Mr. M. P. Spicer has a valid point, why should MG suffer the inadequacies and inefficiencies of other parts of British I.eyland? Leyland should be split up into separate, smaller companies; the successful marques will survive, and unless standards are raised, the inefficient trouble-torn plants will close.
There has been a certain amount of bias on the part of the motoring Press against MG in recent years. The two times they have produced a winner the cars have been given a cool reception. The MGC was killed off by the motoring Press before sales took off; the MGB GT V8 was introduced virtually unnoticed, and motoring journals were suitably unimpressed.
The MGC had good performance and roadholding, while the MGB GT ys was one of the fastest cars in the world and had phenomenal acceleration. The V8 is the best car MG has produced since the TD, (although it is not the equal of the TD). The present models are also criticised; Motor is the biggest culprit although to he fair their four-year-old tests state differently. The MG-B and Midget (recently given a bigger engine) are two of the four open air sports cars left in production.
An improvement in handling and better subduing of wind noise would ensure continued production. Once sales start to tail off I think that production should be done on a Morgan or TVR basis (even if it means producing them separately or re-introduction of the V8 because it is definitely worth preserving by low-volume production); this would inevitably reduce the work-force. Another point in MG’s favour is that new sports cars are closed (targa topped) and not open, for example, the TR7, XJs, Porsche Turbo, and the awaited Leyland Lynx, so there will still be a market—alongside Morgan and the up-market Panther.
Regardless of what Mr. J. L. Bloxham says, MG is too famous a name to let fade into the history books. I think that the motoring journals should stop drooling over mundane saloons and foreign produce and support a well-made, home-grown, exciting product.
Edinburgh ALISDAIR GIBSON