Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 1,986 Threads: 90
Reputation:
17
Location: Ripon
26-02-2022, 06:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-02-2022, 06:07 PM by Duncan Grimmond.)
I think that the fuss is about the general state of the Morgan company and their attempt to fill a small market. The last re-creation was unfortunately rather badly designed and suffered from a badly engineered drive train. Their guarantee claims department was kept very busy, so much so that it was rumoured that there were more examples on S/H sales forecourts than on the road! I visited the factory just as they were launching the M3W in 2011(?) and was very disappointed by what they were making.
Of course I am prejudiced as I have built a couple of Pembletons which have FWD and so the space aft of the cockpit is free and available for huge amounts of luggage, admittedly with the rear wheel taking up some of the space. I've had 10 or 11 camping trips through France,Holland and Germany carrying tent, sleeping bag, a full camp kitchen, clothing and wet weather gear and a ukulele with room for a couple of cases of wine and other essentials on the homeward trip.
To build a sporty car for other than afternoon use is a challenge and while Morgan seem to do well with their +4s the M3W seems to have been an exercise in attempted nostalgia.
They have to be given credit for some of the innovations such as the super formed panels and now the wishbone subframe but the overall impression is of a valiant shot at a market which may not really support the investment they have made.
Anyone wanting a sporty 3 wheeler should have a look at what the Pembleton Motor Company is doing for open top interesting turn-key models.
I have no connection to PMC other than as an enthusiast.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 622 Threads: 19
Reputation:
10
Location: Hampshire UK
I find myself rather at odds with the generally negative comments on here. Shouldn't we just be rejoicing that in this day and age it's still possible within the constraints of modern legislation to make and sell something fun, interesting and wilfully impractical ?
I went on a Morgan factory tour a couple of years ago and was struck by the enthusiasm and dedication of the workforce (some quite young) and guides.
Morgan know their markets fairly well, and won't care tuppence about derogatory remarks from people who don't have any intention of buying one.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 2,417 Threads: 33
Reputation:
37
Location: Deepest Frogland 30960
Car type: 1933 RP Standard Saloon
Very interesting. I'm glad I read it because I really did WANT one of those, but now I don't think I'll bother. I'll stick to the Austin. Thanks for posting it Duncan.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 1,341 Threads: 34
Reputation:
30
Location: Cheshire
Car type: Race Ulster, 1926 Special, 1927 Chummy, 1930 Box
So, let’s get this straight. The newer offering from Morgan is castigated because it doesn’t have traditional values. It’s predecessor is castigated because it has. The unreliability being a consequence of its 1920s design. Decide what you want chaps. Meanwhile I’m going to be looking at it with green eyes thinking the Ulster and the Chummy would get me one of those.
Alan Fairless
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 2,417 Threads: 33
Reputation:
37
Location: Deepest Frogland 30960
Car type: 1933 RP Standard Saloon
I don't think the (alleged) unreliability of the V twin version is anything to do with its 1920 design, as it was created as a new vehicle from the floor up. When you read the article posted by Duncan it appears that most of the problems (which to be fair have been or can be fixed) are down to engineering issues and vibration problems caused by the huge V twin Harley Davidson style engine shaking the thing to bits. However, some of the issues should have been ironed out during development & pre-production.
OK, it's not a Golf, but when you part with a substantial sum of your hard earned dosh for what you expect to be a decent product, it must be disheartening when the damn thing falls apart after only a few outings and then needs thousands spending on it to put it right. I hope they've learned from the experience of the M3W and things are better with the new one. I just think that aesthetically, it's not that pretty.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 1,539 Threads: 61
Reputation:
20
I'll give the blurb one credit. The new 3 pot will feel rough enough.
I picked up a modern hire car a couple of weeks ago. I was convinced it was a diesel until I noticed the 6k redline. Hateful engine. All the bad points of a diesel with none of the benefits.
Alan - you buy one and tell us how you get on. Me, I should have bought an early Plus 8 20 years ago.
C
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 3,329 Threads: 372
Reputation:
16
Car type:
I must admit I posted it because it felt more Seven like in spirit than the previous one. Is it lighter? It must be.
The three pot engine is the same idea as that little Caterham with the poxy engine that everyone quite loved but didn't last long.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 2,417 Threads: 33
Reputation:
37
Location: Deepest Frogland 30960
Car type: 1933 RP Standard Saloon
27-02-2022, 08:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 27-02-2022, 09:49 AM by Reckless Rat.)
Not all 3 pot engines are rubbish. The Mem'Sahib has a Peugeot 107 which is basically a rebadged Toyota AYGO. It has a 1 litre 3 cyl petrol engine that develops 68bhp ans it's as quiet and smooth as silk. We've had the car for 12 years as a daily runabout and I'm very happy with it. I wish my A7 with HC head ran as smooth. The Daewoo Matiz we had before it was a gem also. Perhaps the rental was a dog.
Joined: Aug 2017 Posts: 3,329 Threads: 372
Reputation:
16
Car type:
yes, ditto the three pot 1.4TDi in the Roomster and the petrol in the Up! All fabulous engines. I was more getting at Caterham ditching the idea sadly. Suzuki engine?
