Plus 4 or Roadster?
Discussion
Love my 2002 Plus8
V8 gives great driveabilty due to it' grunt.
New Plus8 would be great if I could afford one!
Also loved my previous car - 1992 4/4 with CVH engine a la XR3i escorts- smal and nimble with the need to think about driving to maintain speed.
If you are caught between cars then test drive them and decide from there.
V8 gives great driveabilty due to it' grunt.
New Plus8 would be great if I could afford one!
Also loved my previous car - 1992 4/4 with CVH engine a la XR3i escorts- smal and nimble with the need to think about driving to maintain speed.
If you are caught between cars then test drive them and decide from there.
I had a Plus 8 way back in 1978.
I also bought a new Plus 4 in 2006
Nice car, but I wish I had paid the extra to get the V6 Roadster....but we were talking around £7,000 at the time, which is no mean sum.
I think the current Plus 8 is (imo) far too expensive, you are talking Porsche, Aston Martin money.
btw...... Les....
I also bought a new Plus 4 in 2006
Nice car, but I wish I had paid the extra to get the V6 Roadster....but we were talking around £7,000 at the time, which is no mean sum.
I think the current Plus 8 is (imo) far too expensive, you are talking Porsche, Aston Martin money.
btw...... Les....
Wacky Racer said:
I had a Plus 8 way back in 1978.
I also bought a new Plus 4 in 2006
Nice car, but I wish I had paid the extra to get the V6 Roadster....but we were talking around £7,000 at the time, which is no mean sum.
I think the current Plus 8 is (imo) far too expensive, you are talking Porsche, Aston Martin money.
btw...... Les....
Hi Alan - Come on City!!!!I also bought a new Plus 4 in 2006
Nice car, but I wish I had paid the extra to get the V6 Roadster....but we were talking around £7,000 at the time, which is no mean sum.
I think the current Plus 8 is (imo) far too expensive, you are talking Porsche, Aston Martin money.
btw...... Les....
cardigankid said:
Care to explain why?
Difficult to say really.Having previously owned the V8 version in my early twenties, the straight four Ford engine (although an excellent unit) didn't quite do it for me....The V6 seemed the next best thing, also it sits on wider wheels and tyres which look better.
If I could turn the clock back, I would go for the V6.
At the time (2006) the "new" plus 8 wasn't in the picture, but there was no way I could justify (or afford) 80k, for what is in effect a Sunday toy.
I think any owners of "old" Plus 8's (such as Les's lovely example) should cherish and look after them, they are virtually depreciation proof, and how many cars can you say that about?
But all traditional Morgans are lovely in their own right, and long may they continue in production.
Interesting. My feeling is that the Plus 4 and Roadster are outstanding cars at their list price, 36k and 45k respectively, however, the addition of some basic items like a radio, tonneau, spare wheel and sports seats, takes you to 42k and 51k, at which they are competing with Boxsters and Caymans, with which the technology is not comparable, despite the undoubted craftsmanship.
comparing trad morgans with porsches, on the basis that they are sports cars at a similar pricepoint is probably not going to work.
A morgan is a hand made open car and as such has more in common with caterham than mass produced factory cars. You are buying into the whole craftsman, bespoke british heritage. If you have a trip around the factory you will get a feel for that spirit.
for what its worth, I wouldn't bother speccing a radio, it is pretty much pointless at much over 40mph. Also when you factor in the lack of significant depreciation on the morgan, it will probably pay for the extras
A morgan is a hand made open car and as such has more in common with caterham than mass produced factory cars. You are buying into the whole craftsman, bespoke british heritage. If you have a trip around the factory you will get a feel for that spirit.
for what its worth, I wouldn't bother speccing a radio, it is pretty much pointless at much over 40mph. Also when you factor in the lack of significant depreciation on the morgan, it will probably pay for the extras
Edited by sawman on Sunday 30th November 09:01
cardigankid said:
You are probably right. Maybe need to see what actually happens at the factory.
