does anyone here have one of the old plus 4s?
Discussion
Maybe even (and I'm dredging my memory here) a Lawrencetune one? Just wondering how it compares with the modern car that you will undoubtedly have driven. The 4 pot Triumph engine (and I'm really risking serious correction here basing on memories of 40 years ago) was always a good sturdy but agricultural unit which I think was related to that in a grey Fergie tractor.
So anyone here?
So anyone here?
bordseye said:
Maybe even (and I'm dredging my memory here) a Lawrencetune one? Just wondering how it compares with the modern car that you will undoubtedly have driven. The 4 pot Triumph engine (and I'm really risking serious correction here basing on memories of 40 years ago) was always a good sturdy but agricultural unit which I think was related to that in a grey Fergie tractor. So anyone here?
I can't think of version of the first Plus 4 era (1950-1969) I haven't driven. I will try to help.BTW, there were a number of types of Chris Lawrence Plus 4s. His early racing cars like TOK, then the Plus 4 SuperSports, 9 non-SuperSport Lawrencetune Plus 4s for the MMC, the SLRs and all the "Lawrencetuned" Plus 4s he did in California as a retrofit when he moved himself and his company to the USA.
Additionally, there were so many other variations of the Plus 4, 4 seaters, DHC, SnobMogs, +4+s, Flat rads, long cowl, short cowl and interim cowl. The brakes, exhaust system, engines, fuel systems, tyres, gear ratios and weights varied as well. It is impossible to give a single collective opinion on all of them.
The Ferguson tractor engine bit (did you know that Ferguson merged with a Toronto company called Massey-Harris in 1953 and became Massey-Ferguson of world renown today?) is often passed around, but the fact is that their Standard engines were changed by the time Morgan began using them in 1950. Triumph itself became the main supplier of Plus 4 engines with the TR2 and by the TR3 there was not much left of Standard outside of the DHCs. (Morgan continued to use a Vanguard engine in Plus 4 DHCs until 1958).
Early stock Plus 4s weighed 750 kilos with 105 bhp. Today's Plus 4 weighs 877 kilos with 145 bhp. 140 per tonne versus 165 per tonne at 15% difference. But the higher rear ratio makes the earlier car more reactive. It is a hard choice between the two because I very much like the new Plus 4. Given a forced choice, I would take the newest Plus 4 as a better touring car, and I would take the earlier stock Plus 4 as a race or rallying car.
HOWEVER, there was so much that one could do and was done with early Plus 4 chassis and engines, that amongst them the Morgan Community finds its favourite Mogs. For example the SnobMogs are acknowledged as the most elegant touring cars Morgan ever made and it is impossible to beat an SLR for looks.
As you can imagine, in their day all Morgan Plus 4s (to the annoyance of Triumph) were always faster, better handling cars. Lower weight and better tuning made Plus 4s the car to beat in the under 2000cc class for 2 decades. TOK, racing in 1962 still holds the fastest average speed for a LeMans Morgan (94mph for the 24 hours).
The TOK LeMans victory spawned what is the best all-round roadster with a Morgan name on it...the + 4 Supersport, a joint effort between the MMC and Chris Lawrence. Frankly, it muchly improved on TOK. No modern Plus 4 could come close to keeping up. It would take a very skilled driver and a torquey Plus 8 to come close.
You can approach a +4 SS with every prejudice in the book and a suitcase full of stats and yet you will STILL walk away after a drive TOTALLY smitten. For whatever the confluence the mysterious automobile Gods arranged for it, everything Morgan, from looks, power, handling, presence and personality crystalized in that car.
The early Plus 4 breed produced the most prestigious and best investment Morgans ever made: TOK (1), the SuperSports (101), the SnobMogs (51) and the SLRs (3).
Lorne
I was a member of the my University Motor Drivers Club in the 60s and we used to hire Silverstone every year for what is now called a track day. There were a few Morgans about, but mostly a fairly eclectic mix of cars from a DB4Zagato (a member of the Courage brewing family) through various Jags inc saloons, TRs, MGs down to lowly me in a Spitfire. Which was spun and stuffed into a bank but thats another story.
