• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Would you buy this car?

Share this page

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. See, I think the reason no MGs were built in 1981 is because the Austin Morris car division of BL plc didn't have any MGs to build, not because the company didn't exist. The existence or otherwise of particular legal entities is purely a matter of enterprise convenience, and has much more to do with fiscal (i.e. Tax) considerations than it has to do with product names. Sure, the Abingdon plant was closed in 1980, but BL made whatever brands they chose, wherever they chose. Longbridge, for example, had long since ceased to be an Austin plant.
 
I'm just glad to see the M.G. marque still out there.

Brings recognition (and maybe, just maybe, even a little more value) to our cars.
 
I can see from Roger's two Loti (what is the correct plural?) why he and I sort of agree. He owns one pure Sir Colin Chapman machine, and one Proton of Malaysia. In between Lotus was owned by GM, sold to owner of resurrected Bugatti which went under and then sold from that liquidation to Proton. I assume Roger thinks the two cars share an unbroken lineage.

Yes, it is slightly different, Lotus itself has not moved from Hethel since moving there in 1966. And there was no break in production.

Now to add confusion, think of it as sports. The Henry Aaron of my misspent youth (putting his trading card in my bicycle spokes)played for Milwaukee, moved to atlanta with a team that started as a charter team of the league back in Boston. In fact if you search wikipedia for Milwaukee Braves you get Atlanta as the result. Now consider Baltimore. Are the Ravens spawned from theBrowns who were stolen from Cleveland under cover of darkness? (yet there is still a Browns franchise) and why, if Baltimore was going to retain football did the Colts have to move halfway across the country. In teh end it's all about the money.

Generally I have misgivings concerning the amount of Chines goods we copnsume that we could have made here. Even my Swedish washer and dryer were made in China - and they work flawlessly.
 
There are people out there that would pay money for a turd as long as you managed to stick an octagonal badge on it somehow.

I'm not one of them. Without getting into the MG DNA is it dead, is it alive stuff, I'll just say that this car doesn't appeal to me, either for appearance or performance, and the presence or absence of the MaGic initials mater not one whit.

Far better value out there from dependable manufacturers. If the thing looked like a latter day 250 GTO, there might be some temptation to risk a manufacturer with no track record, but that is patently not the case with this car.
 
PS - for all those who think the modern Bugatti has any link to Ettorre or the modern attempts with the Jensen name any connection to the original car company, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. There will be no end of people trying to resurrect old marques for name recognition, believing that they will be able to sell them to hordes of credulous cretins just because of the name.

Apparently to some degree they are correct.
 
Bill you ought to sell that Lambo. Owning a single car from a non-defunct manufacturer spoils your list. (big fan of Solstice from the beginning)

I simply know I've waited years for MG's return. It may never happen. It's a dream to hang onto, like dreaming of owning a Ferrari - yes they are still built, but I know I can never afford one.
 
According to Colin Chapman (no "Sir", he was never knighted) the plural of Lotus is Lotus. So I own 2 Lotus. And yes, there is an unbroken line, and it's much stronger than MG, I'll grant!
I was at Hethel last year, and spoke to people who moved there from Cheshunt, building Elans and, later, Europas. That day they were building Elises, Europas, Exiges, Teslas, 211s, and were about to start on Evoras. Mike Kimberly, who only just retired as CEO, was a leading part of Europa TC development. When you have a chain of people like that, as well as location, etc., you have a pretty strong linkage!
 
So riddle me this, how do you see the closing and sale of M.G. in 1980 different than the closing and sale of Rover-MG more recently?
 
Steve_S said:
So riddle me this, how do you see the closing and sale of M.G. in 1980 different than the closing and sale of Rover-MG more recently?
Click to expand...

In 1980 the parent corporation temporarily shut down a product line. In 2005 the parent corporation went belly-up. I think there's a big difference.

I think where we disagree is whether MG truly was a product line, brand, or Marque of a large corporation (my view) or whether there was something, a "soul" or whatever connected to the MG company, and in particular to Abingdon, that uniquely defined MG.

Undoubtedly there was a lot of soul in Abingdon, and a great tradition too. But in later years, some MGs weren't made in Abingdon, and Abingdon made cars other than MG (Austin-Healeys, for example). Abingdon was also the HQ of the famous BMC comps department. Now you could argue that if it wasn't made in Abingdon, it wasn't an MG, and so disqualify a bunch of 1100s, 1300s, and Magnettes, as well as RV8s, Metros, Maestros, Montegos, and everything else post-1980. While I can see that argument, I don't share it, and I don't think the owners of the Octagon did, either.
 
Interesting thread.

To obfuscate (I love that word!) this a bit further, the TR7/8 ~almost~ was an MG! Corporate decision made it a TR.

From Piggott's <span style="font-style: italic"> Original Triumph TR7 & TR8 </span> -

"Perhaps the marketing department of the tottering British Leyland colossus made an error of judgement in bestowing the TR name on a car with no obvious connection to its nominal ancestors. Nevertheless, it is fully understandable that the salesmen of the time wanted to promote a new sporting model by reference to a long-established and highly respected series of sports cars. There was even talk that this new 'corporate' sports car might be launched as an MG, a marque with roots even older and more jealously guarded than the TR. Had they done this, the howling would have been deafening!"
 
Interesting thread but moot points....we're not going to get any of the 1980 to today MG's anytime soon.
 
MGZT260 said:
Bill you ought to sell that Lambo. Owning a single car from a non-defunct manufacturer spoils your list. (big fan of Solstice from the beginning)

I simply know I've waited years for MG's return. It may never happen. It's a dream to hang onto, like dreaming of owning a Ferrari - yes they are still built, but I know I can never afford one.
Click to expand...

It's OK to own the old Lambo - Lamborghini forgot they ever made any cars for anyone but the 'gold chain' brigade.

You might find a V8 Ferrari that was reasonbly priced, but be prepared for maintaining it!

And yes, the Solstice is fun. Only the coupe really called out to me. Got it from 260 BHP to 290 BHP and another 20-30 BHP in the planning stage. Nothing like a torque curve that provides 300 ft-lbs. + from 2000 to 5000.....wearing big grin these days after taking it out for test drives (sorting out a bunch of suspension mods I did). Too bad we are getting into the rainy season up here.

Keep thinking of this engine in an MG!
 
Used to be you could get a Dino on the cheap, back when Enzo disavowed it, similarly if you desire a Porsche you can get into a decent 924 for around $5k.
 
Back
Top