MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGA - Parallel MG Universes?

My daughter recently subscribed me to MG Enthusiast, a publication with which I'd been unfamiliar, revealing what strikes me as a weird parallel MG universe. From the limited perspective of the US MG community, the mark rather disappeared in 1980 with the demise of the Abingdon works. While many or most of us have admired Kimber's earlier creations at various vintage auto shows, in general most of us know the MG through a limited historical window, marked by the postwar appearance here of the T-series and lasting until the shutdown of the Midget and MGB lines. Thus I am rather bemused as I leaf through the pages of MG Enthusiast and. along with an occasional glimpse of a TF or TD, encounter articles about alien cars bearing no relationship to "real" MGs save for their badges. Some of them appear to be rebadged Rovers, like the MG RV8, TDF, ZS, and so on, while the more recent Chinese MG6 bears a rather tenuous connection to its British origins than even the ex-Rover MG3 SW, late of China.

While some claims to automotive continuity can be understood as simply self-promotional (e.g., Rover's "Every inch an MG"), I am somewhat baffled by the editorial viewpoint implicit in the juxtaposition of "real" MGs with the later pretenders. I can't imagine contributors on this forum taken in by the charade, any more than most GM enthusiasts here being deluded about our Chevrolet-badged Toyotas and Suzukis having a Detroit heritage. Is this merely a pragmatic approach by the publishers, who need whatever readership they can claim, or is it a less exclusive view more commonly shared among our UK counterparts, whose MG window is less constricted than ours? Do you UK chaps see a fundamental disjunct between the post-Abingdon cars and their predecessors, or do you perceive some historical unity to the mark?

Cheers,
Ken
Ken Korey

With attitudes like that there is no wonder we can not encourage younger memebers into our fold.

Modern MGs are simply that, they are modern cars made by the MG "Marque" In fact the new MGF and TF are 2 seater sports car replacements for the MGB.

What you seem to forget is that the majority of MGs ever made were simply "sooped" up morris and austin cars, which is exactly the case today!

I believe old number 1 was a bull nosed morris!!
Bob Turbo Midget England

Bob, hear, hear! Ken, the World moves on, and that's what MG/Rover tried to do...the Chinese are producing MG's, in the main designed by UK engineers. I have a Honda S2000 engined MGA, and have been rediculed by many, but strangely enough admired by the younger generation, who are the ones we want to keep the MG name alive!
Gary Lock

I have always thought that the Rover 220 Coupe should have been an MG. A Turbo-charged 2.2 litre twin-cam (K series Rover engine) developing 200bhp. Disc brakes all round, taught handling, leather seats, air-conditioning, fully detachable sun-roof etc, etc.
I owned the 1600 Honda powered one, and that too was a very nice car. It wore the 'MG Car Club' badge with pride!

Lindsay Sampford

Right Lindsay - my son had a Rover 220 - he knew it as a "Tom Cat" - I did an article about it in our club newsletter some years ago entitleg - The MG that never was " . I'm with you too Bob. Ken - how you can call the RV8 a rebadged Rover - it was based on the MGB. MGs were always "rebadged" Morrises even in Kimber's time - that's why it is called an MG - and Rover was the successor to Morris. We have ZR, ZS and ZT owners in our club - they keep the club alive - and most would like to "upgrade" to an MGA or T type one day .
Cam Cunningham

Totally agree with Bob and others. In the eighties I owned an MG Montego Efi which, although based on the Austin Montego, drove and felt like a 'real' MG. And it reminded me very much of the Magnette ZB I had before that.

Rutger Booy

I had a late MG Montego Turbo as a company car and it was certainly everything MG ever stood for.

Many companies move production sites during their history so I do not believe MG is just about Abingdon. MG has always produced saloons along side their sports cars, just as they do today. The modern MGs are not "re-badged" anything. They are designed and built by MG, with, in some cases, Rover underpinnings. Sadly (for some of us) the brand is no longer in British ownership, but the lineage is clear and unbroken.

The MGF is no less an MG than the MGB. It is only the snobbery of owners that create a difference.
N McGurk

With attitudes like that there is no wonder we can not encourage younger memebers into our fold.

Gentlemen you have to remember that since 1980 we have been abandoned. A whole generation who are now having kids of their own have never even seen an MG dealership here.
gary starr

History repeats itself. When the MGA came out, the "old school" would not accept it. It didn't have a square grill or running boards. It was too swoopy. You name it, they didn't like it. That attitude held on for decades. It wasn't until the last decade or so that the MGA's were accepted into the GOF clubs. Life moves onward.

I remember the MG factory exhibit at MG2001 in Minneapolis. There, the marketing types were asking for comments about the then new MG's(I believe MG ZS and others?) The biggest complaint I heard about the cars back then was the lack of cupholders. And that was coming from MG enthusiasts at an all MG meet.
Chuck Schaefer

I think I understand where Ken is coming from in his original post. I too have wrestled with the policy of the MGCC to include coverage of the newer MR variants in their monthly magazine. On the one hand, I consider a Chinese MG to be an oxy-moron. But, it does work at some level to bring new, young people into the MG community. The "new" models aren't for me, but I guess time will tell how effective they are in "Maintaining the Breed".

George
G Goeppner

Sorry to crash here guys - normally lurk in the 'C' area; but if the factory was so important and not the badged cars we would be talking about Rileys, Austin 3000 and GPO telephone vans (Morris minor vans with rubber wings) all of which rolled out of Abingdon!
K Whitehead

You forgot Frogeyes, Sprites, big healeys, tanks etc etc etc...

