Absolute speculation but a little research on the possible engine and drive train for an imagined CX PlusFour comes up with the B48 BMW engine used in the BMW 2 Series Coupe 230i. It is available with a 6-speed Getrag manual or an 8-speed ZF automatic.

The B48 used is a 2.0 L I4 turbo with 185 kW (248 hp) at 5,200 rpm and torque of 350 N⋅m (258 lb⋅ft) at 1,450–4,800 rpm.

CO2 emissions are 135 g/km, a vast improvement over the current Plus 4 and could even be less for the Morgan which would be lighter than the BMW.

Perhaps a more likely alternative would be the engine used in the 220i: a 135 kW (181 hp) version that develops more than adequate torque for a Plus 4 CX platform alternative: 290 N⋅m (214 lb⋅ft) at 1,250–4,500 rpm.

The way that tax is being levied on the basis of CO2 emmisions this might bring the on-road cost of a possible CX PlusFour to the same or less that a GDI Plus 4 in the same way that it has made the on-road cost of a PlusSix in some countries less than the cost of a conventionally aspirated V6 Roadster.

I will be very curious to see what, if anything, Morgan have in the pipeline. I feel that there must be both a 4 and a 3 cylinder version under consideration.

The BMW 218i produces 100 kW (134 hp) at 4,500–6,000 rpm and 220 N⋅m (162 lb⋅ft) at 1,250 rpm. CO2 emmisions are a mere 133 gm/km in the BMW and could well be less in a lighter Morgan. When it comes to performance in the real world torque is what it is all about and this would give brilliant performance for an entry point CX Morgan. A PlusThree?

It may not be a Bavarian power unit they chose to use, Ford has a lot more history with Morgan cars, just saying.
I do appreciate the commonality of drive train etc etc..

I'd like to see the German flat six in it and that would sound nice too. Just a different sort of Plus Six that would appeal to the Hipsters.

I don't see another Ford engine...….Ford were apparently hard work on the 3.7 with what MMC got and the price.....which is why it took a long time to resolve the deal.

I'd imagine the CX chassis would be an easy installation for another BMW family engine - I'd wager there is a CX chassis car already being tested with a smaller BMW unit as per Peters suggestions.

All very interesting stuff and very likely to happen , I hope there aren't complaints about the cars being too ' perfect '.

The Ford 1.0 ecoboost is a great engine, we had a fiesta Zetec S with 125 bhp, I think it can be easily tuned to around 180 bhp or more. It also sounds fantastic for a small engine!. Have a look on YouTube at the single seater Ford at the Nurburgring. It's disappointing if Ford is being a little awkward as I think it would be a great engine for a CX based 4/4 or plus 4.
https://youtu.be/AM5HiDq2Unc

I would imagine the commonality of the BMW parts make many of the mount points interchangeable which would lead to a BMW 3/4/6 and gearbox combination. I wonder if that would also lead to a manual gearbox with the 3/4 pots?

I would tend to go with BMW options.
Commonality of parts re installation for one.
Also the new owners are likely to have a different attitude to change than the previous family based group.
Hark back to the John Harvey-Jones era......a reluctance to make significant changes at that time but some crept in later.
There is also speculation on a factory revamp. This could add to a lot more changes to manufacturing/assembly processes.
The attraction of a Mustang engine and the Cosworth variants gave an opportunity in marketing a sporty image but not without issues re drive ability ( rev hang and power and range).
I also wonder at the ability of the chassis to carry Hybrid/ EV options too.

If I understood from a few things that were said at the time of the CX platform launch Hybrid/EV was a definite part of the future project for the platform.

I suspect the electronics and bus/network architecture might be a key driver for a single engine supplier.

IF Morgan are moving "upmarket" having a BMW lump suits the image better than a Ford?

I know from personal experience with the 3.0 litre in my Roadster, if I say it has a Mondeo engine in it - the "general onlooker" is never impressed????

Can't you claim that it's a Jaguar engine ?

That is what the local garage calls it. Jag not Ford.

The jaguar engine is a good one!
Welcome to the big automotive group products.

That is indeed one of my main questions for the time.
What are the essential a badge has to fulfill?

Form Morgan and engines that is easy as there never has been a Morgan engine.

How does that look like for Bentley? Group engines (nice ones) for the Continental as well as the original 6.75 in the Mulsanne.
Is a wonderful styling department complemented by a wood shop and a trim shop enough for keeping the Bentley boys alive?

The Morgan surprise for me is often an engine that is underestimated anywhere else turns fantastic in a Morgan.
The boring not even the +8 engine is breathtaking in an SD1, a Range Rover or a Land Rover. It is much more a fuel to noise converter there.
In the +8 it was breathtaking. Same for the Ford v.s. Jaguar V6. The actual BMW is rated fantastic in the Z as well as in the Toyota. Can it do that much more
in the Mog?

I would much more like to try out a Toyota HYBRID engine that ist boring in the Prius but maybe cool as a +4?

Just Thoughts on image....

Miklos

About the „Mondeo“ 3.0 engine you could say it is a Jaguar engine developed by Porsche (the V6 Duratec) if that is enough mentioned regarding badge engineering. To be serious I must agree that often in the Morgan some engines come alive which are of average performance elsewhere. The Sigma 1.6 has a characteristic as if it would have been planned to be made for a Morgan in the first place. In a Fiesta or CMax it was boring and could be only used at the upper rev band.

Are you sure?

Z4 BMW = Co2 162 gr/km
SUPRA TOYOTA = Co2 170 gr/km
MORGAN PLUS SIX = Co2 180 gr/km ??? Pourtant plus legere

It is difficult to find the figures but they are quoted in a few places. I have found them in a couple of places. Have a look at https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/bmw/series-2/coupe/mpg

.

