Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Performance measurement e.g. 4/4

Of course, your noted experience depends on which Morgan and which Porsche. I haven't heard from Eales as yet. But:

The internet and a dyno operators (from my wayward past) confirm that front wheel drive vehicles lose 50% less of the drag difference than do rear wheel drive vehicles. That would change the rear wheel difference to 174 bhp for the home team versus 164 bhp for the Porsche. (I am, for the moment, using a drag figure from a famous UK Morgan race preparer who shall remain unnamed. Porsche are rear wheels drive vehicles with rear mounted engines so I am using the industry figure for the front wheeled mounted and driven cars. Wind resistance is really not a significant factor until 145 kpm+! If we have the Porsche model we can examine tyres and other factors.

I am a 3.0 Roadster fan. However, Plus 8s are set up differently. As noted earlier, Plus 8s reach significant torque very low down in the rev range. Even a stock 3.9 (appr. 190 bhp) is at its maximum torque at 3000rpm. https://www.car.info/en-se/land-rover/range-rover/classic-35-v8-4x4-m5-6658456/specs A 2008 Roadster won't reach less torque until 4900 rpm though the bhp is greater. You can confirm that at a Morgan Challenge race. You will see the stock Roadsters gain and pass on the straights while the Plus 8s make it up in the turns.

I lived for 42 years 10 miles from the legendary Circuit Tremblant. They hosted annual East Coast Porsche event. The little village and resort is inundated with over 3000 Porsches! 20 years ago, I used to be allowed on the track on Practice Day. Nothing head-to-head...merely lap times. The only Porsches my tuned 3.5 couldn't beat was the later Turbos. Rover V8s were very flexible. It seem fair of me to continue with my 4.8L. after 2005. I could never have achieved that on a straight, but putting my foot to the floor, with teeth clenched and saucer eyes on a straight run does not interest me. Like the young reporter trying to match the MMC's advertised Aero SuperSport top speed, I do not want to wet myself. Morgans, (since 1909) were always designed for small deserted country roads. I only use Autoroutes, Autobahns, Autostrada, Motorways and Interstates when forced to. They are fish out of water.

gmg

It's the opposite, a beam axle is more efficient than an independent rear end because there are no UJs/CV joints.

QUOTE JOHN EALES:

> Lorne
>
> We are all well thanks and I hope you are the same.
>
> I use an engine dyno so the numbers are flywheel torque and HP.
> Rolling roads generally have a rolldown feature that measures the transmission (etc) losses.
> As a general rule a 2 wheel drive g/box and axle take 20/25%
> This also depends on which gear is used as indirect gears take more power than a direct top gear.
> I hope that this helps.
>
> John Eales
> J.E.Developments
> Claybrooke Mill
> Claybrooke Magna
> LE17 5DB
> 01455 202909

As has been repeated many times, at the core of this discussion is public's common miscomprehension of dynos, fostered by Media writers who don't understand what they are writing about and/or want to pander to their audience. They were not invented for bragging rights or comparisons from one car to another.

Dyno figures, regardless of where you take them or who they come from, are only of vital interest when tuning a specific vehicle to suit, preferably, a specific owner. Dyno operators couldn't care less beyond that. John was kind.

gmg

P.S. Do any of you remember the sad lawsuit the MMC was faced with when an Austrian Plus 4 Supersports buyer (the original 4 wheel Supersports and not the many model lines named after it) found his dyno was lower than the Factory's measurement? I have often hoped, fervently, that he sold that car on back when. Divine justice.