The mention of MG conjures up images of old-school British sports cars, like the MGB with its rubber bumpers or the T-Type with its tall wire wheels. But the iconic British carmaker is still very much around—although under different management.
Nowadays, MG is owned by the Chinese SAIC Motor Corporation and produces hatchbacks, crossovers and sedans sold in a few select markets …
It looks more like a Jaguar. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It is a good design, very handsome, but it doesn't really look different from the Aston/Jag/Mazda/etc. that we seem to be seeing everywhere now.
I know that this happens every generation, eventually - Ask a 15 year old to tell the difference in a Caprice and an LTD and a Monaco, and they won't be able to even if it seems obvious to someone who was around for them - but it is getting boring. A very good looking boring, admittedly.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:I know that this happens every generation, eventually - Ask a 15 year old to tell the difference in a Caprice and an LTD and a Monaco, and they won't be able to even if it seems obvious to someone who was around for them - but it is getting boring. A very good looking boring, admittedly.
Better this then the other direction that car makers seem to be going. Like BMW, Nissan, etc and just make them as ugly as possible.
I was hoping for more of an electrified version of the MGB GT, but that looks nice.
I feel like theres just so many Lucas Electronics jokes just making themselves here.
This looks fantastic. Other then the Octagon badge I'm not sure there is any MG heritage in the design though.
Ford.. This is what the Mustang Mach E should look like/Be. Back to the drawing board for you.
I think MG has always been a Jaguar look-alike (again, not that that is a bad thing). Agree this is where I would like to see ford point the mach E, but I also think ford might be better at marketing than I am.
1955 jag
1955 MG
1968 jaguar
1968 MG
To look like an MG it would have to be more retro. Think of a PT Cruiser crossed with a 50s MG Magnette sedan.
Snowdoggie said:To look like an MG it would have to be more retro. Think of a PT Cruiser crossed with a 50s MG Magnette sedan.
A new Chinese MG with that much "heritage" would find about two dozen buyers, tops, lol.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm sorry Robbie. I just disagree with your whole premise. Look at MGTD built from 1950-1953 boxy cut away doors slab gas tank to the 1948- 1954 Jag XK120 curvy slippery shape continued almost unchanged through 1957 in the XK 140 Slightly bulbous XK 150. Built from 1958-1961.
Then the XKE. The car Enzo Ferrari declared the most beautiful car ever made. Also called the greatest crumpet Catcher ever. From 1962 - 1975 Compare that to the MGB? A boxy little car with barely a curve ?
Then to compare the jacked up rubber bumper MGBGT of 1975 to the XJS ?
Well I'm afraid we will just have to disagree.
An MGB as a "boxy little car with barely a curve"? It's curvier than the XJS is! There's not a surface on the car that's even close to flat.
I think Robbie has a decent point, the MGs and the Jaguars definitely share some styling heritage.
As for this thing, I was fully expecting an electrified B. I was just wondering if it was going to be the "stick a motor on the end of the trans" type or something a little more clever. It is neither, just a 3-year-old show car.
If MG has to re-incarnate as something new, then that is not a terrible thing to come back as.
I will believe it when I see it.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Keith. Are you saying the MG TC/MGTD/ MGTF are the same styling as the Jaguar XK120?
The MGB is the same style as the Jaguar XKE?
And the Jaguar XJS looks just like the MGBGT ?
Honestly ? Or are you just pulling my chain?
ok, sorry,
1939 jaguar
1939 MG
MG just hung onto the old design way longer.
And I happen to believe that the XJ-S is in a 2 way tie for the least-good-looking Jaguar ever.
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:ok, sorry,
And I happen to believe that the XJ-S is in a 2 way tie for the least-good-looking Jaguar ever.
To me, it is the worst looking, all on its own. That doesn't make it bad looking, but it is rather boring to me.
frenchyd said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Keith. Are you saying the MG TC/MGTD/ MGTF are the same styling as the Jaguar XK120?
The MGB is the same style as the Jaguar XKE?
And the Jaguar XJS looks just like the MGBGT ?
Honestly ? Or are you just pulling my chain?
