Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Rover M/T Series +4

Finding in-depth information on the Austin-Rover engined +4 is surprisingly difficult I'm finding.

I'm current reading LJK Setright's original road test from June 1988 CAR and it is not particularly good reading. He cites the Rover 77mm SD1 gearbox as being the issue due to excessively long ratios.

In early 1989 he goes on to say that Morgan +4 was in his top ten of worst cars he drove in 1988. Quite damming.

I can find no further contemporary reviews for this particular model.

As a lifelong Rover fan (I worked within the dealers for a long time and I'm good friends with a Longbridge chassis engineer who was seconded to Morgan on numerous occasions) and given my modest budget, this is the model I'm looking to buy.

What were the changes to this model though out its lifespan as it went from M16 to T16 to the later heavily revised but unpublicised T16 (these are identified as having a coil pack rather than a traditional coil)?

Can the final drive ration be shorted?

Ledgerwood sold their long door +4 T16 in short order and BHM currently has one in stock. At 6'1" and the wrong side of 15 stone, I'd be looking at a long door example.

Thanks for reading my ramble. Steven

Just sold a 1981 +8 with sd1 gearbox, 17 years of fairly brisk use. No problems.

Hi Steven,
We have owned a 1990 Plus 4/ 4 seater ,22000 klm's for about 7 years now without any major issues, except it pings it's head off, (with no means of adjusting the timing).
I did fit a new knock sensor recently and that seems to have helped somewhat, and am now still experimenting with different brands of fuel-surprising what the variation in octane ratings (98 RON) is between suppliers.Octane increaser will be tried once I sort the fuel.
The issue we have in Aussie is that not many Rovers with that engine came here so spares are virtually non-existent- have to source from the UK;
another owner with a Plus 4 T16 engine had to send the processor back to the UK to get serviced as no-one had the software here.

Apart from that, the car performs well, having also had a 1975 +8, but there is no comparison in performance with the V8's torque.
The Plus 4 is a pleasant car to drive and just burbles along on long trips,
Can't really fathom as to what the comment about the g'box ratios is all about, guess it depends on what the car is to be used for-if for competition, then that may be different.
Happy Morganeering

Ross

I owned a 1992 plus 4 4 seater for 15 years and did about 85k miles in it. I sold it to my brother in law who has just sold it on after owning it for 10 years. It was one of the last of the M16 fitted cars. The comment on final drive ratio was common in the press at the time but I found no issue with gearbox ratios. As with most modern engines it was necessary to use the top end of the rev range if you wanted it to perform but there was enough torque at the bottom end for more relaxed but still lively motoring. If you calculate the effective ratios on the current plus 4 they are not very different to that one and everyone seems happy with the current one.

It did tend to pink in hot weather which was fixed by using higher octane fuel not a problem in the UK as it wasn't that hot that often.

AFAIK they didn't start making the long-door cars until 1997/8, and by 1999 they had stopped making Plus 4s (when they started again they were fitted with Ford engines), so you might find a long-door Rover car a bit hard to find.

Easiest way to shorten the overall gearing would be to go for a 4.1:1 differential. Not very cheap, though.

I used to subscribe to Car around that time. Dear old LJK was rather obsessed with Hondas at the time, using them as a yard stick. Given Hondas liked a good rev and produced all their power at the top end (like 8000-9000), such comparisons always seemed flawed to me. So I think I would ignore what he said back then...

I ran a 1997 T16 +4 for a year.
It was a long door model that came in in late 1997 for the '98 model year. It also had galvanised chassis, stainless steel bulkhead and inner wings - all things that came as standard on the long door models.
The gearbox by then was the Rover R380. Nice long 5th gear for easy cruising up motorways at legal speeds (or higher, ahem!), but the change between gears was not fast.
They do come up for sale, but you may be waiting for a while.
I only sold mine as it was the same width as a +8 and difficult to get down my narrow driveway to the garage.
They are a nice drive, plenty of torque low down and to that end somewhat quicker than my present 1.8 4/4.

Steven.
I had an 89 Plus four for a long time. Mark Adams worked on it in 2004 and, without changing mechanicals, found an extra 30bhp at the flywheel. This car would run to 70mph in second, 110 in third,had a lot of low down torque and returned 35 0r so around town. There is a discussion on the Rover Tech forum. If I can locate it I will pm it to you.

My 93 T16 has a conventional coil, plain steel bulkhead and inner wings, LT77 gearbox (5th gear being an overdrive) and a Plus 8 short door body, galvanised chassis, bulkhead roll hoop. By 97 this spec changed to Grahams spec, not clear if bit at time or all in one go.
M16 was narrow body had a tubular manifold (rather than the cast T16) and had no Cat which came in in 92 I believe and had a bit more HP.

i have a '89 +4 with M16.... drives perfect and the gearing seems good to me... have not driven another trad , so i can't compare.

A trad is and stays a cruising car , not a race car. And i'm always surprized by the MPG... compared to my GTN trips....


enough low end torque , so sure no need to rev it high .