As an avid reader of Motor Sport and a member of the TR Register I would like to comment on “The Future of MG”, see letters page February issue.
I find the attitude of the MG fraternity rather confusing when the facts of the TR7 and MG-B are analysed.
Briefly, with the demise of the TR6, which was supposed to be Suffering an outdated image, British Leyland gave Triumph the go-ahead for a new (car code named Bullet), which later became known as the TR7. What is not generally appreciated about this controversial shape is that it was styled at Longbridge, the original Triumph styles being suppressed. It was at this timc MG at Abingdon was asked to design a mid-engined car based on the Austin Maxi and 2200 power plants to replace their outmoded product the MG-B unfortunately for MG enthusiasts to no avail.
It therefore could be argued that Triumph is stuck with a shape that they are not totally in sympathy with. However as BL had always intended the design to be very versatile (we have all heard about the soft top with V8 versions lurking somewhere at Canley) it seems logical that the new car could be sold under a variety of guises.
And remember, Targa top followers, the TR4 was ahead of its time with the surrey top when introduced, though at the time this feature was thought only novel.
Sports cars have always been an export priority and contrary to thought, British interest could not financially support such a venture. BL therefore have to plan models on their world appeal. Whereas the English are still in love with open-topped motoring the rest of the world seems content to enjoy a more liberal approach.
If the sports car is to continue at all then it must follow the TR7 concept and try to adapt to the ever increasing legislation.
Keep up the good work Motor Sport in producing a real monthly must.
Liversedge, Yorks. MIKE OAKMAN