Something I wrote on TM some time ago and updated slightly:
Apart from the impact of track rod lengths on bump steer on a Morgan, one of the main limitations of the sliding pillar design is on cornering. The side forces generated in cornering tends to lock up the suspension and this is compounded by the stub axle flexing as well. Bumps encountered shock the stub axle up the pillar but the main spring cannot overcome the stiction to return the stub axle.
This trait is less of a handicap on a smooth race circuit than it is on the public highway. In any event, most sane people will not be generating the same side forces experienced on a track when driving on the public highway.
Another compromise with the Morgan suspension setup concerns roll centres. At the front with zero camber the front roll centre is at ground level; with negative camber it lies below the ground. At the rear, without panhard rod, the roll centre lies on the leaf springs; with panhard rod or anti-tramp bars, it lies slightly lower. In effect this means that under hard cornering, the rear inside wheel will lift although it's probably limited by the outside stub axle locking up due to the side forces.
A few years ago, David Rutherford was experimenting with a double wishbone front subframe for a Morgan that would replace the existing sliding pillar subframe. Although I saw the setup in the workshop, I have no knowledge of how it drove. Peter Mulberry and Librands have refined the setup further and are marketing it.
So in summary, a Morgan's sliding pillar suspension is an early 20th century solution to an early 20th century problem. Any improvement since then is probably as much due to advances in tyre and damper technology.
It's crude, harsh and inelegant it works after a fashion and is part of the Morgan cars character! Enjoy it!
