Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms New +8 or a 3.7 Roadster.

The adage was always "A Morgan needs no explanation, it simply is." I am not sure what "a Morgan is a Morgan is a Morgan" is supposed to convey. Does it mean there are no differences between models or their desirability?

With that in mind, DaveW gets my vote. Everything about this model is Aero. Chassis, suspension, steering, braking, weight, engine management, even the dated BMW 4.8Ls.

From the other side of the fence, it has nothing trad about it (aside from a very carefully chosen camera angle from the side). Far too wide as the MMC themselves always predicted it would be.

If performance is wanted, the 3.7 Roadster will produce as much or more of it than this one and comes in a far prettier package.

Doesn't matter really does it.
It's not MMC who are the arbiters, it's the buyers.

At the risk of droning on, where is the engineering link between the last Plus 8 with a Rover engine and the new Plus8+? Where is the common DNA?

The Plus8+ DNA is Aero. It's as simple as that. Looks like a trad from the side for sure. It will buffet the driver in exactly the same way as a 'proper' trad, and leak in all the same places as a trad. But to those who want the full experience of prewar chassis engineering, it can't deliver, whether it's perceived as a trad or not.

Lets hope it ticks the right boxes of enough buyers, whatever their perceptions.

Dave, this reads as though the events were concurrent so for the sake of accuracy, let's see some dates:

1936 - Morgan 4-4 launched. Three-wheeler production continued alongside the 4–4 until 1952.

1945 - Morgan Three Wheeler Club formed.

1951 - Morgan 4/4 Club formed which became MSCC.

2000 - Morgan Aero 8 launched.

2006 - Morgan Aero Club formed (from memory).

From the above time-line and from most comment made at the time it does not appear to have been a seismic change from 3-wheels to 4, but rather a natural progression as people became more prosperous. The M3W Club was a model club, as was the 4/4 Club when such Clubs were popular (formed 15-years after the models launch!).

I had another Plus 8 on order when the Aero was launched and like a lot of others transferred my order to an Aero 8 without thinking it was a seismic change. An improvement and a more modern car with mini-supercar performance - yes, in the tradition of the Plus 8 which had a similar effect on its own launch in 1968.

As in any group of car enthusiasts, there will always be those who don't accept the future. I was in the Porsche Club when the 924 came out: "Real Porsche's have air-cooled engines", "It's a VW as it has the same engine as the LT35 van", etc. You don't hear much of the first comment from the luddites now that all Porkers have water-cooled engines!

For me therefore, it's a case of the Plus 8 is dead: long live the Plus 8...

I'll take it that you're a Trad man (assuming your a man?).

As a newbie here you also probably don't have an idea of some of our previous discussions and of what the majority on here (and the majority of reasonably thinking Morgan owners) feel which is any Morgan made by MMC is a Morgan thus the A Morgan is a Morgan is a Morgan adage that we refer to.

Not really sure what "A Morgan needs no explanation, it simply Is" means? Unless it is trying to say it's simply a Morgan if it's a Morgan in which case I concur.

You do then make a ridiculous statement next "Everything about this model is Aero". Er no it isn't! The body, windscreen, doors and hood at the very least are trad? And even if you don't agree with that they're definitely not Aero! So why make such a sweeping, yet blatantly incorrect statement?

You side by DaveW but Dave puts forward a far more feasible argument; saying that, I don't agree necessarily and in fact have 'accused' him of being selective in his choice. Though I can see where he's coming from regarding the chassis but don't agree with him.

You're comments however seem more borne of a prejudice that I thought we had left behind with more recent advances in the Morgan community's thinking? Forgive me if I'm incorrect.

MMC call it a plus 8 which is good enough for me. I do think it is a mixture of trad and Aero 8 but to me, as explained above a car is generally defined by it's looks rather than it's chassis IMHO, and definitely not it's engine as has been conclusively decided! Thus it's a trad. And a lovely one too!

Thanks for the dateline Brian.

My intention was to highlight the momentous changes at MMC rather than to the customer base.
Three wheels to four, and switching chassis designs from steel ladder to bonded aluminium is seismic without a doubt.

Is the three wheeler club really that recent? I imagined it would have been around a lot longer.

If I were to look for an Aero, it would be an S4, not the new Plus8+, because with the modern underpinnings I would want the Aero shape - (hypothetically speaking of course).

I would consider a new Plus 8 but the short list would also encompass Aeromax/ Aero SS.....dream on!

Whilst I agree with your final statement I'm not sure I agree with your first?? The buyers will of course be the ones to judge with their wallets, and make it a success (or not) but surely the designers and manufacturers have the honour and right to designate? We do of course have our right to comment and give our opinion.

As for your DNA statements, I reiterate you are being selective in what you refer to as continuation DNA. I just don't see how you can dismiss the continuation of shape?

As for Katoens comments regarding the width, what a load of codswallop. Unless someone can show me that every Morgan since the first 4 wheeler has been the same width then that's just a red herring!

Just my 2p worth

I'm finding myself siding with Dave re the DNA but they are still Morgans and I see the new Plus 8 as a traditionally styled modern chassis Morgan.

I'd choose the Roadster myself as I prefer the simplicity of the traditional (in the historic sense) but also it's down to looks, the Plus 8 in its Sport mode looks just too wide.

Yes - absolutely agree that the designers and MMC have the right to name their latest child.
But history tends to show that 'the public' carry the real influence on how cars are perceived. The Porsche example above is one of many. MG was riddled witb opinions on the latest cars, and so were most other manufacturers when there was a quantum shift. Remember the first Sierra?

If that V8 engine was available in a trad chassis, in an Aero chassis dressed as a trad, and in an Aero S4 spec chassis, then we might get a better idea of what buyers want. If that was the only choice at a similar price, I would be torn between the first and last. But I wouldn't contemplate the Aero 8 with a trad body. Maybe I don't get it.

Wow, what bought you lot out of the woods tonight Is it a full moon ?

So I would have to say that I would never (past tense) have purchased a trad prior to joining this little family. No question.

I love my Aero to bits. Does it say something that I love the S2 more than the S3-4. The Max gets a pass on this as something beautiful from another world.

Having spent some time among this dis-jointed community of special caring individuals I have to say the idea of a trad that goes like an Aero does it for me, big time.

I see the unashamed style of the trad along with statement it makes in this modern bland world. I do however love to drive the wheelnuts off my aero and believe I would have a few issues if I tried to do this in a trad chassis. Ditch, hedge, ditch, signpost, field, you get the idea.

With all respect, it is what you want it to be.