As Robbie pointed out, the long-lived T-series looks a lot like the Jaguar SS. The XK120 shares styling cues with the MGA. The MGB is from the same school as the E but without the extravagance. Note that I am not saying "looks just like", but they are clearly related stylistically.
The XJS looks nothing like the MGB GT, the GT is the best looking and most cohesively styled coupe to ever come out of England. Ironically, styled by an Italian. But the B has more curves than the XJS does, other than the flying butresses the XJS shares with the Corvette.
You can't call a B "boxy with barely a curve" and expect to get taken seriously. Here's your boxy MG, compared to a swooshy Jaguar of the same era that has fewer curves on the whole body than a B has in the front fender..
I don't really consider these MGs. Cecil Kimber and Morris Garages had nothing to do with this car. It's a Chinese made SAIC with an MG nameplate. They bought the name and tried to buy some English racing history in the process. This is a different car made in a different era by a different company in a different country. It may not be a bad car, but it's not really a descendent of the sports cars made in Abingdon in the last century.
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:ok, sorry,
1939 jaguar
1939 MG
MG just hung onto the old design way longer.
And I happen to believe that the XJ-S is in a 2 way tie for the least-good-looking Jaguar ever.
Coming from the XKE I can certainly understand your point of view. In fact I used to agree with you.
The styling grew on me over the decades since.
But you certainly can have whatever opinion you wish.
My personal opinion the Worst has to be the Mk10 followed by the 3.4 sedan which morphed into the 3.8 sedan MK2 which was very attractive. Then everything after the XJS
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:ok, sorry,
1939 jaguar
1939 MG
MG just hung onto the old design way longer.
And I happen to believe that the XJ-S is in a 2 way tie for the least-good-looking Jaguar ever.
Well MG started with that style back in 1924 and Jaguar didn't adapt it until 1936. So who followed who? And there is no way the XK 120 is anything like the MG T series.
You cannot seriously compare the MGB with the beautiful Jaguar XKE ?
One thing that I really don't like in the Moo Goo MG is that moon roof (or whatever you want to call it). Pointless to argue about whether these Chinese buy-a-name specials are or are not real MGs and more than arguing about whether the modern Bugatti has any link to Ettore's automotive offspring. They are both purchased names with no heritage content.
I don't like the look of the Jag XJS either - but that may just be my taste as others seem to like them a lot.
Snowdoggie said:I don't really consider these MGs. Cecil Kimber and Morris Garages had nothing to do with this car. It's a Chinese made SAIC with an MG nameplate. They bought the name and tried to buy some English racing history in the process. This is a different car made in a different era by a different company in a different country. It may not be a bad car, but it's not really a descendent of the sports cars made in Abingdon in the last century.
Well considering he died in 1945 and had sold the company to morris 10 years before that statement is silly. I mean mg has been a part of morris,british motor corporation,british Leland,rover group. Reality mg had been making various sports cars through the 90s and 2000s. When they bought the rover group from bmw however ford managed to get the rights to the rover name hence why they had to use a different name and used the mg name on the other models aswell.
mg however has made rebadged or more sporty versions of regular cars since the 50s.
MotorsportsGordon said:Snowdoggie said:I don't really consider these MGs. Cecil Kimber and Morris Garages had nothing to do with this car. It's a Chinese made SAIC with an MG nameplate. They bought the name and tried to buy some English racing history in the process. This is a different car made in a different era by a different company in a different country. It may not be a bad car, but it's not really a descendent of the sports cars made in Abingdon in the last century.
Well considering he died in 1945 and had sold the company to morris 10 years before that statement is silly. I mean mg has been a part of morris,british motor corporation,british Leland,rover group. Reality mg had been making various sports cars through the 90s and 2000s. When they bought the rover group from bmw however ford managed to get the rights to the rover name hence why they had to use a different name and used the mg name on the other models aswell.
mg however has made rebadged or more sporty versions of regular cars since the 50s.
I agree that once the principle owner of a company passes or sells his company it's just not the same. I don't care if it's Rolls Royce , Bentley Jaguar or Ferrari, There is a chemistry, Character, Value, or artistry that goes lacking.
Even Honda is different, as is Toyota. GM and Ford.
You'll need to log in to post.
