whatever the “cheapest” sports car “they” could build would end up costing it would be front wheel drive. There’s a reason Hyundai’s, Kia’s, the lower cost Hondas and the rest are all FWD while Jaguars, Porsches, Ferrari’s, top line Hondas, etc are either RWD or AWD. FWD just costs less to manufacture.


PC.
 
Back
Top