Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Has the bubble burst?

That is very astute. An enormous percentage of the total environmental damage a vehicle causes in its lifetime is in its manufacture. Forever vehicles have been possible for decades.Trads are an example. When Charels Morgan made the bulkheads and valences in stainless steel, he announced that he had created a car that would "last the lifetime of the owner". Sadly, politics and profits get in the way and we have the world we have.


Are you not judging them through the value system our generation was born to? Peter Morgan, in charge in the days you speak of, had the ideal life he wanted, like the example his father set him. The company was making far more money than PM could spend, more in today's dollars than today's MMC can dream of! "Money pump". Economist/sociologists will show that people's spending habits are set down before they are out of your teens, regardless of what you amass after. Try to spend far away from that and you run the risk of being ridiculous and buying golden toilet seats...the epitome of "nouveau riche". Why rock the boat? Pre-Aero, the company had tax-paid millions saved and unused. Unused money in a one-man company is an indication of money unneeded by that one man who made it.

"letting the buyer finish of the cars" is also a quote from Peter Morgan. It encouraged ex-Factory development, which is infinitely cheaper than the inhouse source. The best of the aftermarket world was catered to BY Pickersleigh Road, from Melvyn's trinkets in the old entrance, (they sold it for him - no charge) to Lawrence's SS mods and Simmonds tops. We all had a blast with my 2002 rebuild as the Works, the dealers and the aftermarket were allowed to come together. My car even has stuff from the MMC development shed at the time as my mileage made me good test subject. And when forums first happened, development discussion and experimenting moved there at firs.t Sadly, as PM lost the helm, the MMC attitude changed and the Factory merely copied the ideas of others without acknowledgement or payment or even a full understanding of their watch points. Even early forums like emog lent many over-discussed ideas in the trads which became standard.


Absolutely true. He never understood any of the elements I speak to above. Morgan was making gobs when JHJ and you visited, an incredible return on capital. But JHJ grew up much as we did where there is no such thing as enough profits. One must keep p striving for more profits until the business inevitably fails. The wise ones who love what they do give the money away. The question is whether the extraordinary achievement of Peter Morgan was keeping together his father's company and making far more money at it or creating the life style he had. Were we buying the car or a bit of Peter's lifestyle?


I don't know. I stick to what do know. The company made far more and cost the British people much less when the MMC made an average of 470 cars a year and spent little on development, leaving the owners to make of them what they wanted. Since abandoning that template, the Morgan Family lost 10s of millions and finally their ownership. Do these facts make me an anorak or someone who can do simple arithmetic? That being said, the MMC has been far more interesting to watch by taking the new route.

L.

P.S. I have non-mechanical friends who used to regularly buy Morgans in the day...as they were perfectly reliable. After 4-5 years, they would buy another new. They never lost tuppence.

I fully understand the opportunity and legacy of maintaining a family business having had several in the family.

I would suggest that in part the changing and more demanding legislative landscape in vehicle safety and emission standards may have played a major part causing the template to be abandoned and lead to Morgan having to withdraw from certain lucrative markets such as the USA. That programme of change from eg Euro1 from 1992 onwards must have pushed the development budget and resources and increased the component costs as more sophisticated engines etc. were required. Of course the introduction of the M3W must have added to the financial woes with its chassis problems.

What a great thing hindsight is. I must admit the CX is an exciting development that should have arrived much earlier.

An open question.

I thought it did?

2000 saw the introduction of a brand new next generation car, new everything, the V8 Aero. However it did not replace the Trad, it augmented it. I would argue the limited budget that the business could apply to development was 1) not enough for full development, even twenty years later 2) Spent well considering how little it was. I love mine, warts and all.

However the recent change to the CX platform, with the removal of the trad altogether, you could be naughty and say it was Aero Gen 2 and all bets were placed on it in a modern world with modern customer targets etc. InIn at this point see an undervalued asset and believe they can build and flip I would imagine. Not meant in a rude manner at them as that is their stated business. Does it benefit the asset, a different question.

I have said before that the current climate (legislative, desire, ecoBEV etc) means a tiny company has a severe challenge, I am surprised and more than a little impressed that they survived this long (TVR etc failed). It was why I mentioned Alpina who had many benefits over Morgan through the whole donor vehicle model they used. They have folded with what is in front of them.

Yet at the same time we see multiple new dozens of car companies springing up to fill the BEV void. Outside the vast mass of new Chinese companies we also look to Fisker (not the first time) Tesla etc. It feels like an opportunity lost somewhere. But also a result of the limited resources.

If I had to boil it down to a basic what could/should/would happen next?

They get sold to a larger company that can offer resources to underpin
Move to BEV drivetrain in a fun manner, not just a slab of battery with no handling fun.
Expand their market reach to drive numbers and revenue up to provide that future forward investment model.
Provide broader range of up to date engineering which can be leveraged easily not cut'n'shut.

If I had to think of a comparable it would be Lotus over the last ten years. Now I fear it is going to become a brand front for yet more of Geelys "its not a taxi in a smart suit, honestly" range of lardy platforms with a new badge on the nose. The future Lotus models will have little if any association with old/traditinal Lotus values.

My worry? This would result in a total breach of the traditional Morgan/MMC situation and so I would say as a result MMC would be gone (or sold to one of the people who could perpetuate the Trad bubble. I have not heard how Caterham are doing under the ownership of the new Japanese company but I bet they have a plan. It will become an interesting thing to compare them moving forwards. This leaves the Aero in an even worse position as well.