Nice one mate LOL.
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

Sorry, I meant "MG variants" in my original post. And I re-read that thing multiple times!
G Goeppner

I'm fascinated--but unsurprised--by the response so far to my query. It appears to reinforce my initial suspicion that I live on an historical raft, adrift from post-Abingdon developments. Save for the visit abroad or the chance encounter with a British motoring mag, we here have acquired a more limited vision of what constitutes a "real" MG. With little knowledge of contemporary MGs (note that I don't put snicker quotes around the term), for the most part we in the US have become antiquarians. Which is not to say that there aren't many among us modding and racing our vintage MGs, although even these activities are divorced from the contemporary flow of automotive development (if perhaps less so than dragging old MGs around in closed trailers). But you in the motherland need to understand the difficulty we have in transferring loyalty or affection to cars bearing a beloved mark that we've scarcely heard about, let alone seen.

What is especially interesting to me is the range of ideas about what's important in recognizing the present mark's authenticity. The notion that progress requires acceptance of change is pervasive and undoubtedly true, but several more specific themes are voiced. One is that the attempt to produce a car capturing some essential set of MG attributes should carry weight. Bob, Gary L, Lindsay, Cam, RB, and Neil all express something of this opinion. It's not clear, though, if we might decide whether or not a car might be a "real" MG independent of its badging. Lindsay and Cam appear to hold that at least some not-MGs OUGHT to be MGs, in that they identify something MG-like in the Rover 220. This criterion might prove problematic, however, depending upon the particular attributes which we hold essential. From our side of the Atlantic we mostly know the MG as an affordable, small, agile, and somewhat underpowered two-seater--by which standard we might be led also to confer MG laurels upon concurrent TR-2s, TR-3s, etc. This could only sow confusion, obviously, since my daughter's early MX-5 is surely a much better approximation of this vision of an MG than is the Roewe 550, now badged as an MG. It's unclear where this line of reasoning might take us.

We could resort to history in expanding the frame of reference for MG attributes beyond that of the two-seater given above, to include the various saloons and family cars carrying the MG badge. Here I feel quite lost, since I've only driven a Magnette and a Metro (when living in Cornwall); while neither put the silly grin upon my face that I've learned to expect, this hardly matter since enlargement of the attribute category can only take us even further from deciding what's a real MG than any less inclusive notion.

Alternatively, we might simply decide that whatever manufacturer purchases the naming rights acquires legitimacy as Keeper of the Marque, although everyone knows instances where the consequences are laughable when departing from what we think the product line SHOULD be. Bob, RB, and Neil deploy the criteria of BOTH badge and automotive attributes, leading to a more straightforward approach than the former alone might do. Not long before his death I asked my late neighbor, who held the most important collection of Bugattis in the world, his thoughts on the Veyeron. He was nearly speechless. So the question of authenticity may be more difficult to answer satisfactorily only with reference to badging.

Finally, taking a different tack, Bob, Gary L, Cam, and Gary S all emphasize the importance of drawing younger enthusiasts into the fold, club, mark, etc., a mission enhanced by recognition of the modern MGAs as legitimate bearers of the mark. This is certainly a concern regularly discussed on the "other" MGA forum, and all the greater challenge for the US contingent for reasons suggested at the beginning. Indeed, the perpetual concourse-vs-modding debates seem typically framed around this question. I hope not to have been too tedious here--I usually am elsewhere--but it has occurred to me after my wide-eyed reading of post-Abingdon MG news that I've been wandering in the desert, although I should add that this is not the worst place for a paleontologist to find himself.

Cheers,
Ken

PS On a whim I went to the "other" forum to see who and from where the contributors to the Modern MG section might be. The first thread I noticed was http://www.mgexperience.net/phorum/read.php?54,1945552 . Thank you, Laura!! We are two countries divided by a single mark after all. Ha ha!

Ken Korey

It's a shame you fellas in the State can't buy and experience a MGF, it's a fantastic car. I took mine to a car show in Michigan last summer and there was a constant crowd around it.
Mark Jones

Modern MGs are MGs because that's the name of the company who builds them. But, MG today is not the same company that built the MGA. It is an entirely different company, owned by different people in a different country with different workers, etc. The company that built the MGA was "The M.G. Car Company Ltd.". That company went belly up, and the name was sold to corporation after corporation.

So this issue really depends on how you look at it. Is a new Bugatti a "real" Bugatti? Some people say yes because it has the Bugatti badge. But it's a company owned by Volkswagen who decided to buy the Bugatti name and build cars, making money off of the prestige of the marque. Still, it is technically a Bugatti.

So when, if at all, did M.G. stop being M.G.? that's open to personal interpretation. For me personally, it's when the original company ceased to be a company. Production shut down and The M.G. Car Company went out of business. Anything that came after is in my mind from a different lineage. Kind of like selling some DNA and a last name to a lab and creating a new family that had previously died out.


I do take exception to "MGs were always rebadged Morrises even in Kimber's time". That isn't really accurate. Parts were indeed shared between most British brands but look back at all the amazing sports and touring cars, and many were pure M.G. Some were based on other manufacturer's chassis, such as the SA using most of a Wolseley unit, but not all.

