Possible new Aero 8 Owner - advice needed?
Discussion
Hi Lee,
A geat decision IMHO, of course. I have had both Series I and Series II's, and there are arguements for both. Some feel that the Series I has a purer shape, but the narrow body is quite restrictive if you intend taking long journeys. The engine in the Series II is different, more BHP - 330 viz 285, and a much sharper drive. Better brakes, 6-pot viz 4-pot, revised rear suspension, I could go on. Also, secondary safety is much better in the Series II: airbags, ABS, DTC, EBD, etc. Also, bigger boot, wider seats, full width dash, and many other bits and bobs that make it easier to live with on a daily basis.
Issues you have:
1. Not a problem in my experience, Eton Wick has some of the worst in our area, and both Aero's easily sailed over them.
2. Mechanically excellent, but the rest of it is a Morgan and you will get 'issues'.
3. The Dealers and the factory have proved very helpful to my ownership experiences.
4. The hoods vary enormously on the Series I and I believe there were about 6 different iterations. I had to have a new one fitted, under warranty, by the factory. The Series II hood is much better, but they do vary car-to-car.
5. Warranty issues are dealt with by the network satisfactorily, in my experience.
6. Prices of Series I's seems to have bottomed out around the £35,000.00 mark, Series II's depend on year and mileage, but new cars now cost circa £70,000.00 depending on spec.
It is worth you looking at www.talkmorgan.com as many Aero owners seem to have gravitated there, as well as posting on PH. What would I choose, well I have just sold my Series II (through RTCC) and Michael 997 bought it, and I pick up a Series III in April/May.
Good luck Lee with your purchase and I look forward to seeing the photos in due course.
Cheers
Brian
A geat decision IMHO, of course. I have had both Series I and Series II's, and there are arguements for both. Some feel that the Series I has a purer shape, but the narrow body is quite restrictive if you intend taking long journeys. The engine in the Series II is different, more BHP - 330 viz 285, and a much sharper drive. Better brakes, 6-pot viz 4-pot, revised rear suspension, I could go on. Also, secondary safety is much better in the Series II: airbags, ABS, DTC, EBD, etc. Also, bigger boot, wider seats, full width dash, and many other bits and bobs that make it easier to live with on a daily basis.
Issues you have:
1. Not a problem in my experience, Eton Wick has some of the worst in our area, and both Aero's easily sailed over them.
2. Mechanically excellent, but the rest of it is a Morgan and you will get 'issues'.
3. The Dealers and the factory have proved very helpful to my ownership experiences.
4. The hoods vary enormously on the Series I and I believe there were about 6 different iterations. I had to have a new one fitted, under warranty, by the factory. The Series II hood is much better, but they do vary car-to-car.
5. Warranty issues are dealt with by the network satisfactorily, in my experience.
6. Prices of Series I's seems to have bottomed out around the £35,000.00 mark, Series II's depend on year and mileage, but new cars now cost circa £70,000.00 depending on spec.
It is worth you looking at www.talkmorgan.com as many Aero owners seem to have gravitated there, as well as posting on PH. What would I choose, well I have just sold my Series II (through RTCC) and Michael 997 bought it, and I pick up a Series III in April/May.
Good luck Lee with your purchase and I look forward to seeing the photos in due course.
Cheers
Brian
Hi Lee,
Good luck with your hunt, that silver one looks very nice but the red/black combination seems to be sticking around. I also liked a Dark Metallic green one that I saw when I dropped off my car at RTCC, but then I do like green Aero's
Regarding the changes between the different Series, the following may be helpful:
www.talkmorgan.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=179&an=0&page=0#Post179
Cheers
Brian
Good luck with your hunt, that silver one looks very nice but the red/black combination seems to be sticking around. I also liked a Dark Metallic green one that I saw when I dropped off my car at RTCC, but then I do like green Aero's
Regarding the changes between the different Series, the following may be helpful:
www.talkmorgan.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=179&an=0&page=0#Post179
Cheers
Brian
"to my eyes the mark 1 - original Aero 8 is best"
A man after my own heart....
Later cars may have more widgets and gizmos.... but at the end of the day the Mk1 was what came off the drawing board... the Mk2 and Mk3 in MY OPPINION is the travesty of decission by comittee. Morgan paying too much attention to the people who would never purchase one and less to the sprit of the design.
I think you know what I'm talking about as you've indicated in you decission criteria
1. Speed humps / clearance.
I have a 2003 Mk1 and my father has a 2002 Mk1 and neither of us has had any problems with speed bumps.
2. Reliability.
The BMW running gear is so over engineered we've not really had any problems with major components. Smaller things can often be "upgraded" when become an issue... although TBH you have to be a little/lot fussy to find them.
3. Dealer / Morgan back up - remember an ex TVR owner where u got very little 'help'.
In the region you are in there is SGT or RTCC. If your looking to run on a budget a Mk1 will be out of Warranty so an AA warranty and a good Aero 8 specialist/Indy will be a good budget route... Miller Commercial Motors (01494) 448158 would be a good call if you want that route.
4. Roof - leaking and staying up or down at speed.
I have a later roof design, single handed flip up at the lights type usability. My fathers earlier 2002 model has the original design.. He does not want to change as although it lets a litte water in the lower roof line makes the car even more sporty/gangster/lowrider hotrod. Mostly it's the adjustment of the doors that makes the real difference. If you purchase a Mk1 with a little cajoling the factory will upgrade you to the latest spec FOC.
5. Warranty issues.
I purchased my car second hand so no Morgan warranty to speak of. I purchased an AA parts and labour warranty. At circa £50 which offers 3 claims of £500 per anum it's done me proud well worth the value.
6. Resale is the affair ends.
As the man says, dealers are attempting to stay the values at £35 because the Aero is encroaching on the Roadster and +8 terratory after that so in order to ensure differntiation in the line-up the values are stopping there. I expect that the Mk1 in the long run will hold it's value above the Mk2 & 3.
I've had a TVR Cerbera 4.5 Lw Red Rose (tuned!).... the performance is slightly less in the Aero (like -130bhp!) but turns just as many heads for different reasons. The TVR was all performance, shreading tyres, fames and loud noises.... however it was also canoe factory, falling apart and some shocking engineering decisions.
The Aero on the other hand is considerably more modern. positively advanced. in it's engineering even if the engine is old tech compared to the TVR Speed6 or AJP8. TBH.. you'll get 90% performance of the TVR without the stress that it's likeley to kill you due to parts failure.
Good luck in finding an Aero... BTW.. there are a few of us that I suspect live very local to you!
A man after my own heart....
Later cars may have more widgets and gizmos.... but at the end of the day the Mk1 was what came off the drawing board... the Mk2 and Mk3 in MY OPPINION is the travesty of decission by comittee. Morgan paying too much attention to the people who would never purchase one and less to the sprit of the design.