@ Peter
I was talking about the BMW 3.0L that equips the new Morgan Plus Six.
In Geneva, the MMC said 170 gr of Co2, today MMC said Co2 = 180gr / km? Why?
The M +6 is 500kgs lighter than the BMW Z4 and other Toyota SUPRAs.

You would have to see what the current BMW figure are but I suspect that the increased CO2 figures represent the new testing system required for Euro 6d-temp. The other consideration is that the PlusSix is less aerodynamic than the other cars and in real world testing this may make a difference.

Sorry guys but you are all living in the past, car manufacturers have to get to 95 grams per km quite soon or people will just walk away, then 80 by 2025 and 60 by 2030.

In saying that if you look at the number of petrol only cars being introduced by the German manufacturers you would think they have their heads up their backsides.

Bristol is proposing no diesel private cars in the city next year.

The number of city's with low emission zones will increase by leaps and bounds in the next few years and getting in there in a petrol car will be stopped by I guess 2025 if we look at the way things are going.

A petrol only car will at most have a three to five year new car sales life.

Morgan will have to do some sort of hybrid at the least in the next few years.

Agreed. I'd be amazed if MMC weren't already planning for a hybrid drive train, and surely they must have designed the CX platform to be able to accommodate batteries for a pure EV - after all, they know better than any of us which way the legislation is heading.

Typical wrong headed knee-jerk political thinking. Recent tests have shown that modern Euro 6D (temp) diesel cars with Addblue and particle filters can be less polluting than petrol cars.

There are some who believe that the best option for a hybrid car would be to use a small, efficient, diesel engine which would produce even less CO2 than petrol hybrids.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/mercedes-benz/e63-amg/e300de-se-4dr-9g-tronic/first-drive

Unfortunately the key word is "can" in this regard though Peter. Most of the diesel vehicles buggering up the air quality in Bristol are nowhere near this spec.

The answer to the two problems of diesel polution, fine carbon particles and NOx, is to ban diesels that do not have particle filters and Adblue. This means in effect that Bristol could significantly improve air quality by first banning pre Euro 5 diesels that do not have particle filters and then banning pre Euro 6 diesels that do not have Adblue.

An example is the current list of vehicles prohibited from the centre of Milan

Prohibitions in force

Euro 0, 1 petrol
Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 diesel without DPF
Euro 0, 1, 2, 3 diesel with after-market DPF with particulate mass class lower than Euro 4
Euro 3, 4 diesel with DPF as standard and field V.5 certificate> 0.0045 g / km or no value in the V.5 certificate
Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 diesel with after-market DPF installed after 31.12.2018 and with particulate mass class at least equal to Euro 4
dual-fuel diesel-LPG and diesel-methane Euro 0, 1, 2

Sadly this is where the manufacturer's track record has caused them more problems. People just don't believe their claims any more.

The results I mentioned above for diesels were from independent real world testing by a group of European consumer associations. The Citroen C3 diesel came out best of test.

I have said it on here several times....."I have it on good authority that diesel engines have at least one more roll of the dice" governments will realise that they are cleaner than many petrol engines .

I agree old diesels are not!

You would hope so. Morgan got a 6 million pound grant in 2016 toward building electric cars was to design a new platform to make EV's so the new CX platform should be that platform - the fact the other companies involved didn't produce the drive train doesn't mean Morgan shouldn't have produced the platform.

This is a quote from 2016 by Steve Morris - The money will also be used to fund development of plug-in hybrid and electric powertrains for the EV3 and the rest of the Morgan product lineup.

Is that realistic or are the companies going to have to cheat like VW did with their diesels just to pass some government based impossible test, or say sorry we can't actually achieve your unrealistic target?

I found this graphic dramatically illustrates diesel emission standards over the years.

It can be calculated that a human produces about 18 grams per km when walking so by 2030 if 4 people walk away they will be producing more CO2 than if they drove away in a 4 seater

We just need to work out a way of capturing all that CO2 in the atmosphere and turn it into something else. But hank on. Isn't that what plants do?
Beware The Day of the Triffids

You mean something like this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer–Tropsch_process

This should be where the development goes , not knee jerk electric cars that are full of nasty chemicals and have a very finite lifespan, and no way to recycle the batteries once beyond their useable life (I mean beyond Tesla’s power walls and the like)

Hydrogen isnt the most sensible option either, the current estimates to convert our current liquid fuelled global economy to gaseous hydrogen is estimated in the trillions of pounds

Simon @ Sifab.co.uk

I’ve been told through a very reliable source that Morgan are going to release a new CX platformed car next year

Manual gearbox and going to be branded a 4/4 not a Plus Four although will be a 2 litre

As to price, it’s rumoured to be base price in the mid to high £60,000’s

Did the source say whether Morgan want this publicised? Will it help or hinder sales in the interim If people believe it? I suppose they are fully busy on the plus6 and 3w til then, so it doesn’t really matter, but if I could afford a plus 4 now, I think I’d wait and save up for one with suspension and the latest engine. How many current engines do they have to run out, I wonder?

Stewart,
This rumour has been going the rounds for a while now - did your "source" give any details as to what engine it might be? will it follow the usual Ford or is it part of a move to BMW low Co2 turbo's??

Cheers!

I’m guessing MMC don’t want specifics released until formally announced, plus with the car market so fluid at the moment, anything can happen in the meantime with development so it might not be that advanced and could change

If the price differential at base level is 10K between a plus Six with that awesome engine and power and a 2 litre petrol then there are always people I think who would go for the faster engine

There are a lot of Roadster owners who went for that over the Plus 4

I haven’t driven the Plus Six yet but I’ve heard it’s frighteningly quick so much so that one recent owner thinks that Morgan ought to put owners on a safety driving day course

If the CX car will really be called 4/4 then I think the production line will shrink to two models. There used to be a time without Plus 4 before.
And maybe it makes sense. The reason could be that MMC can offer perhaps the new 4/4 with two engines and/or different power stages. A third line of car models will not come for cost reasons and the point of differentiation between a new 4/4 and a new Plus 4 would too much if the wings are the same width I would say.