Just my 2.34 cents USD, adjusting for the current depreciation of our dollar. ;)
Steve S

So to take Ken's comment about "real MG's", the "real" ones stopped when the MG Car Company went out of business?..i.e. according to Steve? There may be several thousand "not real" MG owners a little hurt by this statement!
Gary Lock

Yes, the MG Car Company ceased to exist long before the demise of the Abingdon plant!

I think the route of the problem is that Rover stopped marketing MGs in the US after the demise of the MGB. Judging by the success of the Miata (MX5) the MGF would have been very well received. Also based on comments from visitors from both the US and Canada the MG Montego Turbo might well have scored a hit too.

Lest we forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-95WzVXJEw
N McGurk

Dear dear me Steve thats a bit of lateral thinking I must say.

The MG Car Company was taken over by BMC long before the MGA was produced
Subsequent take overs have occured with
British Leyland
BAe
BMW
MG Rover
Nanjing and SAIC

So I suppose you will now have to redefine your qualifying requirements for what you perceive to be a real MG!!

Personally I dont see a great deal of difference between MGs produced in Oxford, Abingdon, Longbridge, or flipping China, the factory has had various locations over the years.

And dear me Ken, have you ever heard of a Z type Magnette etc and a Farina Magnette? what were they? do you want to apologise to their owners?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive?

An MG is any car that is built and called an MG and long may it continue. Naturally people with have their favourites and I am all in favour of that, but we must respect others and their opinions whether that be a concours MG 14/40 or a modified MGA or even a brand new MG 6 They are all an integral part of the MG story and of our Marque of Friendship

I was at an MG car club meeting recently and it was mentioned as a fact that without the MGF the MGCC would not be a viable club that we all have today, also would this BBS be here if it were not for the posters and enthusiasts of Spridgets and MGBs? of course not the number of vistors under those conditions would mean the site would close because of very limited use which would be a shame for the T Type old guys.

Bob Turbo Midget England

With the possible exception of the RV8, the post Abingdon cars do not exist for me. Some may be offended by that, and I won't tell you what to like or drive, but there it is... After the factory closed, MG became just a badge to be slapped on whatever car the current owners of the name felt like slapping it on. Some of them may have even been good cars, but that doesn't mean they were MGs. You can call something whatever you like, that doesn't make it so.
Del Rawlins

Hi Del

Might I ask why is the RV8 any different?
It was not built at Abingdon and was not made by The MG Car Company, so why are you happy to call it an MG?

And why do you ignore the times when the MG Car Company simply slapped a badge on any saloon car they chose?

The Modern MG saloon cars are no different to pre Abingdon closure saloon cars all of which were slightly tuned other make saloons.

I just think you need to be consistant and so far the only people with any consistancy are those of us who accept the MG badge.
Bob Turbo Midget England

Because you are to close to the forest Bob to see the trees LOL. Simply for us after the B stopped production we were out of the loop.Abington closed and we never saw any of those other cars badge engineered or not.
gary starr

Bob wrote, "And dear me Ken, have you ever heard of a Z type Magnette etc and a Farina Magnette? what were they? do you want to apologise to their owners?"

I didn't intend to be rude to anyone, Bob, and I genuinely apologize to those whose feelings I may have inadvertently hurt. I've only just begun to grasp the difference between our respective MG car cultures, and I'm still bewildered by the experience. It's nearly as if a great raft of new cousins whom I didn't know suddenly appeared at my doorstep, cousins living lives I couldn't fully comprehend. In trying to get my arms around the matter more completely, I decided to browse a couple of MGOC/MGCC web sites. The first that I encountered was that of the Norwich club, and this is the first gallery that met my freshly unscaled eye:

https://picasaweb.google.com/110039230164227200784/Current2012?authkey=Gv1sRgCP3IpZaprtav-QE#slideshow/

If you see an album filled with MG images, I see (or at least SAW) a sprinkling of MGs in parking lots filled with modern cars of unrecognized origin. My guess is my quick impression would be widely shared by my countrymen. It's becoming clear to me now how differently MG culture has become configured in our respective venues. I hadn't the least awareness of these distinctions as long as I remained focused on the MGA forum. But I see now that I DO live in a cave, and undoubtedly my manners need improvement.

Ken
Ken Korey

Ken, I can see what a shock it must have been for you. There you were, thinking that the MG marque had been dead since the early eighties, and we've been churning out thousands of them without you noticing! Whilst some of the are admittedly 'badge engineered' Rovers, the MGF is a 'real' unique MG two-seater, soft-top sportscar. There are folks restoring these little cars now.
Out of curiousity I searched 'MGF' on US ebay. Not an MGF car to be seen, but plenty of parts for them; workshop manuals, wings, bumpers, doors, gasket sets etc.etc. weird!
Lindsay Sampford

-- "An MG is any car that is built and called an MG"

Isn't that exactly what I said in my first statement?

Bob, you've missed my point. The M.G. Car Company was in continuous operation until 1980, irregardless of corporate mergers. After that, the company ceased to exist, and was then restarted by a new group. That is where I personally draw the line between cars made by the original M.G. Car Company and the various MG companies which came after.

-- "we must respect others and their opinions"

That goes both ways, you know!
Steve Simmons

Ken, I'm attending GT-37 this year, and looking forward to meeting some "cave men"..seriously, it will be great to catch up with some of this BBS "names" if you are attending.
Gary Lock

When I bought my first MGA in 1966, people told me that it would never be a classic because it wasn't a real MG; it was far too modern.

