Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Morgan Photo Gallery Morgan Classic Model ground clearances

There has been considerable discussion and interest on the question of Morgan Classic ground clearance (measured at the lowest part of the undercarriage, usually the cross member or sump).

After a two year battle with Morgan to fix my non compliant car and with the help of our Federal Department of Infrastructure I finally extracted the attached formal statement on Morgan letter head.

I had two problems, 1) the car was not ADR compliant i.e. minimum 100mm clearance, and: 2) It had a significant chassis "lean" from new (30mm plus down on the driver’s side).

The Morgan statement was interesting as it finally confirmed what the specified ground clearance was supposed to be (many post 2006 Australian cars were well short) but I was stunned learn that a 22mm difference measured at the chassis under the rear wheels was OK! –Based on tolerances of the Land Rover range - Really.

What the suspension of a light weight Morgan sports car has to do with an off road vehicle twice the weight and 3 times the ground clearance I’m blowed if I know.

But I quote an accompanying email from the Australian distributor and “Rest of the World” Dealer of the year, 2011- 2012.

“December 2013
The Morgan Motor Company confirms that the ground clearance should be 100 mm or more.
Regarding the difference in ride height side to side, I was previously verbally advised that 25 mm is within tolerance, (I understand this is also the case for the Land-Rover Defence range) however, I now understand that this acceptable tolerance for Morgans is 22 mm.
It should be noted that both the Morgan and the Land-Rover use leaf springs at the back, where due to the basic design of such a spring, such tolerances are normal.”

Someone has been standing too close to the glue pot I think....

A battle well won.

I am astonished that the tolerance side to side is 22mm given the extremely limited travel available due to the design of the Morgan chassis.

According to some information that I have the unloaded camber of the springs should be about 115mm and the loaded camber 10mm. Since the spring certainly should not invert by even as much as the unloaded camber 22mm probably represents at least 10% of the maximum travel, bump and rebound, available. More importantly it probably represents at least 25% of the available bump travel on a loaded car!

I have thought of a reasonable method to compare static height position of the rear springs. Making measurements at the spring itself is not easy and I had been trying to work out a way of having a comparative measurement that could be done with the vehicle on the ground and that is not dependant on different wheel and tyre sizes and pressures.

We can measure the distance from the centre of the wheel nut to the floor, then measure the vertical distance between the underside of the chassis rail and the floor. Assuming that the height of the chassis rails and shackles etc are the same on all cars (probably a foolish assumption) we can deduct one from the other and get a relative ride height that is not dependant on different wheel and tyre sizes and pressures. Obviously this is then going to vary dependant on fuel load, and weight of the spare wheel etc. At least recording these figures would give a reasonable basis for before and after spring change comparisons and comparisons between similar models fitted with different springs. It could also be useful for comparing ride height unloaded to loaded.

On my car (no load) 2 years ago.
Radius of the 195/60 R15 tyres, measured hub centre to floor, averaged to 292 mm I did not worry about pressure but it was probably about 24 psi. It is not really important for this calculation. There was 2 mm difference between left and right.

The height of the lower chassis rail was average 174 mm (there was 2 mm difference due to the tyres, in other words the springs were amazingly equal)(nb: this was with new 5 leaf springs fitted to replace the 4 leaf springs under warranty)

By deducting the 174 from 292 we get 118 mm which is the height difference between the centre of the axle and the bottom of the chassis rail.

Interesting thread. My 4/4 looks plumb level when viewed from front and rear. A simple measurement at the back to the bottom of the body, also shows just 3mm difference. However, if you measure from the top of the rear tyres to the lower edge of the rear wheel arches, there is a 13mm difference between each side!!

Not too fussed though and not even sure why I bothered to check it in the first place.

Maybe Aussie-spec LR Defenders still use leaf springs. UK spec Defenders have coils, Series Three was last Landie on leaf springs. So the analogy is well-made but possibly wrong...?

Didn't the 6x6 Perentie use leaf springs at the rear? Could be totally wrong...

But a battle that should never have been fought.
An expensive exercise for Morgan that damaged reputation, customer confidence and industry respect in this country.

I think it is only fair.....and obvious.....to say that not all Australian Morgan owners, and indeed purchasers of more recent models, are unhappy with their vehicles or the service received from the factory and local distributor/dealer. As is often the case, the comments of a vocal few do not represent the views of the majority - despite representations to the contrary.

Hi Mark, Great to hear that all is well with your car and service.


A contrary view is always welcome on this forum - one of the great features of TM.

Just bear in mind, mine was by no means an isolated or the worst incidence of non compliance.

New cars across at least three states were affected along with other issues - and these are just the ones I know of.

By September 2013 the Australian distributor acknowledged to me that discussions regarding potential closure had commenced. Action was needed for all of us.