Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Extra ground clearance on a Mazda boxed +4

Yes, now the speedo reads the correct speed. The circumference with 195/65R15 is almost exactly the same as 165/80R15 allowing me to use a weight-saving spare wheel from a 4/4.

Harald

Just under 1mph difference at 60mph. As I have mentioned before this website is great for comparing different tyre and wheels. https://www.willtheyfit.com/index.p...ze=15&wheel_width=5.5&offset2=30

I used it to check what offset I needed to clear the suspension and guards when buying new wheels.

As mentioned by others most car speedos read a little high, when I get a new car (or new tyres for that matter) I always get my son to check it as a passenger when I am driving. My Octavia reads 115kph at 110kph so I would sit at 115kph, the Outlanders reads 113kph at 110kph but unfortunately keeps flashing the speed on the heads up display if above the limit which is annoying on the highway. S o I either sit at 113 and try ignore the flashing or at 110 knowing I am really only doing about 107kph.

I'd certainly recommend the 185/65 Contis to anyone with a largely street driven Duratec Plus 4, I'm pushing 180hp and they work great on the road, you really don't need the 195s Morgan fitted, and going down to 185 definitely gives better steering feel. TBH if it wasn't for the fact Monty came with 6" rims and I've increased his power output by more than 20%, I may well have gone with the 165/80s you tend to see on the narrow body 4/4.

Here's Monty sat on his original 195/60 Yokohamas with his wheels in the original polished stainless finish, personally I think it looks ridiculous so something needed to be done!



Now here he is with the 185/65 Contis and with the wires blacked, much better but to me Monty was still sitting too high



Finally here's Monty on the 185/65 Contis and blacked wires, but now lowered by 20mm



I was now happy with the way he sits, but ground clearance seriously suffered, however the bellhousing and chassis fixed that... plus some!

Understandably for the hill climbing and sprint track activity I've started to enjoy with Monty, the Ecocontact 6s that work so well on the road do start to show their limitations, so for my non-competitive fun and games I've found myself in the very fortunate position of purloining a spare set of 6" MWS wires




And once blacked up by my good friend and expert powder coater, this second set of rims will be shod with Toyo Proxes R888R in 195/55r15 85v (gg-medium compound).



This leaves my road tyres for the road, and lets me quickly slip on a set of super grippy track day tyres for my clubsport activities.

With the lower gearing alone I'm expecting quicker starts and snappier acceleration out of certain corners at Prescott, Monty will get up on his Newman Phase 2 cams that little bit sooner and his tuned Duratec will now wind right out to 7,000rpm as I cross the line.

All this with the additional significant advantage of a lot more grip from the super sticky triple eights

I'm surprised, given the original query was about ground clearance, that suspension hasn't been mentioned.
I have a 2013 4/4, bought in 2019, which from the start had suspension problem - hit a pothole it jumped sideways - so the SSL fix was fitted.

A few months later in heavy rain the factory fitted Continentals lost grip & we hit the kerb very hard. Matilda was recovered to the dealer nearest to home to be fixed. When I collected the car I mentioned that the rear springs were sagging so much that they hit the rear bulkhead on full compression. "Don't worry sir. I'll tell the lads to cut away the bulkhead" I didn't return.

After discussion with Jon at BCC and Dan White at SSL (who did the specification) I chose 4 seater anti-tramp springs which give 18-20mm uplift from standard (probably more from the crap that I had).
Further close reading of the instructions for fitting the SSL front-end revealed that there is a spacer which can be fitted above or below the stub axle. Below is what dealers assume, above gives 18-20mm more ground clearance!

The problem with the fix was that the "nodding dog" phenomenon (known issue with SSL front end) wouldn't go away. After a service at NewElms (second closest dealer) I commented that I liked Matilda so much she is my first choice for a drive. "wouldn't be if she were mine" was the lugubrious answer.
"can you fix her?" "Yes. Given a couple of days"

The solution was to rebuild the front end (it hadn't been done properly after the prang) and fit the Rutherford front end with the rebound springs shortened (to raise the front end).

Results are astonishing. No "nodding dog" and no scraping the tarmac (except for a couple of occasions on MCC trials)

Think you've just described exactly what a Morgan requires and it's not just slapping mod's on to the car in the hope that it will improve it or resolve a problem, that's asking for trouble! Rather, you have to look at the whole car and diagnose what is making it behave so badly and rarely is it one single thing!

New Elm's have a huge knowledge of Morgan cars, probably one of the most knowledgeable and skilled dealers there is and lets not forget true innovators as well! Tim is selling up as we speak and I do hope that a continuum of the business will go forward into the future and retain that skill and care.

I think the solution suggested to you, no, rather almost forced on you as a normal fix solution to the rear springs contacting the body work when clearly the problem lay with the crap springs bought in by Morgan from china, was in fact criminal. A little like loosing a wing tip on an aircraft and shortening the other side to match! It is a known fact that these springs were sub standard and IMHO Morgan should have had the decency to factory recall those cars for rectification. Your car of which is smack in the middle of that problem time.

It's reported that cars having had the springs changed almost on collection from new had been found to have sagged by the time the owner collected it with new same rubbish replacements. You did exactly the right thing in walking away from that dealer who suggested his fix. This is not banger racing and someone who buys and owns a Morgan is spending a lot of money regardless of what their entry level is. It seems the new CEO of MMC has finally started to get a grip on providing a new standard and corporate image at Morgan, yes, the new CX cars are out of a lot of current classic owners budgets, me included! and they have a much more modern feel about them but time cannot stand still.
Us clasic owners can only hope we get included in the changes in a good way and don't get our wallets felt in an unrealistic fashion!!


i truly believe, that those amongst us who have dreamed of owning a Morgan,, often for a huge chunk of their lives are so let down by poor service when finally they get that chance that they soon sell the car because it's not the ownership experience they had hoped for, in that it drives terribly, no one can resolve the problems for them quickly, easily or effectively and so a life long dream is destroyed. If you don't believe me then answer this: Why do so many dream Morgan cars have so many owners? It's not uncommon for these cars to regularly change hands between 1 and 2 years Now that's what I call a dream car!

Has anyone got any photos of this rear gearbox mount arrangement removed? I'd like to understand it better, and with view the modifying it for more ground clearance.

Following the successful removal of the bell housing lip and my crossmember modifications, I now have 90mm of ground clearance at these points which is proving satisfactory, this despite lowering the car by 40mm.

As we can see from my below image I now have a nice flat undercarriage and reasonable clearance everywhere except for at the rear gearbox mount where I only have 78mm, and this after replacing the fasteners with countersunk allen cap heads (completed after this photo was taken).



I'd like to have 90mm of clearance everywhere, so the gearbox mount is next in line for surgery, has anyone removed the rear gearbox mount and if so did you take any photos?

Montegue, Looking at it, it seems to me that it has been, I'm reluctant to say engineered, around a bought in rubber mount. I have a 2010 duratec with the MT-75 Ford gearbox and that mount is tucked up tightly into the transmission tunnel. The contraption that Morgan fitted to the Mazda boxed version seems almost ludicrous, something from the age of steam! If I try to give them any credit, hard I know, but again the unsuitability of the Mazda box transmission case having that mounting web hanging down.... was it to try and protect that?
Anyway Montegue, You have made a beautiful job of trimming the lower bell housing web could this web be made more acceptable too? On my car when I first got it I was shocked at just how close the gearbox case was in relation to the chassis cross member, at its closest point only about 5mm. I thought something must be wrong with my car, chassis deformation, collapsed mounts etc. But no, all was correct and I can tell you under all driving conditions there has been no contact at all between the two! This would indicate only micro movements are occurring here,I think I would remove the complete mount, obviously support the gearbox whilst doing so, and aim to modify the depth of the mount by drilling new mounting holes so it sits higher in the chassis and look to separate the mount from the box using high impact rubber sheet of 10-12mm. If I push and pull at my rear mount nothing moves at all so it is only acting as a vibration separator with the MT-75 box fitted so I can't see any issue in doing similar in the case of the Mazda box! Vitesse who supply after market Mazda boxes for Morgans don't seem to have all these fitting issues with their casings, might be worth having a chat to them as I'm sure they must have answers re sorting an original fitment.

I have no pics with the bracket off Dave but this might be the mount in the image below?

If you come up with a slicker bolt on alternative you might find quite a bit of demand

Thanks all, I'll get Monty on my mate's ramp and investigate.

The way I see it, it's just a gearbox mount, so as long as it supports the box and isolates vibration it'll be doing its job, surely it doesn't need to be that deep? It can't be beyond the whit of man to create something better than Morgan's effort, afterall I've proved the stupid bellhousing lip and central crossmember shave worked really well.

However, the rear gearbox mount is letting the side down, as you all know I'm not afraid of taking a surgical approach so this ridiculous lump is living on borrowed time!

Watch this space chaps

Thanks again, Dave.

Good call Sewen, here's the Vitesse Mazda box conversion they offer as a kit for many classics, this one is for the MGA.



As we can see the gearbox mount is no lower than the bottom of the gearbox.

I'll give Vitesse a call to discuss the ridiculous 'big boy' mount Morgan created, they've clearly created solutions for a multidude of classic cars so they may be interested in designing and supplying a lower profile replacement for Morgan owners with the excellent Mazda box?

TBH it only needs to be 20mm thinner and Monty will have 90mm of ground clearance everywhere, and 100mm if I go up from 185/65 to 195/65 tyres