I've been reading British magazines like Classic & Sports Car since the 1980s; apparently most of my countrymen haven't been. There are still lots of cars produced in the world that are not sold in the states. I for one would have bought an MGRV8 or an MGF years ago had they been available here.

It wasn't a "new group" that restarted MG production. MG/Rover was the successor to/ outgrowth of Jaguar/Rover/Triumph, which was the successor to British Leyland, which was the successor to British Motors, etc.

Ken
k v morton

Buying the name at the fire sale, or being what was left when the smoldering ashes were sifted doesn't make it the same company. Your MGA was designed and built by the same old company and many of the same people who built the square riggers. I like the RV8 because it is essentially an MGB, and it came out of efforts to preserve MGBs (leaving aside arguments about the originality of re-bodied Bs).

We actually have problems in the aviation field caused when some joker buys the assets of a defunct manufacturer and puts the aircraft back in production. Then proceeds to issue service bulletins that apply to the older aircraft. The problem comes because the feds consider the newcomer to be "the manufacturer" and will even issue mandatory ADs based on the SBs. This has caused my brother and I some hassle with his older Citabria, so I'm a little sensitive on the subject of who made what. Fortunately the current owners of the MG badge can't really use that sort of extortion against us, so it's just an interesting subject for idle debate.
Del Rawlins

Our MGAs have AUSTIN engines for God's sake. They can't be REAL MGs...
k v morton

That's right KenV, our MGAs are not true MGs. The MG Car Company was swallowed up by the Nuffield organisation in 1938 along with Morris, Riley and Wolseley. Then BMC swallowed up that in 1952. So the last true MG was the MG TA according to Ken Ks definition or maybe the TD was before BMC took over. The Magnettes before that were badge engineered Wolseleys as Bob points out. Don't you just love these discussions - almost as good as the concours vs drivers cars ones!!
Cam Cunningham

Many who know me will know that I really enjoy playing with posters especially when politics come in, however those who believe I am just trying to wind these people up please note on this subject I feel very strongly and I am saying it as it is.

I do not object to enthusiasts having their own particular favourites in fact I would encourage it. However just because someone is convinced their particular car is the only true MG does not mean that is a fact. I and many thousands of other TRUE enthusiasts find that extremely insulting and it does nothing for the friendship the MG Marque is so famous for.

As I have stated the only opinions expressed on this thread that have any form of consistancy are those in support of MGs forever whether they are 2 door sports cars or uprated badged saloons.

I am terribly sorry that those of you in the USA have not had all the MG models available to you for purchase or indeed that many MG models were not built at Abingdon. If you like MGAs only then fine and as Cam states if you don't like modifying cars and prefer psuedo concours cars then that too is fine, but do not criticise those who have more open views.

I suspect that the vast majority of us enjoy the WHOLE MG range and welcome those who own these splendid cars and I will not stand idley by whilst those enthusiasts who embrace their cars are offended and alienated by old men stuck in the prehistoric age.
Bob Turbo Midget England

Some pretty interesting comments here, on an issue I didn’t know existed. Sure seems like the divide mostly come down to where you live. For me - 54 years old who has owned MGs since 1975 and currently owns a ‘54 TF and ‘58 A (and ’60 TR3), when MG pulled out of the States in 1980 or so, MG was over as far as I knew. I attribute that I guess to the fact that there was no internet or the like to keep us truly informed what was going on in the oversees car market. Frankly, I was a little shocked when years later on a trip to Europe I saw a newer MG. In any event, as far as I am concerned, like whatever you like and call it whatever you like. I like the pre-1968 MGs because they are easy to work on and bring back a lot of good memories of when I was young. C'est la vie
TM Going

Please don't take this to heart you guys in North America, but what really killed the MG era that you live in was your own doing...Mr.Nader and his safety rules really put an end to MG's to your part of the World....and probably the demise of the BMC/Leyland etc in the end.
Gary Lock

I never thought I would find myself defending Ralph Nader, but I can't agree that Nader killer MG or British Leyland. Other manufacturers, as diverse as Datsun, Alfa Romeo, and Porsche, continued building sports cars through that era. There have been books written on what killed British Leyland, but it was a lot more than Nader. Ralph Nader certainly did kill the Corvair.

Ken
k v morton

I suppose it all boils down to opinion and your own personal views on whether you like certain models of MGs or all of them.

I love my Mga because I used to own one in the early 70s and it brings back memories of some brilliant days.

So nostalgia is the thing for me and my Mga is one of the keys to it.

Im certain that owners of all todays modern MGs will feel the same about their cars too when they look back in 30 years time.

I look at all cars made with an MG badge as MGs whether they are new or old but I must admit to liking some more than others.

The MG badge is much the same as a designer label in that there is a certain perceived added value or ambiance when you see it attached to the car.

(My daughters friend paid almost £90 for a pair of Armani denim jeans and was delighted with them. She could have bought a almost identical pair in a local store for £6.00, same denim material, same blue dyed cotton! But when I mentioned this, she looked at me as if I was mad!)

The MG badge is meant to add a certain sporty image to the car even though it may be a relatively low performance one.

A lot of members of my local MG club own modern MGs and love them as much as I love mine and I think this is great and certainly bodes well for the future of the MG clubs.

So I suppose you can be a fan of one type of MG, a whole period range of them or a fan of all MGs old and new.

And you never know, MG in China may even see a place in the market place for a Miata beating 2 seater MG sports car that even Ken in Vermont would come to love in time! :-)
Colyn Firth

Sorry Bob, but saying the only consistency is with the people who agree with you isn't accurate. There is just as much consistency with those who argue that when M.G. shut down in 1980 that it was the end of the original company, and the cars made afterward were from a different company using the purchased name. This may offend you, but by your own words we need to respect each others opinions on the matter.

Also, no one here ever said that their M.G. is the only true M.G. To do so would be ridiculous. There is no debate on whether or not MGs today are actually MGs. They are, just like Bugattis made today are indeed Bugattis and Maybachs are Maybachs, despite those companies being out of business for several decades before the names were purchased and the cars resurrected. What the makers plate states is what the car is. The debate, if you choose call it that, is whether or not the MG company today shares an uninterrupted historical lineage with the company who built cars from 1924 through 1980. Many of us feel that it does not.

In my view, Nuffield, BMC and Leyland took over an existing company. Therefore The M.G. Car Company itself remained the same until the doors closed in 1980. The MG that existed after that was purchased several times primarily as a name. From this point forward I view it as a different company than the former. You can call the cars made from this period until now real MGs or not, just as a modern MG owner could say anything made before the SAIC takeover wasn't a "real" MG for the same reasons. Doesn't make anyone right, as both are opinions only.

If you want a perfect example of how the new and old can get along, look at Mini. The classics are referred to as Mini and the new (BMW) version as MINI. Along these lines I tend to call our cars M.G. for the classics and MG for the modern. I don't think anyone uses the dots anymore except for referring to the older M.G.s and The M.G. Car Company. They were Cecil Kimber's idea. He liked them from a design standpoint even though they only caused confusion!
Steve S

Gentlemen, et al,

I apologize for intruding in this discussion but, I find the forum always interesting and this particular thread in the MGA link captivating and informative.

I am the owner of a 1951 TD and a 1954 TF. I recall seeing my first T-Series auto in the States in 1951 or 1952 (I was six or seven years of age). I could never rid my mind's eye of that "look!"

My real reason for responding here at this time is to mention the TD-2000. I found out about this model about two years ago and had the devil of the time gathering any definitive info about it. I finally did and found that it could be sent to me in Memphis for $58,000.00 U. S. dollars (this was January, 2011). I determined to not pursue the purchase, not so much due to the "high" price, but, worries regarding warranty and service. So, perhaps in the future - assuming I have enough years left in me. My conclusion - The car maintained the looks of the old LBCs I first saw as a small boy and, had all the modern amenities now currently available for most automobiles in the "roadster" genre. THE LOOKS ARE WHAT FASCINATE ME for autos. Alas, I am no mechanic. But I love MG!

Thank you for allowing me the space to pen my thoughts. Now, I'll go back to my T-Series TD & TF threads!

Jerry
Jerry Chandler

That's an interesting car, as it was manufactured in low volume production specifically as a modern engine (1988) version of a vintage "style" car (retro car). See web site here: http://www.td-2000.com
In fact it was never called "MG" because it is definitely not an MG, being a factory produced replicar.

Most replicars will have significantly lower resale value than a restored version of the real thing. So if you bought one for $58K you might expect it to be worth about $20K if you tried to resell it. If anyone believes it should have a higher value, it is because it is a used (by now almost vintage and collectible) example of a specialty limited production car, not because anyone would think it was a real MG. As such, the resale market is extremely limited. If sold on eBay it might have trouble getting an opening bid from one person, let alone competitive bidding. I have never mentioned this one on my web site, because it is a "variant" of MG TD (maybe), not a variant of MGA.

I get your point related to us North American folks being hungry for a modern or at least modernized MG. For less money you could get someone to fit a more modern engine into a real MG TD, and it would likely be worth more than the retro car, but slightly less than an all original MG TD.

To steer this thread back on track with MGA, the equivalent retro MGA is this one: http://mgaguru.com/mgtech/variants/vt106h.htm
You can follow several more pages for contemporary magazine reports. This car was likewise not an MGA, and was called "Twin Cam Deluxe". It was priced at $25,000 in 1990, and all of the drivetrain parts are now more than 20 years vintage.

This car never quite made it into production, so it is one of the rarest "production" cars ever built. Only one car was ever completed, it still exists today, and it has been up for sale on eBay a couple of times. The eBay auction would not raise an opening bid at $12,000. But if anyone is interested in buying this car, I think we can find the contact information. Keep in mind there are no graphite fiber replacement panels available, so if you smash something it would be very expensive to repair.
Barney Gaylord

Barney,

Thanks for your response to my posting regarding thr TD-2000' I failed to mention my interest in the MG A as my favorite next to my two MGs. Poking around for a restored A may eventually prove fruitful. As mentioned earlier, with no real mechanicl experience, I need a restored jewel. I would trade a lot of my visual appreciation for some mechanical know-how and experience, etc. Safety Fast.

Jerry
Jerry Chandler

I think there's a genuine continuity throughout MG's history. After all, is a BMW built in the US not a BMW? Is a Buick built in China not a Buick? What about Cadillac? Did it cease being Cadillac when Henry Ford left the firm, or when it was subsumed into General Motors? Brands like Bugatti and Maybach are marketing exercises. MG may be owned by the Chinese now, but hey, that's the global nature of the economy we live in. It doesn't make the MGs made now any less MGs than were the cars that came after any of a number of milestones in MGs existence.

After all, many maintained that the MGA wasn't a "real" MG because it had a streamlined body!
David Breneman

The problem with your analogy David, is that BMW has been a continuously operating company for its entire existence. They simply have several manufacturing plants as all others do. Even back in the 20's Ford had plants all over the world. My own Model T was built in Canada. So if Bugatti and Maybach are marketing exercises and MG isn't, then the difference becomes the length of time that the company was belly up? So what length of time is required to differentiate the two?
Steve S

Keep trying Steve you will eventually find a formula that suits what you want an MG to be. :)

Those of us who know that MG existed after the factory at Abingdon closed due to economies will simply continue to enjoy newer models of MG until petrol runs out in a few years time. However by then we may have an electric MG with batteries being recharged in moments from power supplied from Fusion reactors.
LOL.
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

I'm sorry you're so offended by the fact that not everyone sees the world as you do, Bob. Once again however, as you yourself pointed out you need to respect that others may look at things differently. This is how we as humans learn and improve. Saying that those who don't see things the same as you do are not "true MG enthusiasts" is just sad and does nothing to promote the hobby.

We all love MGs, and many of us like both modern and classic examples of the marque. But closing your mind to alternate outlooks and allowing yourself to become "extremely insulted" by them does not help. We do understand that you like to "play with people" as you put it, and get them riled up, and that's your right. But we don't have to agree with that either. ;)

I suggest everyone drive their A today. 'Tis a lovely time of year!
Steve S

Steve what do you mean "once again???"

I have stated many times if enthusiasts want to have an admiration for a select one or 2 models of MGs then that is fine, however it does not change the fact that MGs are still made today and will for sure be made in the future, not sure what I am closing my mind to?

If you only like models made at Abingdon then great, most of us however like the models made since as well.
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

"Once again" meaning I said the same thing before about your quote regarding respecting others opinions. And about having an admiration for one model only, you actually said that those people are not true MG enthusiasts. That along with terms like lateral thinking, deceiving others, inconsistent opinions, etc is what I took exception to. I am not one of those people, as I like MGs of all types, but I still hate seeing it in an otherwise fun debate. If I have misunderstood the intent behind your various posts then I humbly apologize, but that's how it appears to me when I read through the discussion.

I've always maintained that the best way to get others to respect your opinions is to respect theirs first! And I still respectfully maintain my viewpoint that anything with an MG badge on it is an MG, but that not all MGs were built by the same MG company. But I will never say that a car built by MG is not an MG, whether it was built in the 1920's or in 2012.
Steve S

Not sure I said anything of the sort Steve but we must leave it at that I believe :)

By the way you have excluded all those people with MGs that were shipped from the UK in kit form. As you are aware MGs were originally (And still today) built from the parts boxes of their mother company and Abingdon was simply an assembly plant so the boxes of kits cars had nothing whatsoever to do with Abingdon. Sadly you will need to find a new set of rules if you want these cars to be your favoured MG models. :)

Just a bit of fun and light taunting. :)
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

I have much more interest in older MGs. But then I have much more interest in older cars in general! The MGF/TF (modern) is a great sports car, and the saloons from the MG/Rover period are very good cars also. My younger brother owns a ZS, and while I personally have no interest in owning one, I think they very much represent the spirit of the marque - it is quickish, fun to drive, looks sporty inside and out, and feels comfortable and nice without being ostentatious. Sure, there are some obvious cost cutting issues (mostly the fact that some panel gaps are quite large) and it's starting to show some wear and tear on the interior, but only comparable to my wifes 15 year old BMW. I am yet to encounter any of the new chinese MGs here in Aus, but to me at least the MG/Rover cars very much capture the spirit of being an MG. A lot of older club members have bought MGF/TFs as well, being a little more comfortable and forgiving as they get older, but still very capable sports cars. A number have even sold their Midgets and MGBs due to lack of use in favour of their modern MGs... Again, my interest personally is in the older cars, but I have no problem accepting the newer cars as very valid MG models.
Andrew F

Every quote I cited is in your posts above Bob, but we can certainly forget about it.

Additionally, you've made the mistake of completely reversing what I said about vehicle assembly. I never said that a car manufactured in another country makes it something else. I said that it is common for companies to have assembly plants in foreign countries, and I showed examples of Ford and BMW doing it.

Now just for educational purposes... The "kit version MGs" you speak of were called CKD cars, which stands for "completely knocked down". They were cars sent as complete sub-assemblies to have final assembly performed at their point of destination. This was done in places like Australia where a heavy tax was imposed on foreign-built vehicles. Performing final assembly locally spared these taxes from being charged. To say they are anything different, apart from minor regional changes, is silly.
Steve S

Steve S versus RMT...time out guys.
Gary Lock

Is it right that over 80 years ago an M type Midget was not considered a "proper" MG because it was so different from the 14/28, 14/40 & 18/80?

Sutely everything that doesn't have an OHC engine in not a "proper" MG?

Hang on, how can anything designed after Cecil Kimber was sacked be a "proper" MG?

And those cars without flowing wings? "Proper" MGs?

Black bumber MGBs and Midgets should never have ben built. If the management has invested in the late 60s we would have had more and different "proper" MGs and no need to keep the poor old MGB and Midget going long after their sell by date.

And when Britsh Leyland realised what a mess thay had made and started making MGs again, how could they be called "proper" MGs?

Then the Germans: BMW took over the MGF project... a "proper" MG? A "proper" Chinese MG?

This story will run, and run, and run... but only if we are lucky!!!
John Prewer

Nice one John and I have just realised 1 consistancy

When ever a new model MG is launched some of the owners of previous models claim their's to be the only real deal!!

I have a struggle day in and day out convincing new members that some attitudes are not typical and we welcome them with open arms to our fraternity!
Bob Turbo Midget England

If you put silicon brake fluid in a MG is it still a MG?
Ed Bell

Are you kidding Ed?

If the brake fluid doesn't rot your clothes and paintwork I really have to tell you that it isn't a proper MG... It's almost as ridiculous as the idea of an MG that doesn't drip oil everywhere, isn't it?
John Prewer

John, you're spot on! However I would say that "proper" MG and "real" MG are two different debates. Throughout history, any major change in design has the previous generation saying that the new-fangled one isn't a "proper" example. There were certainly a few key moments in the engineering and design of M.G.s that drew a line between enthusiasts...

M.G. started as a performance company producing real sports and racing cars. They were often very advanced, sporting 6-cylinder engines, fully independent suspension, overhead cams and more way back in the 1930's when such things were reserved for much more expensive racers, and sometimes not even then.

After Kimber left, the whole thing changed. A lowly pushrod engine was installed into the new T-Series of 1936 and the company would never be the same. To this day, there are people who claim that the only pure M.G. is a "Kimber car". In a sense this is true, I suppose. There were even people who screamed murder when M.G. began manufacturing (gasp!) saloon cars in order to finance their sports and racing endeavors.

When the MGA came out, it's streamlined body was a radical departure from what the company had done for the past 30 years. No more trademark vertical grill and swooping fenders. The MGA was shunned by many diehard enthusiasts, but fortunately it was such a good car that they sold in the tens of thousands. The same happened when the MGB was launched, but not nearly to such a degree as the uproar at the MGA's launch.

So the difference here between comparing non-acceptance of classic M.G.s versus modern ones would be due solely to the fact that the company did in fact go out of business, and the rights to the name taken over by a new entity. This brief fracture in the company's lineage is what divides those who feel that later MGs aren't "real" MGs from those who do. Of course they are real MGs, that cannot easily be denied! They just aren't made by the same company as the one who made the earlier models.
Steve S

Steve this is just for your benefit

I have copied it from Wiki so that it helps make the point instead of myself and others explaining it to you

the following on the MG Car Company

""Originally owned personally by William Morris, the company was sold to Morris Motors (itself part of the Nuffield Organisation) in 1935; a change that was to have serious consequences for the company, particularly its motor-sport activities.""

Note the company was sold to MORRIS MOTORS

Not totally disimilar to selling the company to the Chines??

Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

This is entirely dissimilar. When the company changeg owners in 1935 it continued to operate in the same factory building the same cars with the same assembly workers. The only thing that changed immediately was the name in the corporation papers.

The primary claim to continuity with the transfer to Chinese ownership was that they pulled out the entire production line, moved it around the world, and reinstalled it in a new building. Now they have different owners, different managers, different assembly workers, but initial production thereafter was the same model of cars produced on the same equipment (several years out of date by that time). Considering who bought it and where it went, this is about as close as you can get to continuing production of MG cars.

Please forgive them for trying to push the brand name as "Modern Gentleman" rather than M.G. or Morris Garages. I presume the Chinese ad agencies know what should sell in their own society.
Barney Gaylord

not sure if I have fully understood your point mate?

Well Barney that is fair comment and you will no doubt be aware that MGs over the years have been assembled in a number of different factories with a number of different parent companies, I personally do not see any difference nor try to convince myself of such. The difference with the Chinese is that for the first time they are assembling MGs in a different country. (hang on a minute that is not the case they have been assembled before in a country outside the UK)) So if you want to make that arguement then what about pre Abingdon cars for example, kit cars and those MGs made at Longbridge post Abingdon? The list is endless

Or perhaps you were agreeing?
Robert (Bob) Midget Turbo

MG is still around, get used to it.

Would you rather have a dead marque? Triumph? Austin Healey? Sunbeam? Singer? Jowett? Alvis?

MG is alive as other go to the wall (Saab, Pontiac) and many more will go to the wall yet. How long before we lose one or more of Peugeot, Citroen, Renault? How long before Alfa Romeo's get too expenive to make and there are only Fiats left? The only other marque I enjoy driving is Subaru and they are so niche I fear for them.

Get used to the fact that MG is still around, the UK Government could have supported MG Rover and it would have worked, but unlike the French they ran a mile from the committment. MG is still here and we are oh so lucky.
John Prewer

Yes I think I was agreeing, they are still MGs, even when assembled in China. It's just a pity we have not seen a new one in North America for more than 30 years. From our point of view they now look pretty much like the homogenized jelly beans that everyone else is selling, so it might as well be a Chevy or Toyota (or non-existant). I think we all understand that a "real MG" has a lot to do with the way it drives, so if you can't drive one they seen to be not real.

Perhaps everyone in North America would be better off believing that all of the post 1980 MGs are only a fairytale and not waste our time chatting about it. By the time they come back here (if they ever do), even the avid vintage MG fans would not recognize them without the MG badge on the nose, which is why I totally understand the subject line of this thread. There is a whole generation here that has never seen a new MG, and most of them don't recognize the brand name when they see an old one.

The other universe is those of you who have lived with continuing new models of MGs forever. That must certainly be real, similar to a new Ford Focus still being a Ford, same as the Model T Ford more than 100 years ago.