There will also be no more 120 HP engines, because the car would be too weak and too heavy for that. And it is boring to drive with such a good chassis without power. The feeling would be much less fun than my Trad 4/4 with 790 kg weight and 140 HP.
May be they start with 145 Ps or so. And another engine with 200 PS. Despite what I said before the CX 4/4 should be more nimble than the Plus 6 in comparison due to the lower weight and the better overall balance with a four pot engine.

The entry-level model of the CX 4/4 will be 20K more expensive than the previous entry-level model.
It would be nice if the new CX 4/4 would be a bit narrower than the six-cylinder despite all its similarity.

There are quite a few markets now where large engines & high emissions attract punitive taxes.

A CX 4/4 with emissions below 140g/km (preferably lower) could see me back in a Morgan. Anything higher than that is not for me, because of tax.

Interesting thinking on a CX 4/4 and +4 Heinz. I think my old carb fed +8 has perhaps 150HP which seems more than enough for the trad lay-out, though the later EFI cars no doubt have more, some much more, given the desire to modify one`s Morgan used to be THE accepted pastime for any Morganeer worth his salt...?

I have no real idea of the customer base of Morgan today, let alone what it might be in the future. I suspect in times past Baby Boomers grew up under the influence of a make do and mend culture, thus there was a good many of us out there looking for a sports car that could be maintained with simple tools and skills and could perform well. Whether by accident or design despite the archaic design Morgans could over quite a number of years give many a more modern sports car quite a fright.

I have memories of being overtaken by a 993 some years ago, it was equipped with a roll bar and had a rather loud exhaust, the country road was very open in places no houses only sheep to watch out for.... and yes that 993 owner was very surprised... (-: He did not spend as much time with a wheel or four off the ground, but in that particular situation the Morgan rattled and shook over the undulations and through the bumps, whereas the Porsche driver would I expect feel far less involved in the process than did I. Though perhaps more involved than he might have been before he overtook..(-:

I suspect the new CX Morgans will have much "improved" suspension and more sophisticated handling when compared with a TRAD, and thus may better handle a bit more HP with relative ease compared to a TRAD. However..such is evolution, that I suspect a CX will perhaps still provide a measure of RAW driving pleasure in comparison with the sophistication of a modern day 911, with perhaps it`s 400 or more horse Power to help keep it on the straight and narrow...... Perhaps relativity plays it`s part yet again when making sports car comparisons..?

The old Plus 8 might have had only 150 hp but it probably had heaps of torque for real world use.

My two pennyworth....

All CX cars will have BMW power plants. I believe the CX chassis was developed specifically to take BMW power units.

I agree, the next car will most probably have the B48 motor and a manual box. It could be a stunning vehicle.

I suspect there will be smaller engined cars, based on the 3 Cylinder B38, possibly one with a hybrid package.

I look forward to a small, light car on the CX chassis.

I'm not going to bet against you Peter

[align:right][/align] Whilst the new cars are likely to be improved in almost all measurable way I think there will be 2 big issues:

The current cars have an old chassis and hence an old feel which is an attraction in many ways. Most of our everyday cars are faster, better handling, more economical than Morgan’s but they are less special to drive. The current feel is unique I suspect the new one will be much better but less special.

In addition the new cars will be far more complex which is not an issue for the first few years but will it be possible to keep a new one running easily in 15 years? Will the current cars be the last car which could be considered a self maintainable classic. I find I like driving my plus4 more than I did when I first bought it. How many other cars are like that.

When it comes to management of fuel injection and ignition I think there will always be the possibility of keeping a car or bike on the road because, if a replacement OEM ECU is not available, it will always be possible to fit an alternative. The problem becomes much more complex when you factor in ABS and traction control, specific electronic instruments etc. When some of these parts are no longer available the car becomes a museum piece. It is in the nature of limited production cars that you can't just go to your nearest breaker yard and pick up a second hand part.

So I agree, it will be very difficult for modern cars and bikes to be still usable as a classic vehicle in 30 years time. By then I will be 103 so probably won't be all that worried about it.

Just idle thoughts Peter, but if the firmware that ECU/BCU's use is saved, which costs virtually nothing, then won't there be a market for specialist companies to offer re-engineered components using future hardware. Even reverse engineering may be possible by then. Either way this would future proof virtually any potential classic car of small or large production.

Does anyone know how much the PlusSix weighs ?

Kerb weight 1075 Kg.

Not a lot.... various figures quoted, but it seems that they are less than 1000kg.
The Aero Chassis Plus 8 was, when I had it weighed, 1240kg with fuel, oil and "car junk" on board.

I agree with the obsolescence issue but wonder if it does really need to be this way. I am going to say that the motor industry is more than happy to ensure that the tin dies so they can sell more. Not deliberate or evil but not really interested in long term eco-liability. They use all the resources and energy to build something then if true eco-honesty was in your heart then you would architect it to be around longer.

I can put a modern SSD disc in a 15 year old computer in 3 minutes. Given the computer industries rate of advancement is around 5 times the car industries (I am making that up a bit) this is quite significant.

I am going to guess a few of us remember the BBC B, Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum as the first massive wave of home computers. Well they were a while back now but the good thing is Moores Law allows modern hardware and computing to emulate them easily. You can go on line and download a MAME (https://stardot.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10942) which runs as a program in your PC. It is a bit like opening word as an application. Once you are in it you are using a BBC B to all intents. You can now load Galaxians and have fun at 640x256 resolution like you did before you had chin hair.

Apply this to a car. It cannot be that hard. It just requires the motivation and market. You have a decently powered computer and hardened O/S and you run a MAME emulator of the OEM computers in a car. There has to be a market for this in the future. The code is available from the OEM vendors. All they would need to do is say "I am not going to make it anymore and so I make it royalty free and publish it here" It removes legal issues. It permits someone to build a MAME using the original parameters which is vital for the ABS/ESD etc funcitons of the other components.

How else is MadMax going to happen in the future.

Hawki, from my forum I.D. you may guess that I think similarly to you in terms of technological advance relative to adding complexity to management of vehicular systems..?

I ever prioritised self reliance when it came to the ability to maintain and repair my recreational vehicle, in fact all my vehicles right up till the time when digitisation made inroads in a way that restricted access to aspects of it`s fuelling system`s operation and control, and that was many years ago... I stuck with fuel injection right up to K Jetronic, but after that threw the towel in and re-set my priorities for a fun car for the reasons similar to those you suggest. The idea of breaking down or failing to start as the result of who knows what, certainly held no appeal.

I remember perhaps in the 70`s when what were up till then simple fixings on engines etc. began to appear requiring "special" tools to fit them. These fixings created in the manufacturers hope that it would restrict the DIY brigade from performing their own maintenance. I suspect when EFI initially appeared, the manufacturers could not believe their luck in the increased ability it provided to restrict DIY access..

Admittedly gone are the days when the only way to interrogate a digital system was through a main dealer only held software/hardware system. Things moved on a tad with OBDII connectivity and hand held scanners becoming available to the general DIY brigade allowing a means of interrogating the software for fault codes generated as the result of hardware issues. In time Digital systems moved on to then more up to date kit whereby fault codes can be reset or values on some hardware changed through DIY software interfaces and even with the push of a button jump over to a different software programme for performance as opposed to economy or whatever other priorities may be desired...? Yup all very clever indeed... and extremely efficient, until it fails to start, or run reasonably as the result of perhaps just one corroded connection in a wiring harness made up of just how many connections..????

Fault codes are wonderful and can point you in the approximate direction, but they can cause confusion too, even for a logical thinker with a sound mechanical grounding on the basics of an internal combustion engine and much else mechanical that comes together to create a vehicle.... A store full of expensive spares that can be swapped about has oft times been used to determine the source of a fault in the real world of repairing machinery today.

Then of course we come up against obsolescence, and in systems digital... that can come about much more rapidly than ever before, but with a bit of luck you might be able to rip out the old system perhaps even using some of the harness to connect up a new series of sensors to the latest type of ECU...Assuming the machine in question is worth the expense or bother...?

Given any of the above is it any wonder that few folk are hands on with their Morgans as the average Morganeer of the past, sure there will always be those who will enjoy messing with the digital variables and modern mechanicals... even the odd Baby Boomer, but they will become fewer by the day.... call it a mix of technological evolution and expected human lifespan..(-:

Putting all the technological advance to one side it does seem that although a CX Morgan is so very different to a TRAD, it is still a Morgan, perhaps just as a M3W is still a TRIKE, and also very different from the original machine in terms of the technology involved..?

If you read my earlier ramble on this thread, I suspect my conclusion was that a CX Morgan is a wonderful machine and as different to it`s sports car counterparts today as my carb fed +8 Morgan was when it was new in the mid 80`s... Thus that essence which is that a Morgan may still be so very different, seems to still exist in spades...? Just that the number of dirty finger-nailed spanner wielding Morganeers will have all but died out.

Jeez I suspect it may be possible for a "mechanic" to serve an apprenticeship never having seen an engine taken apart and repaired other than in Technical college...? Sealed for life everything equates to unit replacement to the extent that "technicians" replace ever larger units with little understanding of the operation of the units internals, be that circuit boards, or gear boxes... it is a whole brave new world out there...?

As Gambalunga (Peter) typed, gone are the days of those like me were crawling under old cars in the oil polluted mud of scrap yards stripping parts off wrecked cars to keep our old cars on the road, though I do think that there will be a variation of that for digital kit of all types on fleabay etc.etc.

Long term, I think the internal combustion engine has had it`s day, and IF the future is electric, then hopefully the perceptional difference in whatever Morgan exists, will still seem RAW and involving compared to whatever other sports cars might be available at that time...?

ME..? I have no desire for the "sophistication" of a digitally reliant Morgan or the stiffer CX chassis configuration with it`s more compliant suspension and the large number of horses crammed under it`s bonnet, the whole Vintage aspect of what a TRAD Morgan WAS is that which I bought into and enjoyed over a number of years, touring around Southern Europe and here at home. With some selected spares and tools on board I was pretty confident that I would have a good chance of repairing any of the well known "foibles" a Morgan might present.... With flexing chassis, greasing suspension and occasionally loosening nuts and bolts my Morgan`s vintage aspects required a measure of pilot involvement that might be expected of a Vintage car, but it`s Engine, drive train, and electrics and fortunately it`s brakes were far from Vintage.... Though compared to the CX,... well perhaps they are...Evolution is a very important aspect of survival is it not..?

TODAY`s young Morgan buyer may well think that a CX is VERY old school in a similar way as did I some years back when I was younger and thought a Morgan would suit my ideals perfectly at the time..

Just thinking in type....