Got to say I dont remember anything like outstanding performance from the Morgans there, but then I cant even remember the model. In fact I can remember overtaking one at Silverstone in my Spitfire so maybe it wasnt a Plus 4. Good days though. Made a complete Horlicks of my finals taking someones Singer LeMans to bits outside my digs rather than revising.
Apologies for the dose of "all our yesterdays"
Got to say I dont remember anything like outstanding performance from the Morgans there, but then I cant even remember the model. In fact I can remember overtaking one at Silverstone in my Spitfire so maybe it wasnt a Plus 4. Good days though. Made a complete Horlicks of my finals taking someones Singer LeMans to bits outside my digs rather than revising.
Apologies for the dose of "all our yesterdays"
pluseight said:
gomog said:
Lower weight and better tuning made Plus 4s the car to beat in the under 2000cc class for 2 decades.
Just for interest, what capacity were those TR engines?The TR2 was basically like the Vanguard, but better tuned. They cut down the displacement with thicker cylinder liners to 1991cc, so it could compete in the under 2 liter class.
The MMC started to offer the better TR3 in 1955 but kept making some cars with the TR2 until their old stores of them finally ran out in the fall of 1957. The TR3 had the same displacement but had a better intake manifold and bigger carbs.
The TR4 was first offered as an option in 1961 and then stock in 1962. It's displacement was increased to 2138CC. The TR3 became the option..for the racing guys.
They swapped to the TR4a in 1965. Strombergs had replaced the SUs and some more refinements. were made.
It is unwise to judge a car only by capacity or bhp. Early Morgans were set up to get the most out of what they had with great gearing and final ratios..along with the low weight. These cars are surprising to drive, VERY reactive. My wife drives a vehicle with only 800cc. However, it produces 182 bhp and weighs 212 kilos. That is a power-to-weight ratio of 858 bhp per tonne, significantly more than any supercar. It is a snowmobile.
Lorne
bordseye said:
Got to say I dont remember anything like outstanding performance from the Morgans there, but then I cant even remember the model. In fact I can remember overtaking one at Silverstone in my Spitfire so maybe it wasn't a Plus 4. Good days though.
Happily the Morgan Community remembers EVERYTHING. 
Try Jake Alderson (aka Dr. J.D. Alderson). You will be quite astonished at the constant winning record from the very early days through the 60s. You would be interested in his Morgan Sports Cars the Heritage Years 1954-1960 ISBN: 9781872955308
If you want more..try his Morgan Sports Cars: The Early Years ISBN: 1-85075-680-5
For that matter, you would be astonished at the Morgan record today. Go along to a Morgan Challenge Event. They are great fun and they will love to have you in the paddock. Tell the Morgan racing coordinator I sent you. http://www.mogsport.net/
Lorne
gomog said:
It is unwise to judge a car only by capacity or bhp. Early Morgans were set up to get the most out of what they had with great gearing and final ratios..along with the low weight. These cars are surprising to drive, VERY reactive.
No-one is making such a judgement, except to think that it is unsurprising that a 2.2 litre engined car did well in an Under 2 litre class...However I do disagree with your earlier comment
gomog said:
The TOK LeMans victory spawned what is the best all-round roadster with a Morgan name on it...the + 4 Supersport, a joint effort between the MMC and Chris Lawrence. Frankly, it muchly improved on TOK. No modern Plus 4 could come close to keeping up. It would take a very skilled driver and a torquey Plus 8 to come close.
Certainly an excellent car, but no TR-engined Plus 4 can match any Plus 8 variant - even those with TR engines that are much more developed than they ever were in period.pluseight said:
except to think that it is unsurprising that a 2.2 litre engined car did well in an Under 2 litre class...
I guess you didn't read what I wrote above. The TR2 reduced the displacement of the Standard Vanguard to 1991cc by used thicker cylinder liners. The TR capacity stayed under 2 litres until the TR4a..though optional under 2L capacity was available to the end of that Plus 4 era.TOK entered LeMans by declaring a capacity under 2 L for the class it ran and won in.
pluseight said:
However I do disagree with your earlier comment
It ain't so. But I guess you have to try one out don't you?..back to back on the same road? Do you have a mate with Plus 4 ss, a mint example in fine form that will let you have a go? You have not factored in so many things, speed range, road type, gearing, final ratios, weight handling. Best is to find some one who let you take a SS all out on a country road. gomog said:
The TOK LeMans victory spawned what is the best all-round roadster with a Morgan name on it...the + 4 Supersport, a joint effort between the MMC and Chris Lawrence. Frankly, it muchly improved on TOK. No modern Plus 4 could come close to keeping up. It would take a very skilled driver and a torquey Plus 8 to come close.
Certainly an excellent car, but no TR-engined Plus 4 can match any Plus 8 variant - even those with TR engines that are much more developed than they ever were in period.I imagine you are considering ENHANCED Plus 8s versus stock Super Sports. Whatever, I am content that you should believe whatever you want. However, do consider that even on the stats, a 125 bhp 727 kilo car with a high final ratio is more puissant that a 900 kilo car with 144 bhp Plus 8 with a low final ratio. (shrug)
An ideal car is a harmonious blend of components into a beautiful fully functional shape. That is what a Plus 4 SS is.
I have two idealized Plus 8s and they are the best mogs for me so far, considering my driving style and the roads we like. One at least will run circles around anything Morgan built but that does not stop me from appreciating a class combination when I experience it. I love my cars but they don't blind me.
Lorne
bordseye said:
pluseight said:
bordseye said:
memory says 2.2 litres
A good option if you want to be competitive in the Under 2 litre class.... ;-)But considering what is at stake for the integrity and memory of these racers, many of them famous Morgan icons..would it not be better for you to provide solid proof? Do you have specific incidents, details and backup? Or are you simply conjecturing with reputations.
Lorne
gomog said:
It ain't so. But I guess you have to try one out don't you?..back to back on the same road? Do you have a mate with Plus 4 ss, a mint example in fine form that will let you have a go? You have not factored in so many things, speed range, road type, gearing, final ratios, weight handling. Best is to find some one who let you take a SS all out on a country road.
I imagine you are considering ENHANCED Plus 8s versus stock Super Sports. Whatever, I am content that you should believe whatever you want. However, do consider that even on the stats, a 125 bhp 727 kilo car with a high final ratio is more puissant that a 900 kilo car with 144 bhp Plus 8 with a low final ratio. (shrug)
No, I was considering Plus 4s or SSs versus fairly stock early Plus 8s. I think the results from races in period (or since) will show that the Plus 4s cannot match the Plus 8s, even when the latter were in fairly standard Rover SD1/moss box form.I imagine you are considering ENHANCED Plus 8s versus stock Super Sports. Whatever, I am content that you should believe whatever you want. However, do consider that even on the stats, a 125 bhp 727 kilo car with a high final ratio is more puissant that a 900 kilo car with 144 bhp Plus 8 with a low final ratio. (shrug)
gomog said:
Well I gave you the official Morgan and TR displacements. You can make of them what you will. If you wish to maintain that Morgan drivers cheated to win by changing the factory capacity to something larger, you will not be the first.
My mistake. I assumed that it was running a TR4 engine, not a TR3.bordseye said:
Oi! There was no mention of Morgan in my post let alone the word cheating. Having a bad day?
Sorry bordseye. I though you were referring to Morgans and Triumphs engines. My mistake as I see it was pluseight. If you look above, I had given the reasons the Triumph displacement was brought under 2 litres and he replied to you;bordseye said:
pluseight said:
bordseye said:
memory says 2.2 litres
A good option if you want to be competitive in the Under 2 litre class.... ;-)It is difficult to discern who is saying what when one quotes someone quoting someone quoting someone.
Hard to get used to.My apologies.
Lorne
pluseight said:
gomog said:
Well I gave you the official Morgan and TR displacements. You can make of them what you will. If you wish to maintain that Morgan drivers cheated to win by changing the factory capacity to something larger, you will not be the first.
My mistake. I assumed that it was running a TR4 engine, not a TR3.
Makes for great gossip over a pint.
Lorne
Gassing Station | Morgan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff