|
Forums34
Topics48,379
Posts813,562
Members9,215
| |
Most Online1,046
Aug 24th, 2023
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360
Learner Plates Off!
|
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360 |
There are some of us who no longer even feel the pebbles we run over! PJB
4/4 2.0 Zetec SSL front and rear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,013 Likes: 32
Charter Member
|
|
OP
Charter Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,013 Likes: 32 |
If you run over a coin in a Morgan, you're likely to end up in the Armco.  Just kidding.
+8 4.8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,440 Likes: 8
Has a lot to Say!
|
|
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,440 Likes: 8 |
Interesting this suspension stuff. I've just been reading some period road tests of Morgans.
The single point that struck me was that most of the journalists at that time (1960's and 1970's) seem to have a real respect and understanding of the Morgans and the ethos.
Despite that, and almost to a man, they plead for the company to improve the suspension as they feel it prevents the car from delivering it's full potential.
Another observation from those tests also struck a chord with me. I summarise - "The Morgan is a car that should be at it's most fun as a B road blaster but ironically actually performs best as a motorway cruiser". Reason - the suspension couldn't cope with B road surfaces. That was in the 1970's.
Fast forward 30+ years. The roadster has double the power and the suspension hasn't been developed at all.
Now the traditionalists may say it's heresy to carry out any modifications but Morgan have already changed virtually everything else on the car.
The main cornerstone of Morgans in the early days was simplicity, a car that any competent enthusiast could repair. That was thrown out at least twenty years ago and is now fading ever further into the distance. Modern Morgans require modern technology to diagnose and repair.
I would prefer to release the potential of my own car by enabling it to use the performance that is presently stifled by the limitations of the suspension.
Every single one of our respected traditional dealers will have been doing this for decades.
That's part of the Morgan Heritage too and the reason why no two Morgans are alike.
Very interesting post. The more debate I hear on this issue the more favourably I look on the suspension upgrade. As long as no character is lost from the car. But it begs the question - if Morgan have updated everything then why not the suspension. Malvern has shown that they will innovate where required - is there something about the traditional suspension set up that makes it better in the view of Morgan.
David
2020 Roadster 3.7 Dove Grey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360
Learner Plates Off!
|
|
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360 |
I quote from http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Morgan-Plus-8-Road-Test.htm First published Dec 1968. "The ride? Those concerned with modern suspension systems would no doubt cry from anguish or mirth, if driven fast over rough roads in the Plus-8. On really bad going the car seems to have no springs. In less bad roads it just jumps around and rattles. On main roads it floats along nicely. Trying hard on Welsh mountain passes the Morgan felt less safe than the Gilbern and I would think that a competition driver would lose time when the back-end bounced upwards and sideways and by the front-end suddenly going softish."! My comments - so the test driver noticed the falling regressive front rate of the rebound spring suddenly going free and the outer wheel dipping - but did not know why. Also the very high initial spring rate (with compressed rebounds) causing the front end to skitter wide. SOME OF THE NEW MORGANS STILL DO! Why? I tend to think that those at MMC actually prefer a hard stiff jittery ride for the cars, as that is what they have always known - there is still this myth that with a flexible chassis you can not have compliant suspension - but you can with a significant rising rate of course. The guys at MMC do not appear to drive owners' or suppliers' cars where the suspension has been sorted. OK they drove mine with SUPLEX/Bilstein and were impressed enough to try a kit themselves, they have the kit but..............still waiting. Mmmmmm! PJB.
4/4 2.0 Zetec SSL front and rear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 472
Learner Plates Off!
|
|
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 472 |
I totally agree with PJB/Mike. There shouldn't be any reason left for MMC to not develop the original suspension and they would keep their word at the same time. The rising rate suspension must be the 'much better' solution that Morgan (C.) said 'must come along' before they change the sliding pillar (hub) system.
-99 4/4, 1.8 Zetec, Indigo Blue, 2-seat, Suplex RS
-04 Citroen Pluriel, 1.6 Sensodrive, Met Orange
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 151
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,723 Likes: 151 |
Another question folks: if the "sliding pillar" suspension is so good why is it not fitted to the BMW V8 engined cars, and, more to the point why is it not fitted to the three wheeler? These days the market demands something better. Most modern cars have completely sealed systems that make a grease gun a thing of the past, service intervals are much longer, and people tend to take their cars to a dealer or workshop to have them serviced. A bit harsh but the vast majority of people don't want a car that can't handle as well as the "shopping trolley", has a harsh ride, and requires getting the hands dirty every few thousand kilometres. Clearly trad Morgan owners (self included) are the crazy exceptions. But I'm not so crazy that I don't want it to be better. I'm going with the Suplex solution because I am convinced that it offers the best solution to the present problem without completely, and expensively, changing the front end. For future models I really do think it is time Morgan developed a system similar to the Caterham with independent suspension and coil over shocks all round. Rant over 
Peter ![[Linked Image]](http://bradley.it/public_images/drive.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360
Learner Plates Off!
|
|
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360 |
So why not go to a MacPherson struts on the front, after all that is like a sliding pillar but with the lower end on a wishbone? These have the same stiction problems of bushes sliding on a pin, ok bigger surface areas and less off-set.
Also with the Morgan sliding pillar, why not use lip seals top and bottom of the hub, £2.00 GBP each and the grease stays in a lot longer, but MMC will not even do that - why? Just thoughts.....PJB.
4/4 2.0 Zetec SSL front and rear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009
Member of the Inner Circle
|
|
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,009 |
I've said it before....Morgan are not struggling for sales of Traditional cars, even in a recession, so why get rid of what is their heritage...the sliding pillar? Ok.....I do agree that it could be refined along the lines of what PJB suggests (NOT MacPherson strut though...god help us!).
Jays
Former Morgan owner. Gone but hopefully not forgotten!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360
Learner Plates Off!
|
|
Learner Plates Off!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 360 |
Jay, OK then a 'Chapman strut' at the front then, how about that? Mmmmm? PJB
4/4 2.0 Zetec SSL front and rear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 635 Likes: 10
Talk Morgan Regular
|
|
Talk Morgan Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 635 Likes: 10 |
A Chapman strut requires drive shafts. PJB, are you thinking FWD as well or 4 by 4?  Harald
+4 4-seater 2008 Squadron Blue
|
|
|
|
|
