I’ve been pondering this very issue for some time. It seems that a fair number of MG enthusiasts have taken the time and gone to the trouble of removing their rubber bumpers and replacing them with the chrome ones found on the earlier ‘Bs…
I can understand the issue of styling purity and brand values, but did the later ones look that bad? They give the MGB something of a more modern appearance, whilst giving some protection from errant Tesco trolleys. The rubber bumper MGs also seem to have a very integrated style, which is no mean feat given that these bumpers were attached some 13 years after the original launch.
They give the MGB something of a more modern appearance, while giving some protection from errant Tesco trolleys…
Gerry McGovern, I reckon, agrees with me, as his MGF obviously drew on this car for its frontal styling, and not the earlier chrome bumper models. The same with the gorgeous looking MG RV8 – it is a reworking in styling terms, of the Seventies MG. So are the rubber bumpers really that bad?
I suspect that there’s an element of negativity with these cars, which stems from the raised ride height, which interfered with the roadholding of the original. Marque fans blamed all of the MGB’s ills on what happened at the facelift – so much so that the bumpers became a symbol of all that went wrong with the MGB during the dark decade.
And that’s a shame, because – as I said – it really does not look too bad at all with these bumpers attached. It could have been a hell of a lot worse – take a look at the Federalised Fiat 124 Spider or Fiat X1/9 to see what I mean about how badly bumpers could be integrated into a design.
So, MG owners, don’t decry your safety bumpers, rejoice in them – and, if any chrome bumper-owning MG owner gives you grief about them, simply challenge them to a car park fight: car on car!