I'm perplexed by the desire for absolute maximum possible performance. If you live in a town you're in a traffic jam from the end of your road to wherever you're going.
If you live in the country there's always a horse or a cyclist or a Nissan Micra just around the bend. I can't drive anywhere near as fast as I used to. Roads between me and the next market town have all had speed limits lowered so I can't even get a move on at clear straight b roads. My journey times have increased massively.
For me, the joys of Morgan driving are no longer in speed but in the things that are being phased out. Hard suspension, level cornering, twisting chassis - I really like it when I feel the body twist. My 2014 4/4 is actually less useful than my 1986 one was as it's so low. I used to drive my 86 up fields on days out.....I can't do that in my 2014 model. The seating isn't quite as nice in my modern one, the steering wheel is too far away........
I'm just wondering what on earth has happened......or is it just me......got old. I don't think it is that as the things above are true aren't they?

I'm thinking of going back to a 70s car perhaps.......tell me why not someone....help

Grumpy rainy day Nick

I think your point re enjoying the traditional experience is why it would be mad for Morgan to ONLY make CX based models in the near future. You can have a lower power/cyl/tax CX using a BMW 4cyl turbo to make it more accessible but it would not appeal to the people who want the experience not the power and handling. I did not really get that when I first bought the Aero S2. The trads did not make sense to me as I grew up on GTi's and R5GT Turbos so was all about the whizz, over time I understood.

I think there are places for both, CX Plus4 or what ever they choose to call it and Trad +4 etc. There is a degree of irony around the Trad already having outlasted the Aero which was meant to replace it. 911 and 928/968 anyone. Will the Trad outlast the CX Plus6 or is the Trad really triggers mop so it's cheating. (for those not bought up under the regime of English Humour - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE)

I wonder the same thing. I enjoy tinkering and older cars can be tinkered with, but I also like a car that works unlike a Honda S600 I had years ago that needed 100 hours tinkering to get one hour of use before it broke down with some other issue. I enjoy driving and the older the car the more involving the drive is. But as you say you can't drive fast any more, in town there are speed bumps and lower speed limits everywhere, one road I enjoyed driving on had a 100kph speed limit, the road was resurfaced and had extra wide verges put along it making it much safer but the speed limit was dropped to 80kph. In the country or anywhere near a patch of grass there are potential Kangaroos wanting to write your car off. Last time I renewed my insurance I was informed my city has the highest number of kangaroo accidents in Australia which doesn't surprise me, last night there was three of them in my driveway.

But will a 1970's car bring the fun driving back or are the roads too speed bumped etc. to ever enjoy again regardless.

Last year when I thought I had the finances to almost afford a Morgan but could get an Australian Frontline Abingdon edition style of MGB for similar price with the Omex engine I hired an old MGB just to see what I thought of it. I enjoyed the day and the car kept up with the traffic but a different feel to the one Morgan I had been in or a MX5 or my Nissan. The MGB got to the speed limit but didn't feel fast getting there where the Morgan, MX5 and my car all have enjoyable feeling acceleration. I had fun but I think I enjoy my car more, convertible with hard suspension and level cornering plus the rush of the turbo powered engine.

There is also the environment. If you compare your 2014 4/4 to a car from the 1970s you are probably comparing 50mpg to 25mpg plus that 50mpg is with a catalytic converter meaning a lot less other nasty gases in the air. I would assume the 4/4 with modern fuel injection to probably be a huge improvement regarding air quality. Would anyone actually know what is the difference of stuff that comes out of the exhaust of say a 1970 MGB to a 2014 4/4? I think it would be interesting to know and expect a lot, if not then then go for it otherwise that can be your reason to not go back to a 70's car.

I'm with you on this. But since I don't believe that MMC will continue to build a time machine parallel to the CX, I appreciate my beloved 4/4 more every day!

In addition to the value and fun that the car has meant to me from the beginning, there is a certain emotional value of uniqueness and transience.
Until a year ago it was always that way that I thought a great experience such a 4/4, and if something goes wrong, I just buy a new one (as long as it financially fits).
Those days are over.

If we are going to speculate about a possible 2 litre BMW engined CX car we might as well speculate about the other engine in the BMW modular series. It goes 1.5 litre 3 cylinder, 2.0 litre 4 cylinder, and 3.0 litre 6 cylinder. So far we have seen, and only know for sure that the 3.0 litre 6 cylinder version is being installed in the CX series cars. We can speculate about a 2.0 litre 4 cylinder version but there is nothing to stop them utilisingtthe 1.5 litre 3 cylinder engine as a perfectly valid entry point car to replace the current 4/4.

There is a version of the B38 which offers 100 kW (134 bhp) at 4,400–6,000 rpm and torque of 220 N⋅m (162 lb⋅ft) at 1,250–4,300 rpm.

Note the torque. It is more than the GDI Plus 4 but starts at a little above idle. In the real world that would probably give better acceleration than the current Plus 4 (even after the re-map) so it would give quite satisfying performance.

Of course the B38 is also available as a hybrid version but that is another story.

The Trads meet a particular need and customer demographic.
Regulations may stop MMC from selling new Trade, but they can re-manufacture tired older Trads and sell "as new".
I suspect this will happen, under the Aero Racing Business, at some point as the CX chassis cars move across the product range.

I understand that there are two reasons why the trad is (largely) protected from new regs, the first is the Low Volume Exemption rules and the second is that they normally only apply to new models?

Brian,

if that is so then they can continue. Good news.

That gets them some leeway but there are some regulations that can not be avoided. I am not sure exactly what it was, I think it related to child safety, but some regulation saw the end of the 4 seaters. The other regulations that can not be avoided relate to the ever more strict polution categories, the current being Euro 6d-Temp which became compulsory for all new vehicle registrations from 1 September 2019.

The other little issue which could impact on small volume manufacturers could be the lowering of the number of vehicles that can be manufactured in a year or, for Morgan, the desire to increase the volume of vehicles produced per annum. Some exemptions apply to manufacturers who sell less than 1,000 vehicles per annum in the EU.

PS. The next step in Euro homologation is Euro 6d which will be compulsory for all new vehicle registrations from 1 January 2021

My understanding is that Morgan intend to increase production significantly which would also link into a move to a modern platform which will meet the new regulations. I guess Morgan has to make a choice between moving with the times or becoming increasingly niche. Both directions have risks but given the choice I think they are making the correct one to be sustainable as a business.

It would make sense. They need to recover the investment in the chassis which is a volume related action. The cost of integrating the engine/car electronics means that the smaller BMW engines make most sense and are good engines. The aero production numbers were too small to be profitable in a real sense I would imagine. Also keeping the number below (1500?) a set point keeps them out of serious costs for certification and testing so they have room to increase it quite a lot from Aero numbers.

It would be a shame if they did not produce an Aero version in all engine configurations. The blend of modern and trad in all the past Aero models is obviously attractive to many buyers but the past concentration on the big V8 has excluded many potential buyers, particularly in markets that penalise high CO2 emmisions or high powered cars.

I wonder if the eventual aim is to have two body styles, trad and Aero, with 3 engines options (1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 litre) plus a hybrid version.

Quote.... "I'm thinking of going back to a 70s car perhaps.......tell me why not someone....help

Grumpy rainy day Nick"


Nick, I suspect I should be the last person on this forum to advise against turning the clock back to a time when technology was such that individuals could equip themselves with the knowledge and general understanding of how best to use a few tools in order to have some level of confidence that they could maintain and possibly repair their chosen mode of fun transport.... The world has moved on, and some like me think unfortunately so, but then I am but an old duffer...(-:

It seems self reliance may not be valued as it once was thought to be, though some folk are still giving it their best shot despite the rate of change which seems set to try to confound any such attempts. It seems kit is neither designed or constructed at a human level, more likely to be digitally designed and constructed robotically, and as such replacement rather than repair when it fails becomes the accepted process...? The tools and perhaps more importantly skills that humans used to construct the world around us are perhaps fast becoming useless..?

So Nick, unless you are of the dirty fingernail variety of beings, perhaps better to accept that the kind of Morgan that has been available in more recent years and may yet be capable of repaired by others with access to interrogation and parts, might be a better fit for today`s Morganeer...?

I suspect our priorities may be defined relative to our passage through life which can be time specific. As a baby boomer, I grew up influenced by the make do and mend generation. I have a great admiration for craftsmanship, as it exists in many forms, and it took a while for me to note that the more I aged, the more I appreciated the levels of craftsmanship that seemed to be disappearing, and had in fact almost reached the stage of being lost. My interests in all things mechanical began to drift from the latest and greatest, to appreciate the more hand crafted, and in motoring terms that drew me towards a growing appreciation of vintage machinery, preferably large and of the sporting variety, though I have a soft spot for Austin Sevens and derivatives thereof..(-:

On returning to m/cycling in my spare time, having abandoned my iconic branded sports car that seemed to create FAR more envy more than appreciation, I came across a vintage Bentley being thoroughly enjoyed by it`s pilot as it hopped and skipped along a wonderful stretch of quiet countryside Tarmac, following it for a few miles caused me to think that the Bentley would seem to be the epitome of desire in terms of a vehicle to enjoy occasional runs in the countryside...?

Apologies to those who may have read this more than once, but coming across that old Bentley caused me to contemplate an alternative that more fitted the realities of my requirements... It did not take long before most of that which I prioritised at that time was thought to be found in a Morgan.... CRAFTSMANSHIP.... hand formed panels, coach-built techniques dating back to the earlier days of wheeled transport, but with a measure of sporting performance, all be it a tad more RAW than that which I had become used to in my previous chosen sports car priorities... M/cycling had pressed my priority re-set key some years earlier, but at the time in question a Morgan would seem to provide a more comfortable option for my cold legs and stiffening mussels though still retaining a high degree of INVOLVEMENT from the pilot as was witnessed when following the Bentley...I consider myself to have been most fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity as it was found to still exist in a Morgan, and in my case mid 80`s +8, all be it taken apart circa Y2K by an enthusiast/craftsman with the idea of improving upon the original build quality in the hope of extending it`s preservation... which today seems to have paid benefits..(-:

So there you go Nick, just a very personal insight to the evolution in MY thought processes which may or may not match any one else`s set of ideals.. I suspect an old Mog like an old dog, requires a particular type of owner...?

The more modernity built into a Morgan the less and less it suits my personal ideals. Of course the marketing men will still try to apply some aspect of imagined craftsmanship to the end product, though I suspect since JHJ`s visit to the factory suggesting automation would create a more efficient and modern production line, the after effect of which has in time likely reduced the level craftsmanship required to some degree, that plus all of the many additional and increasing complexities demanded of manufacturing processes in the car industry would seem to determine a measure of change in the end product..?

That the MMC can turn out a sports car that still contains initial 1930`s visual appeal, is something to be grateful for, and it seems a bit like every Morgan ever built, it will hopefully have the capability of providing a high degree of involvement to pilot it, when compared to the product of more advanced automation in both the production and drive-ability of it`s nearest sports car rivals, which these days seem to leave or indeed NEED so much of the input relative to progress on the road to be decided upon digitally by an ECU....?

Advantages in digitisation...? Most definitely.... If you can grab forty winks while the car drives it`s self through congestion till you reach the open road, why not, BUT that does not fit with my present and very personal automotive fun ideals, though it seems that something along these lines is very likely in the not too distant future..? Perhaps a future where my old +8 may be legislated off the road, all be it hopefully in stages as opposed to a blanket ban....Till then, like much else perhaps best to enjoy what you can while you can...?

Sorry if this ramble is considered to be a tad off topic, but I Nick did ask...?

Just thinking in type

Well that says it all, doesn't it.

Lets not be too hasty, this was posted on FB yesterday by an American site so not necessarily the same for rotw New England Morgan

We all feel the end of new Classic build is approaching but nothing has been confirmed by the MMC as far as I'm aware, and we know there are a number of Roadster engines at the factory so we wait and see.

It would be nice if they could continue on a limited annual production to maybe keep them under some of the legislation.
This would also retain the skills within MMC to carry on repairing of the Classic line, we shall have to wait and see.

It would be an odd way to do business, not to have a special order facility to bang a trad out on demand.

Or even to do a limited run of say, fifty 4/4's, or remaster old trads...…..if MMC don't do it, somebody will.

If this is true you can expect a "Limited" series to be announced to finish the last of the engines and parts.

That's what I would do...………….but maybe that's what the 110's are.

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring

This amended version has just been released

I think they will do an expensive limited edition like they did for the final run of v8s. They must know that some of their client base will pay a premium for the last chance to buy a brand new trad Morgan whilst they still can.

Even more expensive limited edition you mean.
For the life of me I can't work out why they don't fit a compliant engine and carry on with the 4/4 as a trad there is demand worldwide and it needn't be too costly after all everything is in place, and really these are the cars that the punters line up to see being built at Pickersleigh road, as an aside I met a nice gentleman yesterday who has owned Morgan's since 1965.

Whilst there’s quite a few compliant engines available, MX5 maybe (?), MMC would have still have to then go through the type approval thingy all over again at a cost of £££££££££.

They think removing a few exclamation marks and replacing the "End of the traditional Chassis" with "in 2019" justifies "which MAY have been misleading". I think that qualifies for understatement of the year. I think it is very misleading, unless it is news that was not supposed to be announced.

I was at the Australian Morgan Muster in October 2018 talking to both Chris Van Wyk (Australian Dealer) and Steve Morris. I queried was it possible to order a 110 Plus 4 and pick it up in 2020 as my wife could not get any leave in 2019 and I liked the idea of seeing my car being made. From what they both said under the impression as long as I ordered a car in 2019 I would get the free upgrades in the 110 spec and the car could be built in 2020 based on production slots, however if I couldn't get the timing to work out with both saving finances and my wife's leave a plus 4 in 2020 would still be available but I would miss out on the 110 options. Steve didn't disagree but added that later in 2019 there will be more exciting news to come from Morgan for me to consider - he was probably talking about the Plus 6 but wouldn't elaborate any more apart from saying no to my query about an electric Plus 4. Of course that was prior the I am going to be a grandfather so buying another house instead of a car news. So it doesn't matter but if that is what I had organised and then found the factory shut while my car was being made I would have been grumpy.

Assuming that what I was told about any car ordered in 2019 can be a 110 model and now the news of no more orders for 2019 is the answer simply that MMC don't want to make more cars with the 110 options? Which seeing how late in the year it is seems quite reasonable as I expect they will probably still be making cars with 110 options in early 2020.

The other option is that the 110 model with the good inclusion list was supposed to use up stock of remaining chassis, engines etc.to help clear the way before the "End of the traditional Chassis" actually happens.

Ha ha

Looks like someone cocked up

I didn’t believe it anyway
I’m sure the trad Plus 4 will be available at least to next year which is possibly why the new CX Mog is going to branded a 4/4

Mrs FT has just said (and I quote): “It would make sense to get a new type Morgan because I could drive it then”. She currently struggles with no power steering and the heavy clutch.

It is rude to keep a lady waiting FT get in there now and order one

Some of the "experts" on here are saying it will be a Geneva launch for the Plus Four so you'll be top of the list..

Autocar is a good Magazine for announcements from the Morgan Factory,,they seem to have a good working relationship.

Exciting times ahead..

Let the guessing game begin on engine choices !!!!!!!

Ford from the smaller Mustang.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/morgan-ditches-traditional-ladder-chassis-next-gen-frame

Pretty much as expected including the "special" limited series of the final Plus 4. I don't know why they bother to keep the engine "secret" as it is fairly obvious it will be a BMW. Interestingly they specify a manual gearbox but I would expect auto as an option because some markets, China for example, demand an auto.

Question: will they also release a 3 cylinder version at Geneva?

Peter - I agree a Plus Four - would surely have a BMW engine.

A 3 cylinder engine - in any car does nothing for me, wrong on all levels (I am an engineer - and hate the thought of imbalance!)

Manual 'box !

Interesting comment re the 3 cylinder engine.

I’m not in any way saying you’re wrong (I’m not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination) but I always thought that a triple with a 120 degree crank gave perfect primary balance? Laverda used to claim this when they launched the 120 Jota....

Re stopping the ladder chassis, well, I’m not surprised really especially given the other comments here. It was however interesting that the R and D is being taken off site, I’d not seen that one coming! (Just due to cost of setting it up elsewhere).

Is it a sad day when ladder chassis production stops? Certainly on one level, but the company must move with the times. I see it as as big a watershed as when Porsche changed from air cooled to water cooled engines in the 911. The older models are still highly sought after yet the water cooled cars have always sold well despite the cries of “heresy” at the time.

Good luck to the factory I say, but boy am I glad I’ve got my trad - which I don’t see parting with!

MMC Facebook :


NEWS: In yet another significant announcement for our 110th year, we are excited to reveal that new models on our CX-Generation aluminium platform will be launched in 2020. New models will feature smaller engines than the 3.0 litre inline six cylinder found in the Plus Six, and we can confirm that there will be a manual transmission within the range.

The introduction of these new models will mark the end of Morgan using the traditional steel frame chassis, a variation of which has featured in Morgan models since 1936. We look forward to celebrating the significance of the traditional steel frame chassis as the final models roll off the production line in 2020.

As we continue to create Morgan sports cars for the 21st century, the introduction of the CX-Generation aluminium platform across our core range is hugely exciting.

Well the factory is definitely making decisions and moving things forward. I am surprised by the decision to totally can the trad chassis as the trad driving experience does seem to be a very large part of it for many of the people on the board. I guess future markets are what will keep them all in employment moving forwards and at some point they had to make a decision. The second hand market just got a boost then!

Of the recent 3 cyl cars I have driven a couple have actually sounded quiet nice (Mini, Ford) but been a little gutless and clearly living on their turbo for low down torque. They make a more fruity noise and feel more fun as you do have to drive them to get the best from them. In a light car I think they would do quite well but in a modern bloaty super-mini they felt a little overworked and gave poorer economy than a good four as a result.

Maybe not the best day to do the announcement if they wanted any other coverage given the feckless crap in the press otherwise!

Given they bought the M3W back after XX years any of us looking to buy a Trad in the future just have to wait a little longer for the re-introduction of the Trad chassis again?

I wonder if a 'CX' aluminium type platform will be developed to replace the space frame construction of the M3W...

and a fourcylinder engine?

Without a doubt. If they are clever they will not go for the most powerfull engine available as such an engine would put it too close to the PlusSix and also, in some countries, move it into a higher tax bracket. It is, after all, the low to midrange torque that really equates to exciting performance in a road car.

Regarding three cylinder engines I have owned and ridden a fair number of Laverda in both 180° and 120° crank versions. I absolutely loved the 180° crank engine in the 1200 Mirage. It purred like a cat and growled like a tiger when you opened the throttle. There was some vibration but it was not unpleasant. My passenger at that time seemed to quite like it too

Even the three cylinder VAG diesel has an alluring engine note. There's something about a three......

Turbo4 from the mini cooper

Totally agree Robbie.

The BMW 4 pot engine (in basically the same format) puts out 180 to 306HP. John Cooper Works MINI's (the new ones) have been tuned to over 480HP.

I had a 3 cylinder Triumph Daytona Motorbike 955cc. Yes a great noise, however, the VWG lump in SWMBO's car is very rough IMHO.

I would assume the final Plus 4 to be ladder Chassis with GDI engine and apart from the badges on the side and the headrest stitching for this to be very similar to the 110 model Plus 4? It will be interesting to see what the price is compared to the 110 Plus 4.

It will be a great opportunity for MMC to maximise profit whilst soaking up the remaining ladder chassis parts. Bet they are left with loads of imperial nuts and bolts though
As for final Plus 4, if true what are they going to call the four pot CX chassis replacement

Peter - it’s only the final Plus4 on the ladder chassis - no reason to bin the name from going forward on the new CX chassis cars. Look at some of the tin top car names— the corolla, for instance bears no resemblance whatever to the 1970’s cars now but the name carries on.

Cheers!

Erm, PlusForCX (may the forks be with you)

I’d like to think that they will continue with the Plus 4 name. Continuity of name is important where there is brand loyalty. As mentioned above, the only real difference is that the chassis has changed, albeit I recognise that this makes it a fundamentally different car beneath the skin. But as far as the prospective new customer is concerned they are likely to be a different demographic, younger, used to driving better handling cars with less “niggles” and would expect the new CX Morgan to offer a similar experience.
So, the new CX model, if indeed it had four cylinders, should, IMHO, be named the new Plus 4.
I look forward to this model much more so than the Plus 6, as I would always wish to have a manual gearbox. I have a John Cooper Works Mini Cooper with a 6 speed manual box and I just love driving it every time I get into it. It delivers, for me, that essential interaction with the car which an automatic box can never do. I am less interested in the speed of change up when accelerating fast as I am about timing the change, making that decision as a function of using all my senses, particularly engine noise, and striving for that optimum combination of hand and feet movement, with the objective of completing the change with the smoothest possible result such that my wife doesn’t fully appreciate just how fast we are going!
Another reason I am looking forward to the new model is that I might be interested in possibly buying one, depending on price of course. Having spent over £60k for my lovely Roadster, and more money since then improving it, it will be a very big decision for me as I do love my car. But, I am not so much in love that I would rule out changing if the new model (assuming 4 pot manual) can give me similar thrills as the Porsche Boxster I used to own.
Finally, I have PLU 4S on retention certificate and whilst it is currently on offer for sale, if I end up owning a new CX Plus 4 then I have the perfect plate! In fact, thinking about it now, I may take the plate off the market until I see and test drive the new model!
Happy days!

On the assumption that the CX chassis is a fixed cost & the interior, electronics, dash, instruments, bla-bla, and assembly labour cost will be very similar to the PlusSix, then I can't see how they can retail the new 4/4 or PlusForCX for much less than £70k, that's serious money for the entry model

You may well be right in which case it will probably rule me out. But if price is too much I will still have my lovely Roadster to enjoy!

In business a cost is a fact * but a price is a decision. The two are only loosely related. You charge what you can get.

* well it is a fact until you challenge the beancounters and then facts get changed into other facts.

I have to agree with Howard.

In my business life we set prices at a point that we felt would give us optimal volume, without much regard to cost. But I was lucky, we worked with GP% between 85% and 95%.
MMC priced the Plus 6 based on expectation from the pricing of the Aero chassis cars, I'll bet they are very profitable.
As they move down to 4/4 and hybrids the volumes will increase, even if the unit profit per car falls, so total profitability will remain strong.

And yes, the beancounters live in their own world, allocating cost based on where it looks best, rather than any form of reality.