For what it's worth, I think every vehicle ever built with the Rover aluminum V8 engine is a variant of the 1961 Buick Special Skylark. We're all kissing cousins these days.
Barney Gaylord

Right on John, we are indeed lucky to have so much enthusiasm for the marque after all these years. There are those who would rather MG stay dead than to have Chinese MGs confusing its history but even those people have to admit that there are benefits to keeping the marque alive, and therefore interest in it active.

I also agree with Barney, the scenarios posed are entirely dissimilar. There have been many changes in parent companies throughout the production of MG cars, but the most notable was in 1980 because that was the one time when the company actually went out of business (Rover being a gray area I suppose). All other changes have been merely selling the company to a new parent for economic reasons and/or mutual survival. There was 100% continuity with the M.G. Car Company until then. Afterward we had a new, fresh company which has again been sold several times and is known today as MG Motor UK (until recently NAC MG UK).

Bob, if you want to quote Wikipedia (if the public wrote it there then it must be true!) then try factoring this into your equation: (located two paragraphs above your selected quote)

Quote: "The original MG marque was in continuous use (barring the years of the Second World War) for 56 years after its inception."

It seems however many people involved in that Wikipedia article all agree that the original company died, and a new one started. Not sure why you find this insulting, I find it flattering that there is enough interest in the marque to keep it alive!
Steve S

This thread is great.
It shows a lot about the posters an nothing about cars.
The original posters question was one of "Perception"
There wasn't a question of right or wrong just one man wondering how others saw things.
But there is one in particular who just has to be right and others have to be wrong.
Bob's argument is valid if it has an MG emblem affixed to it its an MG. But it wasn't an argument about right and wrong but a discussion of differing perceptions.

But "Flame Wars" Bob has to attack individuals and not have a discussion. It is what poor old Bob is all about.
Here are a few examples.

Keep trying Steve you will eventually find a formula that suits what you want an MG to be. :)
Sarcasm with a smiley face.


"but do not criticise those who have more open views"
Implying that all that disagree with you are close minded.


"by old men stuck in the prehistoric age"
Now a double insult.

"I just think you need to be consistant and so far the only people with any consistancy are those of us who accept the MG badge"
Only the inconsistent disagree with Bob.

I am glad most people here are not looking for a fight. I am glad most people treat others with respect.

Bob it is either time to apologise for your combative nature or you can revert to your typical baseness and attack me, my religion and my heritage.

I thought we got rid of these insults when they got rid of Flame Wars.

My perception of MGs is one common here. 1980 is when they ceased to exist. There was a MAJOR change in MG after it died that time. When it was restarted They chose to abandon their largest historic market and become a domestic rebadger of cars.

Even now MG looks back to Real MGs to sell Modern ones. http://www.mg.co.uk/mg6-landing.html
R J Brown

Ignore them Bob...just like school bullies!
Gary Lock

Thanks Gary

How sad you are R J?

During this discussion many have tried to make their points of view to others in a manner that I find more than acceptable. I believe neither Steve nor myself have any reason to believe we acted in a manner not befitting the Marque of Friendship.

I made my case in the best way I possibly could as did Steve. Unfortunately we failed to agree but that is understandable, his world is different to mine. In my world there are thousands (including myself) of MGF and TF owners who believe 100% that their MG is as real an MG as the 1880, MGA, Magnette and MGB. Equally their are thousands of modern Zed type owners who believe the same. All those would be offended if they heard the views at your side of the Atlantic, however those views are understandable and have been explained.

I understand Steve's views and am happy to call it quits we have both tried our best to demonstrate our points of view without resorting to personal insults.

However you come along and suggest I should shut up and say sorry and also talk about Flame wars?

Yes I LIKE YOU debated in discussions on flame wars.

Yes I do not agree with your religion

I also do not agree with every other religion, that to my knowledge in the free world is not a crime.

Equally you did not agree with my atheism nor my political views again not a crime we were both guilty of flaming each other which was the nature of the beast.

For your info I was the person who asked the Mike to remove FW from the BBS which he did after I pointed out some rather extremist right wing views being posted by anonymous posters.

I find it extremely sad that you have chosen to tarnish the MGA BBS with this rhetoric.

Naturally human beings do not hold the same views as each other but discussions on the MGA BBS have always to my knowledge being conducted in a friendly professional manner and long may that continue.

I am sure if Steve believes otherwise he will let me know.
Bob Turbo Midget England

It sound as if RJ hasn't driven an MGF, let alone a ZT.

In any business the good guys get old and hand over to the new generation. In 1980 some in BL who knew no better finally killed MG after throttling it for over 10 years. A short time later a new generation realised they needed it. I was at two terrific evenings when the car clubs were invited to the launch of the MG Metro and MG Maestro - every bit as much an MG as a ZA or ZB. We went along hoping for the MGF and got it - every bit a proper MG - brilliant but flawed!

If you want a bad guy its BMW. They asset stripped the British Motor industry by stealing the Mini from MG Rover and stealing 4WD technology from Land Rover(there wasn't a BMW X5 before they owned Land Rover). Just as with Mercedes & Chrylser, when BMW got MG they hadn't got a clue what to do with it.

The second bad guy is the British Government who should have supported MG Rover. Think about the billions being made by Jaguar and Land Rover today and going into Indian pockets. MG Rover could have been a profitable success with a bit more support.
John Prewer

This thread was discussed between 21/02/2012 and 08/03/2012

MG MGA index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGA BBS now