Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Rutherford rear shock conversion on 4/4 fourseater

My near standard 1972 (B2636) 4/4 4 seater has about 6mm clearance from lever arm shock plate mounting bolts and the spring clip and no issues driving. I am using original 7 leaf rear springs with the third leaf removed and reconditioned otherwise original armstrong lever arm shocks. Springs are greased using motorcycle chain oil. Overall a big improvement on the original setup. Be good to hear what you think of the Rutherford conversion when you get it back on the road.

Don't discount the adjustable valves for your armstrongs. A much cheaper and easier conversion. Whip the armstrongs out, flush, clean, swap valves, fill, bleed and fit.

@BF444: With a bit of luck the first road test will be done next week. Before sending it off to the paint shop, I decided to have a technical inspection done by a professional. After all this is only my second full restoration. (and the Mini Cooper I did last year is well documented and a bit simpler)

I just had the chance to do a short test drive in a 1983 Morgan 4/4 with uprated valves on the Armstrongs. It was in a much better maintained condition compared to my car (when I got it last year) and had not even half of the kilometers on the clock. The seller had just upgraded the front suspension and he sold it for 28000 euro in the end.
TBM is right - the different valves on the Armstrongs alone makes an enormous difference. Combined with the leaf spring mod you did - I wonder how much difference you will notice to the Rutherford conversion...

One advantage of the Rutherford conversion is that I could alter the position of the front seats. 1,8cm lower and 7 cm further back might not sound like much - but it is much better.
I wrote a bit about this in this blog post

Regards
Tim

Most recent picture: C6622 waiting for the Technical Check and German TÜV:

I was quite interested in this (as could do with an extra inch legroom). However looking at your photos, I think your seats a much narrower than mine - if you look at my photo, there is less than a seat belt width between the side of the car and the seat edge. It is the wheel arch (and bottom seat belt mount) that prevents me from going any futher back. I am tempted to put the bottom seat belt mount higher up to give me that extra room though, which would require a little fettling to the rear spring cover. I've moved my armstrongs 30mm further back (as the axle is now further back due to the 4 leaf springs) so there is space. I might start a new thread about moving seat belt mounts.



I have lowered my wooden seat runners, so the bottom of the seat frame now sits level with the chassis cross member. Mine doesn't have the sliding mechanism like yours - just a clamp with two wing nuts!

yes - the seats look different. The back rest of my seats does not touch the rear wheel arch. Therefore, the seat belts also don't much of a problem - as they are mounted on the front of the wheel arch. The buckle however is really tightly pressed against the driveshaft tunnel. as there is plenty of room for the shaft - I am considering modifying the tunnel a bit and press recesses into it for the buckles...

Your 1972 4/4 has the nicer instruments on the dash. I really like the two centrally mounted gauges.