I think you know what I'm talking about as you've indicated in you decission criteria
1. Speed humps / clearance.
I have a 2003 Mk1 and my father has a 2002 Mk1 and neither of us has had any problems with speed bumps.
2. Reliability.
The BMW running gear is so over engineered we've not really had any problems with major components. Smaller things can often be "upgraded" when become an issue... although TBH you have to be a little/lot fussy to find them.
3. Dealer / Morgan back up - remember an ex TVR owner where u got very little 'help'.
In the region you are in there is SGT or RTCC. If your looking to run on a budget a Mk1 will be out of Warranty so an AA warranty and a good Aero 8 specialist/Indy will be a good budget route... Miller Commercial Motors (01494) 448158 would be a good call if you want that route.
4. Roof - leaking and staying up or down at speed.
I have a later roof design, single handed flip up at the lights type usability. My fathers earlier 2002 model has the original design.. He does not want to change as although it lets a litte water in the lower roof line makes the car even more sporty/gangster/lowrider hotrod. Mostly it's the adjustment of the doors that makes the real difference. If you purchase a Mk1 with a little cajoling the factory will upgrade you to the latest spec FOC.
5. Warranty issues.
I purchased my car second hand so no Morgan warranty to speak of. I purchased an AA parts and labour warranty. At circa £50 which offers 3 claims of £500 per anum it's done me proud well worth the value.
6. Resale is the affair ends.
As the man says, dealers are attempting to stay the values at £35 because the Aero is encroaching on the Roadster and +8 terratory after that so in order to ensure differntiation in the line-up the values are stopping there. I expect that the Mk1 in the long run will hold it's value above the Mk2 & 3.
I've had a TVR Cerbera 4.5 Lw Red Rose (tuned!).... the performance is slightly less in the Aero (like -130bhp!) but turns just as many heads for different reasons. The TVR was all performance, shreading tyres, fames and loud noises.... however it was also canoe factory, falling apart and some shocking engineering decisions.
The Aero on the other hand is considerably more modern. positively advanced. in it's engineering even if the engine is old tech compared to the TVR Speed6 or AJP8. TBH.. you'll get 90% performance of the TVR without the stress that it's likeley to kill you due to parts failure.
Good luck in finding an Aero... BTW.. there are a few of us that I suspect live very local to you!
Just to chip in - bought my 2003 S1 car from SGT 18 month ago. They've been most helpful (speak to Julian Cutts) and nothing has been too much trouble.
Car has been rock solid reliable - only thing that cna go wrong I've found is the odd headlight bulb going pop - figure it's just one of those things - I've replaced 2 in the same front headlam in 18 months - so hardly an issue!
The silver one they have in is a nice car, the retaining straps for the hood are a great feature (special fitment) so I'm getting that done for my car this winter.
Personally I prefer the S1 hood over the later ones as it lies flatbehind the seats if you fold it away giving the car cleaner lines that the later 'concertina' roof. (However if you want to raise / lower quickly the later roof is far superior).
MEchanically as said they are bulletproof really. My power steering pump burned out so I got an over engineered replacement fitted, and the warranty paid out to cover the majority of the cost.
If you buy from SGT they will offer a warranty - take it- bargain for an extra year (I got 2 years thrown in on mine). It's a nice freebie, and it's peace of mind, though it seem unlikely to need any serious TLC).
Having said that all cars are individual, other thing to check out is the window winders - the electric motors can give up the ghost so check they aren't struggling.
Sports exhaust is a must, and budget for sprucing the interior up with a mota lita wheel and stainless boss and aluminium gear shifter.
A decent stereo installation can be made for around 1k (see wentworth audio near virginina water who did mine) and forget having sat nav in the head unit as you can't see it in the MK1 - go for a garmin / tomtom mounted via a sucker on the windscreen.
Seats are very comfortable despite the lack of adjustment, boot is large enough for weekend / (or 2weeks in france like I did in the summer with my mrs if you're deicated!)
Also be prepared to be noticed - you're like a travelling circus driving one of these about, so it'll take a little getting used to at first!
Go for it - it'll be well worthwhile.
Car has been rock solid reliable - only thing that cna go wrong I've found is the odd headlight bulb going pop - figure it's just one of those things - I've replaced 2 in the same front headlam in 18 months - so hardly an issue!
The silver one they have in is a nice car, the retaining straps for the hood are a great feature (special fitment) so I'm getting that done for my car this winter.
Personally I prefer the S1 hood over the later ones as it lies flatbehind the seats if you fold it away giving the car cleaner lines that the later 'concertina' roof. (However if you want to raise / lower quickly the later roof is far superior).
MEchanically as said they are bulletproof really. My power steering pump burned out so I got an over engineered replacement fitted, and the warranty paid out to cover the majority of the cost.
If you buy from SGT they will offer a warranty - take it- bargain for an extra year (I got 2 years thrown in on mine). It's a nice freebie, and it's peace of mind, though it seem unlikely to need any serious TLC).
Having said that all cars are individual, other thing to check out is the window winders - the electric motors can give up the ghost so check they aren't struggling.
Sports exhaust is a must, and budget for sprucing the interior up with a mota lita wheel and stainless boss and aluminium gear shifter.
A decent stereo installation can be made for around 1k (see wentworth audio near virginina water who did mine) and forget having sat nav in the head unit as you can't see it in the MK1 - go for a garmin / tomtom mounted via a sucker on the windscreen.
Seats are very comfortable despite the lack of adjustment, boot is large enough for weekend / (or 2weeks in france like I did in the summer with my mrs if you're deicated!)
Also be prepared to be noticed - you're like a travelling circus driving one of these about, so it'll take a little getting used to at first!
Go for it - it'll be well worthwhile.
Each Aero model has its special charcteristics. Despite the small number sold, there are many series and there are many variations within each series. Essentially, the company has been beta testing the line within a small market and new developments and production methods can appear as frequently as every 2-3 weeks.
The main divisions are Series I, Series II, Series III and now the Aeromax (Series IV)
Series I are the most numerous. Though their horsepower is the least at the flywheel, they are certainly the most reactive. When THEY were made, the concept was to put a race car on the road. They delivered the power to the tyres with NO compliance in the drive train and though that often shows up in a clackedy clack gearbox and rear end, the car jolts forwardf in a fashion no other Aero series can match. Their roofs leak, their side windows crack, their windscreens crack, their eyes cross, there is no room for a driver's right arm and you can scald yourself getting in and out of them on the hot wide wing section at the door, but they are great fun on roads wide enough for them.
The ones that have been used are normally sorted by now and their prices are very reasonable now. Aeros have not held their residual value as do other Morgans. Figure 32-36.
Series II was a model that was made primarily for the US, in hope of finding a market for the car. The cockpit was widened which actually made the car look slimmer. The power was increased (286 to 322bhp), but the added weight and the switch to a compliant drive train slowed the car down. The roof was improved, brakes upgraded and an airbag became optional. About 100 of these were made between crash testing, demos and sales. Most are in the US. Figure 42-45k.
Series III is the latest of the line. Most developed. The bulge of the top when down has been lowered, the front end look has lost its infamous cross-eyed look and the interior is impressive. Most attractive version to date. The power is the same and the car is a bit heavier, less reactive. From series I to series II the Aero morphed from a racing/rally car into a touring car with much presence.
The Series IV is still a question mark. It is a coupe version of the Series III but undeveloped in a final form and has yet to pass the muster of reg. compliancy. It is possible that it will have a more powerful engine..380 bhp. It will likely cost 120k VAT excl. (they originbally announced 1000k but that has been rasied already to 110k. They except the first one to leave their factory in 2008. Non-refundable deposit of 25k is required. The company will use the deposits to complete the devlopment. Considering the experience with the other series, it is a better idea to take a later car.
Phazer
phazer said:
The main divisions are Series I, Series II, Series III and now the Aeromax (Series IV)
Series I are the most numerous. Though their horsepower is the least at the flywheel, they are certainly the most reactive. When THEY were made, the concept was to put a race car on the road. They delivered the power to the tyres with NO compliance in the drive train and though that often shows up in a clackedy clack gearbox and rear end, the car jolts forwardf in a fashion no other Aero series can match. Their roofs leak, their side windows crack, their windscreens crack, their eyes cross, there is no room for a driver's right arm and you can scald yourself getting in and out of them on the hot wide wing section at the door, but they are great fun on roads wide enough for them.
The ones that have been used are normally sorted by now and their prices are very reasonable now. Aeros have not held their residual value as do other Morgans. Figure 32-36.
Series II was a model that was made primarily for the US, in hope of finding a market for the car. The cockpit was widened which actually made the car look slimmer. The power was increased (286 to 322bhp), but the added weight and the switch to a compliant drive train slowed the car down. The roof was improved, brakes upgraded and an airbag became optional. About 100 of these were made between crash testing, demos and sales. Most are in the US. Figure 42-45k.
Series III is the latest of the line. Most developed. The bulge of the top when down has been lowered, the front end look has lost its infamous cross-eyed look and the interior is impressive. Most attractive version to date. The power is the same and the car is a bit heavier, less reactive. From series I to series II the Aero morphed from a racing/rally car into a touring car with much presence.
The Series IV is still a question mark. It is a coupe version of the Series III but undeveloped in a final form and has yet to pass the muster of reg. compliancy. It is possible that it will have a more powerful engine..380 bhp. It will likely cost 120k VAT excl. (they originbally announced 1000k but that has been rasied already to 110k. They except the first one to leave their factory in 2008. Non-refundable deposit of 25k is required. The company will use the deposits to complete the devlopment. Considering the experience with the other series, it is a better idea to take a later car.
Phazer
Series I are the most numerous. Though their horsepower is the least at the flywheel, they are certainly the most reactive. When THEY were made, the concept was to put a race car on the road. They delivered the power to the tyres with NO compliance in the drive train and though that often shows up in a clackedy clack gearbox and rear end, the car jolts forwardf in a fashion no other Aero series can match. Their roofs leak, their side windows crack, their windscreens crack, their eyes cross, there is no room for a driver's right arm and you can scald yourself getting in and out of them on the hot wide wing section at the door, but they are great fun on roads wide enough for them.
The ones that have been used are normally sorted by now and their prices are very reasonable now. Aeros have not held their residual value as do other Morgans. Figure 32-36.
Series II was a model that was made primarily for the US, in hope of finding a market for the car. The cockpit was widened which actually made the car look slimmer. The power was increased (286 to 322bhp), but the added weight and the switch to a compliant drive train slowed the car down. The roof was improved, brakes upgraded and an airbag became optional. About 100 of these were made between crash testing, demos and sales. Most are in the US. Figure 42-45k.
Series III is the latest of the line. Most developed. The bulge of the top when down has been lowered, the front end look has lost its infamous cross-eyed look and the interior is impressive. Most attractive version to date. The power is the same and the car is a bit heavier, less reactive. From series I to series II the Aero morphed from a racing/rally car into a touring car with much presence.
The Series IV is still a question mark. It is a coupe version of the Series III but undeveloped in a final form and has yet to pass the muster of reg. compliancy. It is possible that it will have a more powerful engine..380 bhp. It will likely cost 120k VAT excl. (they originbally announced 1000k but that has been rasied already to 110k. They except the first one to leave their factory in 2008. Non-refundable deposit of 25k is required. The company will use the deposits to complete the devlopment. Considering the experience with the other series, it is a better idea to take a later car.
Phazer
Whilst I agree with some of what you say, some of the comments you have made appear to be uninformed IMHO.
The engine in the Series I is not the most reactive, it is basically out of the X5 and consequently, it is chipped primarily for this off-road function and the engine in the Series II/III (out of the 645) is much sharper and a far better drive. The clackedy clack gearbox in the Series I is a Getrag one, changed by BMW, and thus used by Morgan for the subsequent Series for a much smoother ZF. Apart from this improvement, the drive-train is unchanged between the Series, though the mounting of the rear axle in the Series II/III has more compliance to reduce drive-line shunt.
Regarding the list of faults you mention, i.e. cracked side windows, etc,etc, I did not suffer any of these with my Series I, though being a Morgan I did have other 'issues' that were dealt with by the factory.
Series II - in no way is the Series I faster than the Series II, there is really no comparison in the way that they the deliver - the Series II is much more of a performance car - period. Airbags are not optional, they are standard. In this version, the car had morphed from a work-in-progress into something much more complete; again IMHO.
Series III - the only major difference between the Series II and III is the front-end treatment. The interior is exactly the same in both versions and so far, they are mechanically identical; apart form the usual minor changes that you mention MMC make on the production line on a continual basis.
To most Aero enthusiasts, there is no Series IV as yet. The Aeromax series is a quite separate line and it is likely that the Series IV Aero 8 will be the model with the new engine, replacing the 4.4 L later next year.
Most Aero enthusiasts favour one or other of the Series, with many plumbing for the original Series I, but for me I do agree with you that the Series III is the most complete version of the marque and I am eagerly awaiting delivery of mine in the new year.
>Whilst I agree with some of what you say, some
>of the comments you have made appear to be uninformed IMHO.
>The engine in the Series I is not the most reactive,
>it is basically out of the X5 and consequently,.....
Reactiveness is not about power, it is about getting power to the ground as quickly as possible with as little loss as possible. I did not say the engine was more reactive, I said the car was more reactive. A Series I gets what it has to the gound far more quickly and fully than any of the other Aero series...but not without a big cost.
The drive train was built without any concession for compliance..like a race car. No rubber, no splines. Touch the pedal and it goes straight to the ground. It takes a heavy toll on all the components of course (the shop boys watching Chris Lawrence design the thing were aghast!) and they clatter and clunk and sometimes fail but the reaction of the car to the pedal is great. Race cars are not meant to last more than one win at a time.
