RE: MG to reinvent sports car

[Agoogy]

EDLT said:

300bhp/ton said:

Not seen this before:

That is a (heavily) photoshopped smart roadster.

yeah...yeah we know....

[will261058]

HustleRussell said:

How about some kind of semi-monocoque chassis, using modern composites and construction methods. Lightweight and simple running gear, LSD and 6-speed as standard. Bring it to market cheap enough and it'll fly out of showrooms.

Yes and do not over style it, keep it simple!

[CDP]

Riknos said:

BoRED S2upid said:

New Midget 2 seater RWD small LIGHT! (1l) turbo engine cheap to run cheap to maintain and cheap to buy.

This is the closet I reckon. Nowadays it's all about small turbo engines. Small, light car, will only need a small engine, rear drive two seater - based on the MG TF? Do a 160 bhp version again and it will be awesome.

I've got a TF and it's pretty clear that it would be relatively expensive to produce with all those heavy subframes and even the steel suspension is pretty complicated. Maintenance is also difficult. It's also a very old platform and would reach it's 20th anniversary before launch. One could argue it's already 30 odd or even 50+ in parts.

I reckon the MX5 route is best, especially if there's a coupe or even a 2+2 coupe alongside. Built as simply as possible. They have to get it homologated for the US market this time; they should be able to sell tens of thousands there.

A Moggie Minor sister car could help share components or even a Marina saloon/estate/pickup/van range (who threw that brick?)

[simonrockman]

Something like a Twizzy with a lot more power and a turbine range extender. High power to weight, good dynamics, cute. The electric stuff is all about torque not image.

[Agoogy]

simonrockman said:

Something like a Twizzy with a lot more power and a turbine range extender. High power to weight, good dynamics, cute. The electric stuff is all about torque not image.

I like that!! China would love it with it's cycle culture too... (narrow, manouverable and cheap)

[filski666]

IDrinkPetrol said:

Get Gordon Murray on board,
make a t25 longer and lower,
add a fun, small engine (fiat twinair style or maybe that cripplingly expensive little ford triple- SAIC does seem to have worked with EVERYONE before)
simple, manual soft top
simple, "manual" gearchange
iStream
Get Peter Stevens to style it? (again)

Not much weight, not much grip, not much power, reasonable brakes, balanced handling, good looks and real-world costs.

All the things that we pretend to not like on this site

SAIC are linked with GM, so if they used an "imported" engine rather than the in-house engines it would most likely be from the GM stable

[nightflight]

Just copy the original MX5, but give it a bit more poke. Simple formula, and it works.

[300bhp/ton]

nightflight said:

Just copy the original MX5, but give it a bit more poke. Simple formula, and it works.

And proof of this being.....?

[odyssey2200]

CDP said:

Marina saloon/estate/pickup/van range (who threw that brick?)

It wasn't a brick.
it was a Piano

[garypotter]

Surely they are trying to re invent a part of the motor market that has already many options, When MG were popular 40 yrs ago ther was not much competition from the japanese, korean, far eastern market, Europe and the USA.

SuUrely the question should be Who would buy a chinese MG.?

[kambites]

garypotter said:

SuUrely the question should be Who would buy a chinese MG.?

Well I would if it was any good (albeit probably not brand new). Neither country of manufacture nor badge are part of my buying criteria.

[VladD]

I think they should go for a budget Boxster/Cayman car. Mid-engine will allow them to use the same engines that they have in the FWD MG6. They could even put a soot chucker in the back, I see plenty of soot chucker convertibles these days, so some people obviously don't care about the noise. Two cars based on one platform. If they can price it sub £30k it would be very appealing.

[corcoran]

ITS BEHIND YOU!

NO?

[CDP]

300bhp/ton said:

nightflight said:

Just copy the original MX5, but give it a bit more poke. Simple formula, and it works.

And proof of this being.....?

Alternatively an original MX5 with tiny CO2 output and similar poke. It's got to be easy to repair though to keep insurance down.

As mentioned earlier a low start price and a long list of sexy profitable options. BMW make far more money on Mini options than they do the car - or than they even imagined.

[300bhp/ton]

garypotter said:

Surely they are trying to re invent a part of the motor market that has already many options, When MG were popular 40 yrs ago ther was not much competition from the japanese, korean, far eastern market, Europe and the USA.

SuUrely the question should be Who would buy a chinese MG.?

Well who would by an American Aston Martin when Ford owned them? Or Jag. Or indeed who would by a current Jag or Land Rover then?

Maybe nobody would by a German Lambo either or a Bugatti.

How about an American Vauxhall (since 1925 btw)

Korean Lotus?

[smilo996]

Cross an MX5 wih a TVR. Oh of course TVR will be making wind turbines, not cars. The benefits of foreign ownership.

Of and it is and will never be an MG. It is an SAC with an apology MG badge on it.
This "repinning" marketing nonsense is going much too far. The only reason there is an MG is to bolster a company selling cars in China. Tryin now to legitimise it by recreating MG's history is just sad.

If they want a British sportscar then they should go an work for Bristol, Marcos, Ariel, Morgan etc.

Or do what Bloor and Gartiner did and restart 2 british names properly. IMHO.

[BeirutTaxi]

An MGB is not

1.) A sports car

2.) Worth trying to replicate in any way.


When you dig beneath the surface, some aspects of the engineering behind the MGB are comically bad.

For example, what utter idiot put the exhaust manifold and intake manifold on the same side of the engine? Nice, hot, less dense intake air with comparatively poor gas flow when it needs to be discharged through the exhaust.

Stupid rubber bumpers and suspension too.

Edited to add: That MG 'Icon' looks like an icon of what a roadster, sports car or even a coupé shouldn't be. Ruddy awful stuff.

Edited by BeirutTaxi on Thursday 22 November 14:24

[kambites]

smilo996 said:

Of and it is and will never be an MG. It is an SAC with an apology MG badge on it.

Out of interest, do you consider the Gallardo to be a VW with a Lamborghini badge on it? If not, why not - what's the difference?

[EDLT]

300bhp/ton said:

garypotter said:

Surely they are trying to re invent a part of the motor market that has already many options, When MG were popular 40 yrs ago ther was not much competition from the japanese, korean, far eastern market, Europe and the USA.

SuUrely the question should be Who would buy a chinese MG.?

Well who would by an American Aston Martin when Ford owned them? Or Jag. Or indeed who would by a current Jag or Land Rover then?

Maybe nobody would by a German Lambo either or a Bugatti.

How about an American Vauxhall (since 1925 btw)

Korean Lotus?

Not people on PH, but then most people on here don't buy new cars anyway so manufacturers don't really care.

[SMGB]

Agoogy said:

yeah...yeah we know....

There was a TF coupe proposal put forward in the USA in 2005 when all the unpleasantness happened. There was a consortium working with NAC. Sadly it didnt happen.
I have to take issue with the TF being hard to work on, sure you have to remove the engine bay cover for plug changes etc, but once you have done that access is good. Everwhere else its a really easy car to work on.
I'm happy with the trade for how it handles, I put the Bilstein shocker kit on mine and its outstanding the way it rides and handles. Those shocks and eibach springs were specifiied in design.
If a new one happens and for once the engineers win out over the bean counters it will be a winner.