How would your Morgan be if you start to drive it hard, as you would a Caterham?
if you intend driving that hard , then you need something like a plus 4 supersport, 200bhp mazda twin cam motor on throttle bodies , revving in excess of 7500 rpm.How would your Morgan be if you start to drive it hard, as you would a Caterham?
now that's a fun motor car !
Wacky Racer said:
cardigankid said:
Care to explain why?
Difficult to say really.Having previously owned the V8 version in my early twenties, the straight four Ford engine (although an excellent unit) didn't quite do it for me....The V6 seemed the next best thing, also it sits on wider wheels and tyres which look better.
If I could turn the clock back, I would go for the V6.
At the time (2006) the "new" plus 8 wasn't in the picture, but there was no way I could justify (or afford) 80k, for what is in effect a Sunday toy.
I think any owners of "old" Plus 8's (such as Les's lovely example) should cherish and look after them, they are virtually depreciation proof, and how many cars can you say that about?
But all traditional Morgans are lovely in their own right, and long may they continue in production.
cardigankid said:
Interesting. My feeling is that the Plus 4 and Roadster are outstanding cars at their list price, 36k and 45k respectively, however, the addition of some basic items like a radio, tonneau, spare wheel and sports seats, takes you to 42k and 51k, at which they are competing with Boxsters and Caymans, with which the technology is not comparable, despite the undoubted craftsmanship.
Trad Morgan technology isn't comparable with anything. Which is the whole point cardigankid said:
You are probably right. Maybe need to see what actually happens at the factory.
How would your Morgan be if you start to drive it hard, as you would a Caterham?
The factory tour is a great couple of hours spent.How would your Morgan be if you start to drive it hard, as you would a Caterham?
my 4/4 was a 1988 cvh powered car, and so driving hard needs to be defined, my car had its original rear suspension, although I had the front end modernised. On a nice smooth track the car was very progressive, and talkative, on the road it was pretty similar, you know exactly what all components of the car are doing, but I never really had enough horsepower to properly challenge the chassis, drifting is possible but you need to be committed!
I understand the modern trads are improved in terms of ride comfort, but I would imagine there is still some chassis flex to enjoy. As you might imagine when the basic design dates from 1936.
The reason I asked is that it is very hard to find an objective road test of a traditional Morgan. Most of them say things like unique and fun, which is understood but doesn't take us far. I don't take Jason Plato's review of the Plus 8 seriously as he comes across as starting from total opposition to the car, but he does make some telling points. I once owned a Honda S2000. Superficially it was a nice sports car with a screaming engine and very quick steering. If however you pushed it into a drift, you very quickly found yourself with a serious oversteer problem, on occasion so bad as to come to a stop sideways.
In my limited experience of driving a Morgan I liked the seating position, but thought the performance seats essential. I liked the way you sit inside the car and behind the wheel. The view over the bonnet was epic, magnificent. I liked the whole mechanical feel of the thing. The 2.0 litre engine was brisk and sounded good, reminiscent I thought of a souped up TR4 or even a TR6 in sound and performance. It felt low, fast and real. The brakes were alarming, in that the pedal was not where you expected it to be and once you had found it you had to apply some serious force to stop. I understand that is because it is using rear drums. Is there a reason for this? Maybe you would get used to that, but in the meantime I wouldn't like to find myself in an emergency situation in the car. In a ten mile run the headlights stopped working, the speedometer only worked intermittently and the driver's door flew open twice. This was a nearly new demonstrator. It made me wonder about the value of craftsmanship, and I wondered if the same degree of care goes into the classic Morgans as goes into the BMW engine variety. At no point did I get anywhere near breaking loose nor did I get any feel for what might happen if I did. I buy totally into the low tech approach. Why have stuff you don't actually need and which only turns a 'sports car' into a luxury GT? Radios, AC, traction control etc etc. Less, as they say, is more.