The Series II moved away from that. Compliancy was built into the propshaft and rubber bumpers were installed at key places. BHP went up..and top speed but reactivensss was compromised as it is with any normal car.
I have had the pleasure of testing all three series at length..and the Series I and II on the same day on the same country roads and the same tracks. Next time you have the oppertunity to do so, look at what I am pointing out here.
>Regarding the list of faults you mention, i.e. cracked side windows, >etc,etc, I did not suffer any of these with my Series I,
Lucky man. Ask around.
The cracks develop for different reasons. The side windows because of the heated window system and the windscreen because the side supports are too thin and the tightness of the most of the Series I tops force it to crack..normally just adjacent to the supports. A mildly bowed windscreen would have been much stronger and stopped this or a more robust side supports but it wasn't thought of.
>though being a Morgan I did have other 'issues' that were dealt with by the <factory.
Curious. What were they?
>Series II - in no way is the Series I faster than the Series II, >there is really no comparison in the way that they the deliver - the >Series II is much more of a performance car - period.
Must disagree. You see top speed and better brakes as more performant. I don't. I am not a touring car person..and lean to rally-style driving or circuit racing. I don;t brake..I down shift..(old habits die hard). My adrenalin pumps with acceleration and reaction not top speed. In these days of TV cameras and radar, the best private arenas left are lonely back country roads betwee 20-100mph. Autobahn, Motorway, Autostrada, Autoroute and Interstate driving is boring to me at any speed in any language.
>Airbags are not optional, they are standard. In this
>version, the car had morphed from a work-in-progress into something >much more complete; again IMHO.
Depends on your definition of much more complete.
I am afraid you are confusing me on the airbags. Are you saying you believe all Aero versions have airbags? That one is easy to settle. Simply read your Series I manual. Airbags became standard when they designed the US version. The car also got heavier.
>Series III - the only major difference between the Series II and III >is the front-end treatment.
Look more closely. Check out the rear boot. and the lid lines..the top mechanism when down and the boot drainage..
>The interior is exactly the same in both versions and so far, they >are mechanically identical; apart form the usual minor changes that >you mention MMC make on the production line on a continual basis.
You're right. Major change is only on price.
However, ongoing minor tweaks during the production (every 2-3 units) of anything (Aeros or widgets) is never healthy. Each change, no matter how minor has domino ripple effects that only come fully to light over much usage and by then it is too late. Additionally, trying to tweak a car model once in production creates a situation analagous to trying to build a car while it is moving. This single MMC habit has caused more problems for the Aero than any other. It will be years before the marque recovers from that.
>To most Aero enthusiasts, there is no Series IV as yet.
>The Aeromax series is a quite separate line
You believe a coupe version of the Aero should be considered as a completely different car? I hope not. That would be very sad.
>and it is likely that the Series IV Aero 8 will be the model with >the new engine, replacing the 4.4 L later next year.
Well..let's hope that BMW will agree on that. They have not been as kind during 2007 as they could have been...not all their fault though. Actually, a bigger badder engine than either Bimmer has already been tried and is virtually a wow!
However, all that being said, do you believe only a change of the engine dictates a wholly new model?
>Most Aero enthusiasts favour one or other of the Series, with many >plumbing for the original Series I, but for me I do agree with you >that the Series III is the most complete version of the marque and I >am eagerly awaiting delivery of mine in the new year.
Congratulations on your purchase! May you enjoy it thoroughly.
phazer
>of the comments you have made appear to be uninformed IMHO.
>The engine in the Series I is not the most reactive,
>it is basically out of the X5 and consequently,.....
Reactiveness is not about power, it is about getting power to the ground as quickly as possible with as little loss as possible. I did not say the engine was more reactive, I said the car was more reactive. A Series I gets what it has to the gound far more quickly and fully than any of the other Aero series...but not without a big cost.
The drive train was built without any concession for compliance..like a race car. No rubber, no splines. Touch the pedal and it goes straight to the ground. It takes a heavy toll on all the components of course (the shop boys watching Chris Lawrence design the thing were aghast!) and they clatter and clunk and sometimes fail but the reaction of the car to the pedal is great. Race cars are not meant to last more than one win at a time.
The Series II moved away from that. Compliancy was built into the propshaft and rubber bumpers were installed at key places. BHP went up..and top speed but reactivensss was compromised as it is with any normal car.
I have had the pleasure of testing all three series at length..and the Series I and II on the same day on the same country roads and the same tracks. Next time you have the oppertunity to do so, look at what I am pointing out here.
>Regarding the list of faults you mention, i.e. cracked side windows, >etc,etc, I did not suffer any of these with my Series I,
Lucky man. Ask around.
The cracks develop for different reasons. The side windows because of the heated window system and the windscreen because the side supports are too thin and the tightness of the most of the Series I tops force it to crack..normally just adjacent to the supports. A mildly bowed windscreen would have been much stronger and stopped this or a more robust side supports but it wasn't thought of.
>though being a Morgan I did have other 'issues' that were dealt with by the <factory.
Curious. What were they?
>Series II - in no way is the Series I faster than the Series II, >there is really no comparison in the way that they the deliver - the >Series II is much more of a performance car - period.
Must disagree. You see top speed and better brakes as more performant. I don't. I am not a touring car person..and lean to rally-style driving or circuit racing. I don;t brake..I down shift..(old habits die hard). My adrenalin pumps with acceleration and reaction not top speed. In these days of TV cameras and radar, the best private arenas left are lonely back country roads betwee 20-100mph. Autobahn, Motorway, Autostrada, Autoroute and Interstate driving is boring to me at any speed in any language.
>Airbags are not optional, they are standard. In this
>version, the car had morphed from a work-in-progress into something >much more complete; again IMHO.
Depends on your definition of much more complete.
I am afraid you are confusing me on the airbags. Are you saying you believe all Aero versions have airbags? That one is easy to settle. Simply read your Series I manual. Airbags became standard when they designed the US version. The car also got heavier.
>Series III - the only major difference between the Series II and III >is the front-end treatment.
Look more closely. Check out the rear boot. and the lid lines..the top mechanism when down and the boot drainage..
>The interior is exactly the same in both versions and so far, they >are mechanically identical; apart form the usual minor changes that >you mention MMC make on the production line on a continual basis.
You're right. Major change is only on price.
However, ongoing minor tweaks during the production (every 2-3 units) of anything (Aeros or widgets) is never healthy. Each change, no matter how minor has domino ripple effects that only come fully to light over much usage and by then it is too late. Additionally, trying to tweak a car model once in production creates a situation analagous to trying to build a car while it is moving. This single MMC habit has caused more problems for the Aero than any other. It will be years before the marque recovers from that.
>To most Aero enthusiasts, there is no Series IV as yet.
>The Aeromax series is a quite separate line
You believe a coupe version of the Aero should be considered as a completely different car? I hope not. That would be very sad.
