Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Bonk Goes The Suspension

Chapman strut does not actually require a drive shaft, there is a lower wishbone too so that his drive shaft did not take end load - as on first Elan. So at the front of a Morgan, but swiveling, thus nearly a MacPherson except no nasty ARB of course! PJB

Talking about options, why not the double half elliptic leaf springs from the DKW FA - had many advantages, my late father told me. Quote: "The suspension was as innovative as the transmission being independent using twin transverse leaf springs front and rear of the ladder type chassis" (http://www.lightauto.com/The%20returnofthetwin.html)

I agree. The modification of the sliding pillar system to bring it up to date is fine - not its replacement. That's a step to far.

I do agree

Also, call me a Luddite, but part of the love I have for my 4/4 is the fact that it needs to be looked after. King pins need to be greased, damper blades need cleaning and re-greasing. Doing these things makes the car run better and smoother. I like that input. It makes the 4/4 "my car".

Bud
__________
2003 - 4/4

In 1909 when H.F.S. Morgan adapted the concept of the sliding pillar suspension to his cars it was a brilliant solution to the problem of independent front suspension. The fact that it stood the test of time for the next 50 years is a credit to his inventiveness. By that time better solutions were appearing that functioned better and required less maintenance however Morgan has remained in a time warp. That is both the beauty and the defect of the Morgan.

I'll start by saying that my remarks refer to current and future models. Past models are what they are.

Many on this forum want to maintain the experience of a classic vehicle in its extreme state. The world has however moved on. We now have very much more powerful and efficient engines, better gearboxes and brakes. Emissions are now controlled by law hence fuel injection and computerised control systems. The Roadster, for example now has 300 HP but still has essentially the same suspension system as the 50s 4/4 that developed around 40 HP.

We are talking about a car that has a power to weight ratio of 300 bhp per ton, staggering acceleration, and can't get around a corner as fast as the average (competently driven) family sedan.

Yes it is a buzz to drive, yes it is a challenge, etc, etc. However I would suggest that most new buyers of a Morgan sports car are attracted by the form and style of the car, not the need for a hands on experience, others are prepared to put up with the idiosyncrasies to experience the pleasure of owning a modern classic but many turn away when they find out what Morgan ownership entails. In essence we are talking about cars that have electronic systems difficult or impossible for the ordinary person to service at home, and I suspect few younger buyers would even want to do so. How many of these prospective buyers would even want to own a grease gun?

When upgrading my prevoius plus 8 to 240bhp I made every possible improvement to both suspension and brakes. In my opinion the new Roadster needs a much improved platform to cope with 300bhp.

Peter & Martin make interesting points. I had not considered the handling issues of the high output engines, such as the Roadster; or the attraction to the younger buyer.
With the modest output of my 4/4, I had not experienced the issues that are being discussed. I really enjoy the handling of my car, predictable and fun, with easily induced over-steer.
As for the younger buyers, I am not qualified to comment; other than to observe that my younger friends who are petrol heads have Caterhams. They joke with me that a Morgan, no matter how fast, is in their words (and with some humour) "a car for old duffers"



Bud
__________
2003 - 4/4

Martin (Deano), fascinated by your improvements, can you recall what settings did you use in the dampers then? Did you experiment with bump & rebound ratios as well as high and low speed rates? How about main & rebound spring rates, did you manage to get the rebound really stiff and free of the hub; a lot of work was done on +8 front end 20 years ago by various owners in this area but details are now lost.
I would be interested to know the figures as I am trying to find out what others did years ago, as there if often nothing new in the world. Rising rate mains had been tried before SUPLEX of course by Maurice Owen (1980s) and Colin Musgrove (1990s?, did you try their springs or similar?
Hope you kept the details, love to find out what you did. Thanks in advance ~ PJB.

Hi PJB

Peter Mulberry assisted and not sure of the springs. Vented upgraded discs with bias control, front/rear Koni shocks with upright shocks outside the chassis at the rear, tramp bars, panhard rod, heavy duty reaction bars upper and lower front, negative camber front frame, lowered by 25mm, axle centralised, bonded alloy floor. Still very hard work to drive fast on poor surfaces when compared to the new plus 8.

Martin, thanks for that. Peter Mulberry tends (or at least used to when I discussed this with him) to set his main spring length to still get a compressed rebound to achieve a very high initial rate around 400 lb/inch - that's what he prefers; as opposed to the very low initial rate SUPLEX have achieved around 100 lb/inch that then stiffens up rapidly.
Dampers, I always puzzle about adjustable Konis as they only adjust in rebound. We have found at Bilsteins that one can away with very little low speed rebound damping at the front as the rebound spring absorbs/reflects a lot of the rebounding hub, then use bump damping to manage big bumps and any rebound from the rebound spring.
Things have moved on, albeit slowly - cheers PJB.