What I find myself thinking however, is that when the cars are costing the same as a Boxster, a Cayman or even an F Type Jag once sensible discounts are applied and a manual box specified, this concept only works if it is carried through with total integrity. A Ford engine and a Mazda gearbox will probably work fine but its a cheap solution, not a Porsche drivetrain. So we are not paying for handbuilt or blueprinted engines. A car which might be a no brainer, simply as a one trick vintage experience and fabulous looks, at 32k is a more considered decision at 43k, and even more again at 52k. A chassis does not need PASM, PTV, Adaptive dampers etc, and is indeed technically and morally superior, if it has genuinely been developed so they know exactly how it will respond, and which will work with you in the traditional way to the limits of its performance. Is that what you are buying from Morgan, or are we saying simply that it is good because it is old? I'd quite like someone like Chris Harris to tell us the honest answer to that.
In my limited experience of driving a Morgan I liked the seating position, but thought the performance seats essential. I liked the way you sit inside the car and behind the wheel. The view over the bonnet was epic, magnificent. I liked the whole mechanical feel of the thing. The 2.0 litre engine was brisk and sounded good, reminiscent I thought of a souped up TR4 or even a TR6 in sound and performance. It felt low, fast and real. The brakes were alarming, in that the pedal was not where you expected it to be and once you had found it you had to apply some serious force to stop. I understand that is because it is using rear drums. Is there a reason for this? Maybe you would get used to that, but in the meantime I wouldn't like to find myself in an emergency situation in the car. In a ten mile run the headlights stopped working, the speedometer only worked intermittently and the driver's door flew open twice. This was a nearly new demonstrator. It made me wonder about the value of craftsmanship, and I wondered if the same degree of care goes into the classic Morgans as goes into the BMW engine variety. At no point did I get anywhere near breaking loose nor did I get any feel for what might happen if I did. I buy totally into the low tech approach. Why have stuff you don't actually need and which only turns a 'sports car' into a luxury GT? Radios, AC, traction control etc etc. Less, as they say, is more.
What I find myself thinking however, is that when the cars are costing the same as a Boxster, a Cayman or even an F Type Jag once sensible discounts are applied and a manual box specified, this concept only works if it is carried through with total integrity. A Ford engine and a Mazda gearbox will probably work fine but its a cheap solution, not a Porsche drivetrain. So we are not paying for handbuilt or blueprinted engines. A car which might be a no brainer, simply as a one trick vintage experience and fabulous looks, at 32k is a more considered decision at 43k, and even more again at 52k. A chassis does not need PASM, PTV, Adaptive dampers etc, and is indeed technically and morally superior, if it has genuinely been developed so they know exactly how it will respond, and which will work with you in the traditional way to the limits of its performance. Is that what you are buying from Morgan, or are we saying simply that it is good because it is old? I'd quite like someone like Chris Harris to tell us the honest answer to that.
A trad Morgan chassis is NOT technically superior to another new car's chassis, with or without the driver aids. It was designed in 1936! While it has evolved some, it is still the same basic item, and it flexes in a way that no other currently-built car's does. That's the way it's supposed to be. The rear suspension was also designed 1936, and has evolved some. The front suspension was designed in 1909. 105 years ago. A new trad Morgan is essentially a vintage car that is newly built by the original manufacturer. As such, it is completely unique. Objectively comparing it to any other new car doesn't tend to happen because there is nothing comparable -- it is truly in a class of its own. The question is whether the experience it offers is one you want.
Regarding integrity, obviously the lights should work and the door shouldn't fly open. FWIW, I owned a '71 Plus 8 for 22 years and took it from 39K miles to 89K miles. Almost every mile was an absolute joy, and it was certainly an adventure. I loved it, and I miss it. But do not think a trad Morgan is comparable to a modern car. It isn't, and it shouldn't be. The modern car experience can be had from any number of manufacturers. The true new vintage car experience can only be had from a trad Morgan.
Regarding integrity, obviously the lights should work and the door shouldn't fly open. FWIW, I owned a '71 Plus 8 for 22 years and took it from 39K miles to 89K miles. Almost every mile was an absolute joy, and it was certainly an adventure. I loved it, and I miss it. But do not think a trad Morgan is comparable to a modern car. It isn't, and it shouldn't be. The modern car experience can be had from any number of manufacturers. The true new vintage car experience can only be had from a trad Morgan.
Gassing Station | Morgan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff