DeTomaso Mailing List: March 2000, Message #240

I've been a lurker for some time, and have posted little. This is an
interesting thread, though, and I thought I would share a recent
experience that sums up this topic as I see it.

Not long ago I had some of my staff out to my home for a party. As
usually happens, we ended up spending some time in the garage talking
about my cars. The young lady who heads up my interior design department
was especially taken by my hobby, and spent quite some time discussing
the aesthetics of the cars. She was quite intrigued when I told her
about the car I'm currently looking for - a Mangusta. I explained about
the car using words like "Giugiaro's masterpiece", "perfect proportion",
"timeless simplicity", you know, all that designer jargon.

A few weeks later she stopped by my office to tell me she had actually
seen a Mangusta in person. As she related the story I deduced that she
had seen the 2000 Goose at the Chicago Auto Show. While telling me the
story she had this uncomfortable look on her face like, "should I tell
the boss he has something hanging out of his nose". I then explained
that the Mangusta I'm looking for, THE Mangusta, is from 1969, and
showed her a picture. "Thank God", she sighed. "I couldn't believe you
were that jazzed about the 2000 Mangusta. It looks like something from a
Roger Rabbit cartoon!"

That's the essence of the problem. The uninitiated are going to
associate the name with the new car, and the significance of the
original will be blurred. It's a little like the difference between a
Testa Rossa and a Testarossa. The names sound alike, but the cars are
light years apart in significance, performance and, untimately, value.

The new Goose will hopefully prove to be a great car, but it's not
anything like the original. IMHO, there was nothing wrong with the Bigua
name. My .02 :-)