>and it is likely that the Series IV Aero 8 will be the model with >the new engine, replacing the 4.4 L later next year.
Well..let's hope that BMW will agree on that. They have not been as kind during 2007 as they could have been...not all their fault though. Actually, a bigger badder engine than either Bimmer has already been tried and is virtually a wow!
However, all that being said, do you believe only a change of the engine dictates a wholly new model?
>Most Aero enthusiasts favour one or other of the Series, with many >plumbing for the original Series I, but for me I do agree with you >that the Series III is the most complete version of the marque and I >am eagerly awaiting delivery of mine in the new year.
Congratulations on your purchase! May you enjoy it thoroughly.
phazer
>Reactiveness is not about power, it is about getting power to the ground as quickly as possible with as little loss as possible. I did not say the engine was more reactive, I said the car was more reactive. A Series I gets what it has to the gound far more quickly and fully than any of the other Aero series...but not without a big cost.
Please re-read what I said, I am not talking about power in isolation. I disagree that the Series I is more reactive than any other Aero; if you were talking about the GTN then I would say you have a point. The differences between the Series I and Series II/III are not sufficient to support your over-blown contention.
>The drive train was built without any concession for compliance..like a race car. No rubber, no splines. Touch the pedal and it goes straight to the ground. It takes a heavy toll on all the components of course (the shop boys watching Chris Lawrence design the thing were aghast!) and they clatter and clunk and sometimes fail but the reaction of the ]car to the pedal is great. Race cars are not meant to last more than one win at a time.
The Series II moved away from that. Compliancy was built into the propshaft and rubber bumpers were installed at key places. BHP went up..and top speed but reactivensss was compromised as it is with any normal car.
The changes to the Series II were minor and whilst I accept some of what you say, I think in the main you are mistaking the elimination of some NVH for what you call ‘reactiveness’, but you do not exactly quantify what you mean by it and where the other Series are deficient.
>I have had the pleasure of testing all three series at length..and the Series I and II on the same day on the same country roads and the same tracks. Next time you have the oppertunity to do so, look at what I am pointing out here.
So far I have done some 16,000 miles in a Series I and 14,000 miles in a Series II. I have road-tested a Series III and thus have driven all three over roads that I know well. I have also been on circuits in the Series I and Series II and thus feel I am just as well placed as you to make objective statements on the differences in how the Series drive.
>You do not give any details of what you drive in your profile, or of what you have owned in the past. Maybe if we knew more about you, then we could better decide how subjective or even objective your opinions are?
>Lucky man. Ask around.
The cracks develop for different reasons. The side windows because of the heated]window system and the windscreen because the side supports are too thin and the tightness of the most of the Series I tops force it to crack..normally just adjacent to the supports. A mildly bowed windscreen would have been much stronger and stopped this or a more robust side supports but it wasn't thought of.
If the design is that poor let’s hear from other Series I user’s on this forum. I repeat that in the time I owned a Series I I experienced none of these issues, though I have heard of some occasional side window breakages.
>Curious. What were they?
I do not intend complaining or slagging off MMC in a public forum, or privately come to that, I had some issues and these were dealt with by the factory under warranty. I have proved my satisfaction with the Aero by purchasing another two since that first Series I.
>Must disagree. You see top speed and better brakes as more performant. I don't. I am not a touring car person..and lean to rally-style driving or circuit racing. I don;t brake..I down shift..(old habits die hard). My adrenalin pumps with acceleration and reaction not top speed. In these days of TV cameras and radar, the best private arenas left are lonely back country roads betwee 20-100mph. Autobahn, Motorway, Autostrada, Autoroute and Interstate driving is boring to me at any speed in any language.
Depends on your definition of much more complete.
Where did I say that top speed equals more performance, you are obviously not a circuit racer as down-shifting is NOT the fastest way round a circuit. Proper circuit drivers use the brakes to slow down and thus the 6-pot brakes on the Series II will do this more efficiently than the 4-pot on the Series I.
If as you say the Series II morphed into a “touring car” what would you regard as a performance car, as I don’t really understand your line of reasoning?
>I am afraid you are confusing me on the airbags. Are you saying you believe all Aero versions have airbags? That one is easy to settle. Simply read your Series I manual. Airbags became standard when they designed the US version. The car also got heavier.
Please re-read what I said and don’t try and paraphrase me, what I said related to the Series II. I reiterate for your benefit, the Series II did not have optional airbags; they were standard, as they are on the Series III. The car became slightly heavier and the power went up by some 16%, i.e. considerably more than any weight increase, and yet you said in your previous post that the car became slower. I don’t understand your reasoning.
>Series III - the only major difference between the Series II and III >is the front-end treatment.
>Look more closely. Check out the rear boot. and the lid lines..the top mechanism when down and the boot drainage..
Again, please re-read my post. Is boot drainage and new seals a major difference?
>You're right. Major change is only on price.
Agreed, about a circa £5,000.00 increase if you have specified side-pipes.
>However, ongoing minor tweaks during the production (every 2-3 units) of anything (Aeros or widgets) is never healthy. Each change, no matter how minor has domino ripple effects that only come fully to light over much usage and by then it is too late. Additionally, trying to tweak a car model once in production creates a situation analagous to trying to build a car while it is moving. This single MMC habit has caused ]more problems for the Aero than any other. It will be years before the marque recovers ]from that.
In your humble opinion, I hope. Not everybody agrees with your pessimistic view of the marque. Incidentally, do you mean the Aero model or the Morgan marque?
>You believe a coupe version of the Aero should be considered as a completely different car? I hope not. That would be very sad.
Not me, but the MMC who regard it as a separate product line and who do not call it the Series IV. With a circa £40,000.00 difference in the price, I would be surprised if they were to position it as the Series IV Aero. Not sad, but realistic.
>Well..let's hope that BMW will agree on that. They have not been as kind during 2007 as ]they could have been...not all their fault though. Actually, a bigger badder engine than ]either Bimmer has already been tried and is virtually a wow!
phazer, it seems that you are trying to convince us that you are close to the factory with some of your post, but these comments cast doubt on your supposed connection. If you really are in ‘the know’ have the courage to come out from behind your anonymity. The engine in the Aero 8 will change next year to a different one from BMW. Are you a betting man? Fancy a small wager?
>However, all that being said, do you believe only a change of the engine dictates a wholly new model?
You appear to be the master of the misquote. It’s boring, but let me put you right again I said: “it is likely that the Series IV Aero 8 will be the model with the new engine, replacing the 4.4 L later next year.”
There was no engine change between the Series II and III, so why would I believe that only a change of engine creates a new model. In any case, I am not in charge of deciding what creates a new Series, but it is logical that a new engine would.
>Congratulations on your purchase! May you enjoy it thoroughly.
phazer
Many thanks, I will. Have a Happy New Year.
Aeroman
Please re-read what I said, I am not talking about power in isolation. I disagree that the Series I is more reactive than any other Aero; if you were talking about the GTN then I would say you have a point. The differences between the Series I and Series II/III are not sufficient to support your over-blown contention.
>The drive train was built without any concession for compliance..like a race car. No rubber, no splines. Touch the pedal and it goes straight to the ground. It takes a heavy toll on all the components of course (the shop boys watching Chris Lawrence design the thing were aghast!) and they clatter and clunk and sometimes fail but the reaction of the ]car to the pedal is great. Race cars are not meant to last more than one win at a time.
The Series II moved away from that. Compliancy was built into the propshaft and rubber bumpers were installed at key places. BHP went up..and top speed but reactivensss was compromised as it is with any normal car.
The changes to the Series II were minor and whilst I accept some of what you say, I think in the main you are mistaking the elimination of some NVH for what you call ‘reactiveness’, but you do not exactly quantify what you mean by it and where the other Series are deficient.
>I have had the pleasure of testing all three series at length..and the Series I and II on the same day on the same country roads and the same tracks. Next time you have the oppertunity to do so, look at what I am pointing out here.
So far I have done some 16,000 miles in a Series I and 14,000 miles in a Series II. I have road-tested a Series III and thus have driven all three over roads that I know well. I have also been on circuits in the Series I and Series II and thus feel I am just as well placed as you to make objective statements on the differences in how the Series drive.
>You do not give any details of what you drive in your profile, or of what you have owned in the past. Maybe if we knew more about you, then we could better decide how subjective or even objective your opinions are?
>Lucky man. Ask around.
The cracks develop for different reasons. The side windows because of the heated]window system and the windscreen because the side supports are too thin and the tightness of the most of the Series I tops force it to crack..normally just adjacent to the supports. A mildly bowed windscreen would have been much stronger and stopped this or a more robust side supports but it wasn't thought of.
If the design is that poor let’s hear from other Series I user’s on this forum. I repeat that in the time I owned a Series I I experienced none of these issues, though I have heard of some occasional side window breakages.
>Curious. What were they?
I do not intend complaining or slagging off MMC in a public forum, or privately come to that, I had some issues and these were dealt with by the factory under warranty. I have proved my satisfaction with the Aero by purchasing another two since that first Series I.
>Must disagree. You see top speed and better brakes as more performant. I don't. I am not a touring car person..and lean to rally-style driving or circuit racing. I don;t brake..I down shift..(old habits die hard). My adrenalin pumps with acceleration and reaction not top speed. In these days of TV cameras and radar, the best private arenas left are lonely back country roads betwee 20-100mph. Autobahn, Motorway, Autostrada, Autoroute and Interstate driving is boring to me at any speed in any language.
Depends on your definition of much more complete.
Where did I say that top speed equals more performance, you are obviously not a circuit racer as down-shifting is NOT the fastest way round a circuit. Proper circuit drivers use the brakes to slow down and thus the 6-pot brakes on the Series II will do this more efficiently than the 4-pot on the Series I.
If as you say the Series II morphed into a “touring car” what would you regard as a performance car, as I don’t really understand your line of reasoning?
>I am afraid you are confusing me on the airbags. Are you saying you believe all Aero versions have airbags? That one is easy to settle. Simply read your Series I manual. Airbags became standard when they designed the US version. The car also got heavier.
Please re-read what I said and don’t try and paraphrase me, what I said related to the Series II. I reiterate for your benefit, the Series II did not have optional airbags; they were standard, as they are on the Series III. The car became slightly heavier and the power went up by some 16%, i.e. considerably more than any weight increase, and yet you said in your previous post that the car became slower. I don’t understand your reasoning.
>Series III - the only major difference between the Series II and III >is the front-end treatment.
>Look more closely. Check out the rear boot. and the lid lines..the top mechanism when down and the boot drainage..
Again, please re-read my post. Is boot drainage and new seals a major difference?
>You're right. Major change is only on price.
Agreed, about a circa £5,000.00 increase if you have specified side-pipes.
>However, ongoing minor tweaks during the production (every 2-3 units) of anything (Aeros or widgets) is never healthy. Each change, no matter how minor has domino ripple effects that only come fully to light over much usage and by then it is too late. Additionally, trying to tweak a car model once in production creates a situation analagous to trying to build a car while it is moving. This single MMC habit has caused ]more problems for the Aero than any other. It will be years before the marque recovers ]from that.
In your humble opinion, I hope. Not everybody agrees with your pessimistic view of the marque. Incidentally, do you mean the Aero model or the Morgan marque?
>You believe a coupe version of the Aero should be considered as a completely different car? I hope not. That would be very sad.
Not me, but the MMC who regard it as a separate product line and who do not call it the Series IV. With a circa £40,000.00 difference in the price, I would be surprised if they were to position it as the Series IV Aero. Not sad, but realistic.
>Well..let's hope that BMW will agree on that. They have not been as kind during 2007 as ]they could have been...not all their fault though. Actually, a bigger badder engine than ]either Bimmer has already been tried and is virtually a wow!
phazer, it seems that you are trying to convince us that you are close to the factory with some of your post, but these comments cast doubt on your supposed connection. If you really are in ‘the know’ have the courage to come out from behind your anonymity. The engine in the Aero 8 will change next year to a different one from BMW. Are you a betting man? Fancy a small wager?
>However, all that being said, do you believe only a change of the engine dictates a wholly new model?
You appear to be the master of the misquote. It’s boring, but let me put you right again I said: “it is likely that the Series IV Aero 8 will be the model with the new engine, replacing the 4.4 L later next year.”
There was no engine change between the Series II and III, so why would I believe that only a change of engine creates a new model. In any case, I am not in charge of deciding what creates a new Series, but it is logical that a new engine would.
>Congratulations on your purchase! May you enjoy it thoroughly.
phazer
Many thanks, I will. Have a Happy New Year.
Aeroman
Wow Aeroman!
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
It is apparent that the objective analysis that Badger wanted before he placed his money is not possible here without everyone running your examination and gauntlet.
Badger, for the noted reasons, it would be wise for you to pose your question in another forum. I believe that if you are properly informed, you will find the right Aero at the right price. Avoid anyone who declares, as Aeroman has, that they must edit their responses to you out of "marque loyalty". When a dealer does that, it is called a consumer fraud.
phazer
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
It is apparent that the objective analysis that Badger wanted before he placed his money is not possible here without everyone running your examination and gauntlet.
Badger, for the noted reasons, it would be wise for you to pose your question in another forum. I believe that if you are properly informed, you will find the right Aero at the right price. Avoid anyone who declares, as Aeroman has, that they must edit their responses to you out of "marque loyalty". When a dealer does that, it is called a consumer fraud.
phazer
Wow, where do I start. My experience and background I guess as I totally agree with Aeroman. A bit of background, if relevant, can certainly add credence (or not as the case may be!).
I have had my series II car for approx 8 months and have driven approx 7k miles in that time. I have never driven a series I or III. However I have conversed with approx 10 series I owners discussing the various merits of both cars and have read vast amounts of internet banter and other articles both before and since purchasing my car. As such and for what it is worth, a few points:
# I have only ever heard of one side window breaking
# I will always respect the opinion of someone who has 'walked the walk' and who has over 30k Aero miles under his tyres
# The series I car rides lower than II or III and therefore has a more direct (go-kart like) feel; but also has a harsher ride and less compliance. May be quicker on a super smooth track but not nec so on our undulating roads. Check out the softer compliant suspension used by many rally teams.
# Both J-P Jabouille (former GP winner and Team Manager) and Richard Knight (ex owner of Winfield Race school, Ex circuit instructor to many F2 drivers inc I believe one A Senna, and veteran of many many vintage and sportscar racing inc LM, preferred the series II and indeed series III over the Series I on the track in back to back testing at Le Luc circuit. Who am I (or you??) to argue.
# Engine braking on a circuit has always been a big no-no told to me by all the instructors I have ever been out with (except for my BSM one!). Even the Bill Gwynne Rally school never advocated this.
I am sure there are loads of points I would or should have picked up on but have forgotten. I think my opinions should be pretty clear.
Cheers
Boshy
I have had my series II car for approx 8 months and have driven approx 7k miles in that time. I have never driven a series I or III. However I have conversed with approx 10 series I owners discussing the various merits of both cars and have read vast amounts of internet banter and other articles both before and since purchasing my car. As such and for what it is worth, a few points:
# I have only ever heard of one side window breaking
# I will always respect the opinion of someone who has 'walked the walk' and who has over 30k Aero miles under his tyres
# The series I car rides lower than II or III and therefore has a more direct (go-kart like) feel; but also has a harsher ride and less compliance. May be quicker on a super smooth track but not nec so on our undulating roads. Check out the softer compliant suspension used by many rally teams.
# Both J-P Jabouille (former GP winner and Team Manager) and Richard Knight (ex owner of Winfield Race school, Ex circuit instructor to many F2 drivers inc I believe one A Senna, and veteran of many many vintage and sportscar racing inc LM, preferred the series II and indeed series III over the Series I on the track in back to back testing at Le Luc circuit. Who am I (or you??) to argue.
# Engine braking on a circuit has always been a big no-no told to me by all the instructors I have ever been out with (except for my BSM one!). Even the Bill Gwynne Rally school never advocated this.
I am sure there are loads of points I would or should have picked up on but have forgotten. I think my opinions should be pretty clear.
Cheers
Boshy
phazer said:
Wow Aeroman!
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
It is apparent that the objective analysis that Badger wanted before he placed his money is not possible here without everyone running your examination and gauntlet.
Badger, for the noted reasons, it would be wise for you to pose your question in another forum. I believe that if you are properly informed, you will find the right Aero at the right price. Avoid anyone who declares, as Aeroman has, that they must edit their responses to you out of "marque loyalty". When a dealer does that, it is called a consumer fraud.
phazer
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
It is apparent that the objective analysis that Badger wanted before he placed his money is not possible here without everyone running your examination and gauntlet.
Badger, for the noted reasons, it would be wise for you to pose your question in another forum. I believe that if you are properly informed, you will find the right Aero at the right price. Avoid anyone who declares, as Aeroman has, that they must edit their responses to you out of "marque loyalty". When a dealer does that, it is called a consumer fraud.
phazer
Phazer, I must take issue with your immature and innaccurate comments. Aeroman has always been an extremely helpful contributor on here to anyone looking for information and has done so for a long time. so please don't come on here casting aspersions and using words like fraud because you don't like what you hear or a properly backed up argument.
Of course as Aero owners we are somewhat biased but we are also mature adults and capable of being objective.
This forum allows potential owners to communicate with actual (or previous) owners to get a better understanding of the vehicle.
Aeroman is correct and justified in not wanting to make a big issue over small items that were corrected by the factory. This is not a forum for Manufacturer bashing per se, but for constructive informative information exchange.
Your last post was regrettably none of the above.
Boshly
boshly said:
Phazer, I must take issue with your immature and innaccurate comments.
Boshly
My father used to say that personal attacks were to be expected when an opponent's facts ran out. You and Aeroman make my Dad, bless his soul, wise. Happily, having a bit more data at hand, I can avoid name calling.
I have seen the warranty reports, you obviously have not or choose to ignore them. The cracking side windows and windscreens were not the rarity as you suggest, they were endemic. Clanking drivetrains were not scarce, they were endemic. Snapping side mirrors, blistering hot wings at the door..I will not belabor you with a list you must already be aware of. The residuals tell the tale more poignantly than you or I can.
For all that, I really like the car...and said so three times in as many messages. Apparently that is not enough for the besotted. I liked the Cobra as well and it was anything but a perfect car. One can be honest and objective and still have a lot of fun behind the wheel of one. I recommend that thought to you.
What is onimous is the attitude you and Aeroman suggest to this forum as the Aero owner norm. It shows something I have never seen within the Morgan marque before and it dismays me.
phazer said:
Wow Aeroman!
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
phazer
I did not mean to make you so insecure as to force you to a personal attack on me. I am sorry.
phazer
Whether you like it or not that quote is IMHO immature.
All my comments (and Brians on my third read) were purely aimed at your comments and my interpretation of how they read.
The only 'name calling' I can see in Brians posts is 'Master of the misquotes' which is not exactly insulting nor would I add untrue. You claim I understated or underplayed the number of cracked windows yet all I did was quote my experience and knowledge of this quite clearly. I do not happen to think that 1 in 10 is low, to the contrary I would consider 10% to be high but have no idea if this is typical or not.
You also choose to ignore many of the counter points raised instead of accepting or arguing against; which doesn't really bode well.
I think the crux of the matter is that you are obviously knowledgeable here but choose to hide the source of your knowledge for some unknown reason and therefore allow doubt to be cast on its integrity.
We, on the other hand are only commenting based on our experiences, nothing more nothing less.
Just a shame your Dad (God bless him) wasn't able to impart more of his wisdom on how to construct and see through a debate. Unless of course you are a politician in which case I fully understand your modus operandi and it all begins to make sense.
Badger, irrespective of all the above petty squabbling: buy an Aero. It is not perfect but will give you heaps of fun and be generally reliable
Boshly
boshly said:
All my comments (and Brians on my third read)
I think the crux of the matter is that you are obviously knowledgeable here but choose to hide the source of your knowledge for some unknown reason and therefore allow doubt to be cast on its integrity.
Who's Brian? Is that the writer who calls himself "Aeroman"? Doesn't that "cast doubt on his integrity" :laugh
boshly said:
We, on the other hand are only commenting based on our experiences, nothing more nothing less.
I am sure you are...as am I. My perspective is simply a bit more gentle than yours. I can love something with open eyes.
I can see your passion for the car..
[quote=boshly]Just a shame your Dad (God bless him) wasn't able to impart more of his wisdom on how to construct and see through a debate. Unless of course you are a politician in which case I fully understand your modus operandi and it all begins to make sense. [/quote}]
However, your fashion of expressing it IS something new in the Morgan world. I have never seen anything like it. I gather this is the first Morgan model for you and Aeroman.
If you like, we can go through the basics with sources available to all so you don't have to rely on me or what I know. Start off with the Companies House. Download the MMC Financial Statements from the year before the Aero (2002) to the latest (end of 2005 when they had to sell their land and buildings). With these and other public filings, we can track the Aero's development together.
Phazer you make light of Brian using the forum name Aeroman and yet you use 'Phazer?'; does that not seem to be hypocritical if nothing else?
I will avoid wading in to the Aero discussion as little value can be added when the lines have been so clearly drawn; nevertheless, I will add one point which is related in general terms.
Phazer, you seem to hold MMC in negative esteem, which I find a shame as it follows a North American bias toward bashing the Aero product and holding the traditional cars up as the holy grail of salvation. I will not add to this debate on PH but suffice it to say the generalisation you have made of Aeroman and Boshly and/or their arguments are not based on real world truths or knowledge of the individuals (including your comments about never owning Trad cars). Furthermore, I would ask you to consider where the value in talking-down MMC lies?
If nothing more, does it seem strange to you that you would meet with a defense of MMC and the Aero as a whole when you post such antagonistic comments in a Morgan den om PH?
I will avoid wading in to the Aero discussion as little value can be added when the lines have been so clearly drawn; nevertheless, I will add one point which is related in general terms.
Phazer, you seem to hold MMC in negative esteem, which I find a shame as it follows a North American bias toward bashing the Aero product and holding the traditional cars up as the holy grail of salvation. I will not add to this debate on PH but suffice it to say the generalisation you have made of Aeroman and Boshly and/or their arguments are not based on real world truths or knowledge of the individuals (including your comments about never owning Trad cars). Furthermore, I would ask you to consider where the value in talking-down MMC lies?
If nothing more, does it seem strange to you that you would meet with a defense of MMC and the Aero as a whole when you post such antagonistic comments in a Morgan den om PH?
Edited by nomis on Thursday 28th December 09:33
phazer said:
boshly said:
All my comments (and Brians on my third read)
I think the crux of the matter is that you are obviously knowledgeable here but choose to hide the source of your knowledge for some unknown reason and therefore allow doubt to be cast on its integrity.
Who's Brian? Is that the writer who calls himself "Aeroman"? Doesn't that "cast doubt on his integrity" :laugh
Well Phazer, yet again you have proved that you do not seem to understand my argument and some points.
A name shows nothing relevant to the conversation (unless your surname happens to be Morgan, first name Charles...). I personally would not put my personal details on the web but am happy to show the basis of my argument by explaining my experience and situations relevent to the discussion. This either gives credence, or detracts. I can only summise that the latter may apply, thus your reluctance.
Similalrly your apparent lack of willingness to either read the thread or take in its content shines through yet again. Twice in his first two posts Aeroman signs himself off as Brian. Doesn't take a brain surgeon, does it...
Also I thoroughly concur with Nomis, what is the point of your anti MMC/Aero tirade. To be honest I did not pick up on that for your first couple of posts but it would seem that you have an agenda? And before you retort with your familiar response, yes of course we do. We both own and love our Aero's - something we have made quite clear at the outset so that all opinions proferred can be judged against and supported by the facts.
I think it is clear to anyone that has the slightest bit of knowledge of Morgan and their history and cars that they are not built with the meticulousness and quality of say Porsche or BMW, but as hand built cars they are tremendously reliable (compared with many other traditional built also). Yes they have idiosyncrasies and are an evolving process but that is the beauty of their being. It is also what endows them with much more character than most cars you care to mention.
And yes I am also aware of the trad Vs Aero feelings etc but quite honestly feel that this is somewhat overplayed. I have attended Morgan meets in my Aero and been very warmly welcomed and the car admired and talked about. Not everyone I'm sure, but I felt no obvious animosity. Maybe they weren't able to hide behind their cloak of anonymity
I have spoken to owners who are far more astute and intelligent than you or I who appreciate and understand what Morgans and Aeros are about, as I'm sure there are many similarily empowered who do not 'get' the Morgan thing. It does not detract or change anything about the Aero or MMC. Some like it some don't.
PH and other focussed sites like TalkMorgan have always been the places to reach out to present and past owners in order to obtain opinions on particular vehicles. Regrettably their open forums also allow people to come up with unsupported or inaccurate info. It is up to the readers of the posts to sort 'the wheat from the chaff' and ingest what they feel is helpful to them and disregard the crap.
Boshly
nomis said:
Phazer you make light of Brian using the forum name Aeroman and yet you use 'Phazer?'; does that not seem to be hypocritical if nothing else?
I think my attempt at irony may have been too much for you. I jested about Aeroman's name because he and Boshly implied I was hiding behind the use of "phazer". Was that hypocritical for Aeroman to do so? I most heartily agree. Thank you for underlining that.
nomis said:
Phazer, you seem to hold MMC in negative esteem,
Not at all. They have always been an interesting little company, deserving of affection. They still are. I am concerned for them.
nomis said:
I find a shame as it follows a North American bias toward bashing the Aero product and holding the traditional cars up as the holy grail of salvation.
I have heard of that but never seen it after the initial jolt in 2000. You must have more experience of it than I or simply believe rumours. My experience with the Aero, the public and other morgan owners has been the same as yours on three continents.
However, when it doesn't sell, first in Germany, then in the UK and then in the US, I worry. I don't dismiss these places as anti-Aero and pro-old Morgans. I quite like the Aero. I think it is a great car that has been victimized by bad management and bad press. I wish it wasn't so.
I also like the older styled Morgans. Very pretty. Shocking performance up to 100 mph.
nomis said:
the generalisation you have made of Aeroman and Boshly and/or their arguments are not based on real world truths or knowledge of the individuals
You really should check out what you are writing before you write it. I think it is time to stop this. Next time you write, give me some hard facts and reliable sources we can check out. That is the courtesy I am trying to offer you. Reciprocate please.
nomis said:
Furthermore, I would ask you to consider where the value in talking-down MMC lies?
That is simple. badger asked for comments on an potential Aero purchase..presumably a second hand Aero. I encouraged him in his choice of a Series I with facts to support and watchpoints to look for. That is what these consumer forums are for..truth and info so people don't get hurt. Aeroman and Boshly pushed further and here we are.
As for my "lies" about the MMC, you make me smile sadly. When lambasted for sources, I offered to take them (and now you) through it with stuff easily available on the net. Governmental filings by the MMC under affidavit. That offer has been ignored. The sad fact is, you couldn't be bothered with truth or lies, or how or why or what badger should know before he spends his money.
You love your cars and don't want to hear of anything else. I understand. I like the car too.
phazer
Gassing Station | Morgan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff