Am I?
At £15k an MX-5 looks pretty cheap to me!
The fact that you keep referring to the MGB as a 'sports car' worries me somewhat, a 'tourer' maybe, but never a 'sports car! I don't think i'm misunderstanding what a sports car is, I've driven a few, as I understand it a 'sports car' should go, stop and handle very well,ie Lotus Elan, and the MGB didn't do any of those very well. MG's went right downhill with the MGB, which as you say was nothing more than the very humble Cambridge in drag. My Father had an MGA 1600, (hence my brief dabble with the idea of MGB ownership), now that WAS a sports car
The SL230 - a barge, sure, its no sports car, but I think 'barge' is a bit harsh.
Andy
MainMan said:My point is that the SLK is a cut and shut C-class, just like the MGB was a cut and shut Austin Cambridge. It's a cheap way of making a sports car - and it has benefits for reliability and practicality. The Mazda MX-5 was NOT a cheap car to produce because it was designed from the ground up.
And if you think the MGB was a rubbish sports car, I'd suggest that you don't actually understand what a sports car is. The SLK is completely different from the SL230. The SL230 is barge - OK a good looking barge - but a barge nonetheless. It can in no way be considered to be a sports car.
At £15k an MX-5 looks pretty cheap to me!
The fact that you keep referring to the MGB as a 'sports car' worries me somewhat, a 'tourer' maybe, but never a 'sports car! I don't think i'm misunderstanding what a sports car is, I've driven a few, as I understand it a 'sports car' should go, stop and handle very well,ie Lotus Elan, and the MGB didn't do any of those very well. MG's went right downhill with the MGB, which as you say was nothing more than the very humble Cambridge in drag. My Father had an MGA 1600, (hence my brief dabble with the idea of MGB ownership), now that WAS a sports car

The SL230 - a barge, sure, its no sports car, but I think 'barge' is a bit harsh.
Andy
Last edited: