Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) A bit torn - 4/4

I would try a few 4/4's of different ages to get the best fit for your driving style. I find the later 4/4 feel much heavier to drive, usually have lower ground clearance than the 4/4's of the 80's/90's.

My favourite 4/4 was my 85 CVH engine car, with 5 speeds a simple engine which post 85 is capable of running on unleaded, without all the catalytic convertors,, oxy sensors and associated paraphernalia that complicates more modern engines. Still get 96 bhp. or there abouts,............just get rid of the steering dampers and rear armstrong lever arm suspension (pre 92) and you have a very nice car. Post 85 they start to treat the wood frame and spray the wings off the chassis to improve longevity and a galvanised chassis were an option. The armstrong lever arms are ok, just a bit bouncy on uneven surfaces.

I have a 1990 4/4 4-seater, narrow body, galvanised chassis and steel body, carb version so no cat (can be a problem if you want to travel through emission zones), but fun to drive and relatively comfy with lots of space for travels! For the sake of the emission zones I bought a new PlusFour, it has it advantages, but also disadvantages in the light of: more wide, less ground clearance and less space for travelling. And less character. It has a lot of pro's ofcourse but I do not know how more modern 4/4's behave. Mine is utterly reliable!

Yes John I have to say the CVH engine really is the sweet spot, Simple to maintain a pleasure to drive and it might be 90's technology but its official BHP figure doesn't reflect it's performance. And you can change the cam belt in roughly an hour! Of the two options I prefered the carb version as it responded to throttle input far better than the later injection version, but that wouldn't stop me owning the latter if that was the right car in all other aspects.

Ruut,

Still looking good for its age.

My 2014 4/4 still has a galvanised ladder frame. If my memory serves me correctly, a plastic-coated ladder frame was introduced in 2016 with the ARP4, then for all Trad models, due to environmental regulations that no longer allowed galvanisation. I hope that's more or less correct.

Others here will know better, but I read at the time that this plastic coating on the steel is more susceptible to damage than a galvanised ladder frame. My 2005 Roadster already had a galvanised ladder frame. DaveW will know exactly when they were introduced.
My two cents on your choice. I have a 2014 4/4 and I'm very happy with it overall. We've driven 120,000 km in it since then, including some nice trips to Italy and Austria.

I have compared it with Roadsters and with a 2011 P4 Super Sport, which I drove for two years. This current 4/4 is the cheapest Morgan I have had and it is the one that has grown very dear to my heart over 11 years. It is fantastic fun on B roads. Without ECU mapping and without a sports manifold, however, it is borderline sluggish on motorway inclines.
I haven't made many changes, which I have described here:

https://www.talkmorgan.com/ubbthrea...fect-a-philosophical-question#Post830021

The increase from 110 hp to a measured 145 hp and correspondingly more torque have made the car very drivable... very lively on B roads and on the motorway (if I did it) more than 180 km/h in 5th gear.
Normally, mapping a naturally aspirated petrol engine is not very productive. But in this case, there was a noticeable difference. The torque curve of the standard Sigma 1.6 was very unusual, with no peak but a dip where the engine should have the most torque. I googled the engine type. I can only speak for myself, I don't want to generalise. According to the type number, my Sigma 1.6 is a crate engine built for combined heat and power plants. Morgan obviously bought it and installed it. I don't have any reliable knowledge, but perhaps the mapping was designed for an efficient, constant speed, just a guess. The positive thing is that, with relatively little effort, I was rewarded with torque and horsepower because the engine was throttled. As I said, I can't generalise.

Now to a not very happy point, although I've really come to terms with it now and, given today's performance, it's okay. Morgan has been installing the Mazda gearbox in its series since around 2012. I remember that the first Trad with a Mazda gearbox was the P4 Supersport from 2011, then the 75th anniversary 4/4 from 2012.
That's a good thing. But at around the same time, maybe a year or two later, there was a new BTR rear axle, which I also have. There is no shorter gear ratio available for my axle for any amount of money. Strangely enough, there are very few isolated cases where a 2014 4/4 was delivered with a 3.9 gear ratio instead of the standard 3.7 gear ratio. And also the 2016 ARP4 was described to have a 3.9 ratio, so they must exist.

If you buy a slightly older 4/4 Sport as Richard describes above, you won't have the Mazda gearbox but one from Ford, which is also ok. Only the ratios are slightly different because the Ford gearbox was designed for a Transit and not for a light MX5. Anyway, my point is that with these cars, let's say between 2008 and maybe 2011, you can keep the rear axle without incurring very high costs and you can have it converted from 3.7 to 4.1. In my opinion, the 4.1 is more suitable and livelier for a 4/4.

Now I come to the next alternative. If I had to or wanted to swap my Morgan again, it would be a 4/4 from around 2003. What's special about it is that it was the last 4/4s with its own specific ladder frame, which is noticeably lighter than the subsequent standard frame that all Trads then shared. Others are welcome to add or correct anything here, e.g. did the 4/4 70th anniversary with its 1.8 Zetec engine still have the lighter ladder frame?

Those would be nice cars. And I think that until around 2003, these cars all still had a 4.1 rear axle ratio.
As I said, I'm happy with what I have, and my younger years of wild swapping are long gone. But if you have the choice, I would consider a 4/4 1.8 from the early 2000s because it has all the beneficial improvements such as galvanisation, etc. I don't know whether these Zetecs already have an aluminium body or aluminium wings. I also don't know whether the front wall is already made of aluminium.

Another rare alternative, if you come across one, is the aforementioned 2012 75th anniversary 4/4. Perhaps a little heavier in the engine compartment, but with the 2.0 Duratec... the most popular and most tuned engine in so many models and brands. Personally, however, I would steer clear of a later GDI engine.
The 75th anniversary also has a 3.7 gear ratio which is more suitable for the 2.0 engine and everyone here in the forum who has or had one seemed to be very happy with it.

I'm glad its not just me that thinks the CVH was the sweet spot, I've never driven the fuel injected version, but the carb version certainly went quite quickly for its power, it was quite a nice handling car, the steering was very light and a nicely matched gearbox. Of course being a CVH engine regular oil changes are the de rigor.

Heinz,

Thanks for that piece, which draws out the need for a balancing act with 4/4 evolution. Early cars are more simple but don't benefit from the superior materials and construction techniques used to improve longevity in later cars, The change in chassis is a quite important point which I do believe changes the feel and ride of the 4/4., much in the same way the long door makes access more possible for my aging bones.

Ruut makes an important point with regard to emission zones which do vary from country to country and will become more restrictive over time.

Drifting off topic slightly.... I remember the first Escort I saw with a CVH, the owner fired it up and let it sit idling, he then sat a 50 pence peice on edge on the valve cover, and it did not fall over, it was an amazingly smooth engine. I think that there may have been a difference in 1300-1600cc engines in that one was considered an interference engine and the other not, whereby if the cam belt failed the valves would hit the pistons, which was not the case on the other engine. Sorry I can`t remember which was which.. Thus keeping an eye on cam belt change intervals was rather important...

When I was looking to buy in 2009, I tried the 4/4, plus 4, and plus 6 and found, for my style of driving (touring) that the plus 4 was the best compromise for handling and performance. Of course I did slightly modify her (as she has a Duratec engine) and with throttle bodies, librands exhaust and OMEX ECU she outputs 189bhp, which makes her more driveable and sounds lovely. She also has a suspension upgrade. I would recommend these.