Dave,

Have you any ideas why the Indicators were left alongside the headlamps when the 400 became the 45 ?

It just doesn't look right !

The 25 looks much better with the indicators seperate within the bumper, similar to the 75.

The 45 looks like a job half done.

Not a clue as to why.....there must be a reason. I don't dislike the 45/ZS lighting/indicator units/postioning, TBH.

But, the 25/75 does look better thought out with the seperate indicator units :)

I always wondered why myself.

Only answer I could come up with was that there is much less surface area to play about with on the 45/ZS - so positioning them below the headlamps may have offset an otherwise 'aggressive' look.

My preference would have been to have mounted them in the headlamp units.

I also think with those 45/ZS models without front fog lamps - replacing the raised 'blanks' with air scoops a la 25/ZR would do wonders for the car.

With reference to the 45/ZS - did anybody notice the amazing resemblance between the bottom air intake and fog lamp arrangement on the forthcoming B*W 1 Series and the 45/ZS?

John

DAVID LEE NEWSHAM wrote:
Dave,

Have you any ideas why the Indicators were left alongside the headlamps when the 400 became the 45 ?

It just doesn't look right !

The 25 looks much better with the indicators seperate within the bumper, similar to the 75.

The 45 looks like a job half done.


David my theory is that it would have cost much more money than MG-R had allocated to the 45's metamorphosis into the ZS. Maybe Dr Dave can confirm this following piece of conjecture on my part? : The front end on the ZT was a much more comprehensive modification: It is in essence just one gigatintic plastic moulding( W/seperate mesh pieces) incorporating the grille. Where as the ZR and the ZS are the "original" Rover 25/45 front end "Clips" with the attendant MG grilles and spoilers attached. So it was I believe a time+money issue, MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK! Remember the ZT is going to be around a lot longer than the other models so naturally that is where MG-R would focus most of it's limited resources. Possibly, when they face lift the 75 next year the ZT may keep its current face, allowing them to further differentitate these two models

Stephen The pest out west=P =P =P

Stephen k. Hone wrote:
DAVID LEE NEWSHAM wrote:
Dave,

Have you any ideas why the Indicators were left alongside the headlamps when the 400 became the 45 ?

It just doesn't look right !

The 25 looks much better with the indicators seperate within the bumper, similar to the 75.

The 45 looks like a job half done.


David my theory is that it would have cost much more money than MG-R had allocated to the 45's metamorphosis into the ZS. Maybe Dr Dave can confirm this following piece of conjecture on my part? : The front end on the ZT was a much more comprehensive modification: It is in essence just one gigatintic plastic moulding( W/seperate mesh pieces) incorporating the grille. Where as the ZR and the ZS are the "original" Rover 25/45 front end "Clips" with the attendant MG grilles and spoilers attached. So it was I believe a time+money issue, MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK! Remember the ZT is going to be around a lot longer than the other models so naturally that is where MG-R would focus most of it's limited resources. Possibly, when they face lift the 75 next year the ZT may keep its current face, allowing them to further differentitate these two models

Stephen The pest out west=P =P =P

Dr Dave can you shed any light on my theory
:( :( :( Stephen

Stephen k. Hone wrote:





Dr Dave can you shed any light on my theory
:( :( :( Stephen

HELLO! DR DAVE, what do you think of my indicator POSTULLATIONS. (And yes,I have consulted a doctor about them!! ):D :D :D
STEPHEN.

Hi Stephen

Yes, the development of the Z range was done on the proverbail shoestring.

With reference to the ZT, MGR didn't so much want to reposition the indicator as have to.

The 75 unit was at the lowest permissible legal minimum. Therefore, when the suspension of the car was lowered - it would have made the resulting vehicle illegal. Hence the redsigned front bumper.

John

[quote]redviking25 wrote:
Hi Stephen

Yes, the development of the Z range was done on the proverbail shoestring.

With reference to the ZT, MGR didn't so much want to reposition the indicator as have to.

Yeah John, I read that somewhere too!! But I find it hard to believe that even B*W is that insidious. I just think Mr Upex and his gang GOOFED and set them too low, but it does make for a nice B*W bashing story. And I only want to bash them when it is absolutely deserved!!

Stephen:D :D :D