There are a number of companies that are brilliant at keeping a historic fleet alive, they could be involved. Rimmer Bros, John Craddock etc.

I think that model would allow the Trad Morgan/MMC world the chance to move forwards as the current MMC migrates south for winter? I don't think I have heard anything in recent times from the newer MMC management about the plan, is there somewhere I would be best to look ? I thought I heard that MSCC held regular meetings?

I wonder what LJK Setright would have made of this mess. I bet it would have been a good read.

Now that would have been a cracking read. I suspect that his views on the final demise of Bristol would have been even more strident. IIRC, he was a great fan of Bristol.

Yes, another good example of the challenges faced by minor manufacturers, ironically crossed with the Aero.

Yes, at the time boasted as 'the latest development' and 'it saves time straightening distorted chassis from the galvanising process'

Complete boll*x, it was MMC value engineering to a petty level, you will never protect mild steel better than proper old fashioned hot dip galvanising - that's why it's expensive

Alistair, you are quite correct with regard to the Aero being in effect generation one. Rightly or wrongly I always saw the large engined Aero's with quite limited production an attempt by Morgan to have a separate upmarket model line-up, that due to its performance and cost would not replace the market for more economical low cost ownership of the 4/4, plus 4 but an adjunct to it

The difference I draw with the Aero and CX is that the CX platform is now the base model, which one could quite rightly point to the difference being a marketing distinction rather than an engineering distinction. For me its clear that the CX should have been the platform for all models from the time the Aero's were introduced. I suppose from a Morgan prospective the trad was tried and tested, a known quantity and had a market demand, the Aero was a departure from their norm, at a much higher price point and an uncertain demand curve and a journey into the unknown. Having said that I believe Morgan pushed the performance envelope on the trads too far for the chassis and suspension, made a much heavier, poor ground clearance cars that drifted away from the core values.

Other than the improvements in build quality and improvements in materials used I'd take my 1985 4/4 over my Roadster, it was far more fun to drive within of course a much lower performance envelope.

Hmm!
Much as I like the Idea of the new (generation 2) tub and suspension I really feel that a conscious decision has been made to go up-market. Certainly I could not justify the much increased cost. The cost of the Plus 4 was certainly at the upper limit, if not over it, of what I was prepared to pay.
In other considerations the new (last?) version of the Roadster at that time was not only more powerful than I felt correct for a car of that weight with no driver aids, not to mention the increased annual tax.For these reasons my original intention to purchase a Roadster changed to the Plus 4.

So, in the end analysis, I am certainly out of the demographic as a potential purchaser of the CX PlusFour, let alone the PlusSix.

I did have some misconceptions regarding the Plus 4. I would have expected that by 2012 that it would have had a chassis somewhat improved over something built in the '40s but chassis and suspension developement of the trad remained frozen whilst others slowly improved over time. The CX is a jump that in some ways is well overdue but has been introduced in such a way that it probably chops out 90% of potential trad buyers while gaining a new upmarket demographic. The big difference is that most of these new buyers will exit from the brand to something else which becomes fashionable.
Unless, like Apple, Morgan starts releasing the latest and greatest must have model every year or so.

When the Aero came out (2000) it was £44k for a series 1 IIRC, happy to be corrected. I believe at the time a Trad was ITRO £25k ?

The last production Aluminium cars varied (2016 ish as a guide) as they did not overlap in availability.

Plus8 was £80k
Aero S5 was £100k
Coupe £105k
Supersport £115k

So these were already positioned as premium. I ignore the final edition crazy ones at £250k etc as these felt like market manipulation tools to manage second hand prices more than reality. From the number still floating about it appears a few others agree. I believe around that time the Trad was hitting £45k plus popular options? Some of the special editions being a £10k bump above?

So in truth the CX Plus Four (£70k) and Plus Six (£90k) have come into market a little below the price of the Aero's? Also with several developments, mostly good or forced on them by legislation (Euro6 etc). Recent price bumps adding £10k to those I think?

I have mostly observed (sorry as stereotyping is never popular or accurate) that the community does tend to fall into the Trad and Aero fold in many cases. It was interesting to see the comments on the release of the CX, some from Trad people looking to upgrade and others from Aero ownership. From the trad side they very much fell into "it looks like a trad but does not drive like one. Then it went to "I want my trad to drive like a trad, I love it for the driving experience as much as the shape and individual nature." Then we all got into a fight about how an automatic gearbox was the work of the devil, but lets no go there again.

I am just surprised that they took that moment to terminate the Trad. If they had flipped everything to the Aero platform alone in 2000 I think we would not be here having this discussion.

Anyway, this is speculation so I am going to shut my trap and make shorter posts in order to leave the big ones to Mr Luddite.

Not quite, Alistair. Forgive my detail. They don't change the validity of your points. The first price list with the Aero I on it that I have is 2001.
Ex-VAT
Aero 47,234
Plus 8 30,210

Peter Morgan, as long as he still had influence, refused to allow a Morgan to be sold for more than 50k..which is a very odd way to price, but there you have it. The other models, after the legendary reserves were depleted and the limit of the new bank loan reached, were forced to support the losses and ongoing development occasioned by the Aero line.That is what caused trad prices to rise so fast as well.

Have you ever heard the French expression "La plus ca change la plus c'est la meme chose"?

Lorne

P.S. I am curious why you use a Llama as your avatar. I often see them here, like deer in my once native Quebec..