Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) 4/4 Suspension Install - is this normal?

So I had requested my local Morgan dealer fit new main springs and rebound springs, steering bearings when doing the kingpins.

They fitted New Elms/Rutherford short 105lb springs and same 200lb rebound brand. I have the excellent wolf dampers already.

The dealer noted when they removed the original green spings they were very short compared to the new ones, and contacted the supplier who confirmed correct parts supplied.

When I got the car home I noticed that the car sits 1" higher than before at the front, and the crashing is gone thankfully. I jacked up car safely and was going to clean excess grease and I noticed today that when unladed the rebound springs are heavily compressed, and the mains are bowed on each side. The bow doesn't appear when laded on ground as far as I can see, the rebounds are less compressed.

I wondered if there could have been longer springs than intended, hence the bow or is this normal.

Dealer suggests they will settle down, but I'm not sure they will lose an inch, the bow concerns me, but I'm not familiar with these set ups.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as it cost over a not insignificant £1300 to do and before I contact the dealer.















This was the suspension when I got the car before I put the wolf dampers on:

From your pictures there is no doubt the previous main springs had both weakened and shortened born out by the gap above unladen rebound spring. The ideal here is with car static the stub axle should be gently resting on the rebound spring but still allowing it to be twisted just. SSL offer their RS kit that includes main springs with provision to adjust pre-load on same such that this ideal state can be acheived and maintained over time, together with rate risers to prevent bottoming out under heavy load (bumps).

With the car jacked up the rebound springs are always compressed to some degree as there's no load on main spring, so this observation is irrelevant. Ref above, what is particularly important though is any compression of rebound springs when car resting on its wheels. Perhaps you could check and report on this. Reason is that the two springs either side of stub axle behave together as if in parallel when they are both in play adding their spring rates. If rebound is compressed to any degree this means you will be driving a car with a massive 305 lb/inch spring rate until an undulation momentarily compresses main spring enough to release pressure on rebound, when spring rate will return temporarily to main only rate of 105 lb/inch. This hard then soft ride is the antipathy of ideal rising rate suspension giving the car a wallowing ride into corners.

Ex factory Morgan tend to chose main springs that provide a little (less than ideal) pre-load of rebound springs such that as mains settle in the rebound pre-load diminishes to ideal of just on zero but this can take some time (if ever) leaving owner with over firm ride in the meantime. Of couse too much play of rebound springs when static is suboptimal as well leading to excessive rebound travel (bounce) over bumps. Collectively this explains the popularity of SSL RS kit mentioned above.

Finally I wouldn't worry about the bow in main springs particularly as you suggest its not present with car resting on wheels. BTW I understood 95 lb/inch was standard rate for Morgan 4/4.

Thanks Richard.

This is the state of play when car is on ground and wheel turned, there is little discernible difference in rebound spring one wheel or the other when turning.

The steering damper is much larger than what was fitted before, and the damper is now about 1" extended on rest from before.





The ride height being 1" higher is bothering me as rear is visibly raked lower now.

From your pic the tyre to wing gap looks similar to mine?




Can’t tell for certain but I looks like you now have some steering bearing above the stub axle assemble and under the main spring that isn’t present in the ‘before’ shots? Or is it there but just dirty?

Well spotted. It was there but smaller. This one seems twice the size of others, and I think is adding to the issue. That is interesting on your ride height, mine was always lower, like the rear.

No expertise from me, just idle comment.
I guess that fat steering bearing is part and parcel of the Rutherford system! As Richard has said, if you had gone for SSL instead, then full adjustment would be available. But having said that, what you ended up with, was perhaps not to be expected.
However, for me, certainly in a plus 4, extra ground clearance is always a blessing and from your photos, it doesn’t look at all bad.
Springs will settle a little bit after a few thousand miles but probably not by an inch.

I know that Dave Rutherford never fitted steering bearing to cars he sorted. He saw no advantage in them.

So, I must conclude that they should not be there? And this might produce both the effects you are concerned with?

Give New Elms a call and ask about the wisdom of combining these springs with bearings.

Cheers, Colin

Not familiar with the Rutherford steering bearings but they seem maybe twice as deep as both the Mulfab and factory fitted ones. If the main springs were not shorter to compensate this would explain the increase in ride height, as well as the bowing when unloaded. Bear in mind though it's clear ride height was lower than correct with old worn springs highlighted by the bottom of stub axle sitting above rebound springs not just lightly resting on it as ideal.

If I was in this situation I would be discussing my concerns with supplier Rutherford/New Elms to confirm again their supplied springs are shorter to compensate for their deep steering bearings. Having said that if car drives tolerably well over rough roads then maybe things aren't too far from acceptable. As suggested it doesn't look to ride too high.

New kingpin bushes if reamed correctly to match to new kingpins will take a 1000 miles or so to loosen up, then you can look to adjusting the new Wolf dampers after a fresh greasing session. I start off with minimum damping increasing 2 - 4 clicks at a time until front of car stops nodding over any particular bump in the road then backing off a click or two. It may seem a harsher ride at this point but you soon realise the ride over bumps is overall more comfortable due to reduced rebound.

Although you mention turning steering whilst at rest you don't mention if rebound springs are free enough to turn by hand when in straight ahead condition. You can find how close you are to the optimum by having someone else pushing down on chassis via front bumper to see if a little extra main spring compression free's trapped rebound springs to allow them to turn.

Richard, my point is that there never were any 'Rutherford' steering bearings. Dave Rutherford used the standard setup.

So I don't know where these came from?

Cheers, Colin

Having bearings fitted between hub and spring is a good thing, you have probably felt that the steering feels lighter... yes? But the 20mm increase you see is probably what you perceive as raising your ride height however your picture shows a perfect ride height as far as I can see from wheel to wheel arch/body. there has been a lot of theories about springs and rebound springs in particular, Yes the variable rate springs fitted by SSL do offer something extra in that it can lesson the hardness of the initial compression response of the springs allowing a bobbly surface to feel much more comfortable on our current roads and of course you can adjust the spring overall load to suit your driving style, especially useful if you track day your car or like to drive it in two differing styles etc.

Over recent years many had their cars rebound springs changed in load rating and shortening and theories abounded as to the car at rest and how the rebound spring should behave. I am not going to talk about this here as frankly in my opinion it was all mostly rubbish but I will say this; the main and rebound spring on sliding pillar suspension were designed to work in unison providing the damping effect that this early suspension design needed and the matched load rating of each spring is rated to achieve this. SSL is a good system offering variables, many love it, some hate it! Rutherford is similar yet it sticks to the main principles of the original Morgan suspension. If you are starting to doubt your your choice of going with the Rutherford system then consider this...... Rutherford were the first to convert the rear end to telescopic shock absorbers ... yes well before Morgan followed suit, yet Rutherford managed to get the mounting plane direction of the top and bottom shock mounts to work so that the rotational action input from the rear suspension when working was not fighting each other yet Morgan failed to do this and at 90' out of plane it manages to destroy damper mounts and dampers..... worse still they never corrected this failing right up until the classic ceased production!

I personally set my car up as well as I can within the parameters that the original fitment allows and am satisfied with what it returns for me. Too many people are chasing something that the car will never be and are often throwing things at it to sort a problem that is very sortable within the standard car yet rather than taking this approach are talked into something akin to the kings new clothes. I guess what I'm saying is before you look for the Wonderfull solution to something you think need to be sorted out make sure your car is functioning as it is supposed too and only then is it time to make changes that the car can't possibly achieve without them.