The evolution of the sports car has a number of key developmental milestones. But one company decided to ignore them early on, and just stay in the late 1910’s forever, with the exception of adding a fourth wheel to their legendary three wheeler in 1936. But still with the same highly archaic sliding post front suspension (with very minimal travel and zero camber change), a very hard ride, a highly elemental cockpit, plywood floors, and traditional wood-framed body. It was finally replaced just this year by an all-new Plus Four with a completely new chassis and modern suspension, but the traditional look (and a bit of ash body framing, for bragging rights) are still there, of course.
The Plus Four tested by SCI was specifically set up for weekend racing, which the Morgan was still competitive in, due to its light weight (1940 lbs), 47/53 F/R weight distribution and other qualities. But as the opening of the article makes clear, already in 1957, the Morgan was a relic from another era. Just as the Germans had defined the future of the GP car in the 1930s, with fully independent suspension all-round, so were the Porsche 356 and Mercedes 190SL the harbingers of the future of the sports car. But for those that felt that a genuine sports car needed to be hard-riding, hoary, heavy-steering, uncomfortable and race-ready, this was your machine.
The Germans were the pioneers in “the scientific approach” to racing cars, understanding early on that a rigid body with a fully independent suspension was the way to optimize grip over all surfaces. And of course, mid-engines, in the case of the Auto Union GP racers.
But “due to its unique road conditions, England has been the traditional stronghold of the classic sports car”. Why was that so, anyway? It would seem to me that the undulating surfaces of the narrow roads there would actually benefit more from a proper suspension. But that’s not how it turned out, and the Brits’ approach with typically more flexible separate frames and crude and stiff suspensions became the de facto approach to building sports cars (and passenger cars) for way too long. The AC Ace was a pioneer in breaking away from that formula, and its handling over all surfaces was praised as a consequence. And then of course there was Colin Chapman and Lotus, which also showed the way forward. But the bulk of British production sports cars were seemingly stuck in the 1920s forever; the MGB until well into the ’70s.
Actually, there were a few minor modification made for 1956, from the 1936 version. Rubber-bushed rear spring shackles! Armstrong tubular shocks! A quarter inch wider front brake! What’s the world coming to?
Apparently the brakes were still considered a weak spot for competition, but quite adequate for road use.
But what hadn’t changed soon came to the forefront, even in 1957. The odd seating position, bolt upright on a “pneumatic” cushion (presumably to soften the blows from the non-suspension). “Nothing is adjustable…sideways positioning is not good either…the fixed legroom is naturally close for a six-footer…elbow room is at a minimum with the side curtains up…no room for the left foot.”
Don’t even ask about the top. The only good thing is that it can be removed entirely for competition. But erecting it requires setting up the tubular framework and then fitting the top itself over it and snapping it into place. And installing the side curtains. And then trying to see out. Or stay warm, although in the summer the heat emanating from the center-mounted transmission provided plenty of unwelcome heat.
But these are the joys of traditional sports cars! None of that mamby-pamby stuff that the 190SL had: a proper suspension that doesn’t make the car hop and skitter over bumps, a tight body, roll down windows, a tight-fitting insulated top, a roomy cockpit and comfortable seats. Nah! That’s all for women…
Anyway, it’s all for a good cause, as this race-prepped Morgan with a 2.0 liter TR-3 engines fitted with “large bore SU carbs” would obviously run circles around that dog of a 190SL. Right?
Here’s the proof:
The Morgan rocketed from 0-60 in a mere 11.2 seconds, and ripped off the 1/4 mile in 18.1 seconds.
That dull, effete damensportwagen 190SL with its dull little 1.9 L engine needed all of 11.0 seconds to amble from 0-60, and 18.1 seconds to haul its fat little butt through the 1/4 mile.
You see? The British formula was obviously the winning one! All that profound discomfort was all worth it.
The joys of the classic Brit sports car experience are summed up in a few key phrases: “You may have gathered by now that the creature comforts are on the slim side, though starkly honest, and the ride of the Plus Fpur has the same raw attitude. It tackles big bumps with a leaping, bounding motion…small vibrations give the body a hard time, and search out all possible rattle sources. Generally, the ride is hard...”
Only “generally”?
But the handling makes it all worth it; maybe. “in fact the Morgan understeers very powerfully at most speeds. This is accounted for by the front suspension geometry, which is such that the wheels lean out with the car in corners, and also by the fact that the front end is much stiffer than the rear...”
But there’s the famous British steering: “Steering is not ideal, with two inches (!) of play at the rim and a strong castor action that verges on heaviness…understeer and heaviness means the Morgan goes wherever you have the strength to point it”. Meaning no women, thankfully, will want anything to do with this last bastion of manhood on wheels.
(Note: in a layout mistake at SCI, the end of the Morgan review was cut off and instead part of another review printed, which I’ve blanked out)
Obviously, I’ve been a wee bit selective in my choice of excerpts. Yes, the Morgan could still be hustled around a track at decent speeds in the right hands. And yes, driving or riding in a Morgan is an experience no one will forget. And it’s one that’s obviously highly addictive to a certain minute slice of the motoring world. Some folks will always want to live 50, 80, or even a hundred years in the past. And for them, the Morgan is their time machine.
Obviously, I prefer the “scientific approach” for the longer haul. And apparently the rest of the world (except for those few Morgan die-hards) agrees, or has been forced to agree, as the evidence was too overwhelming. Essentially every modern sports car is the direct evolution of the qualities that the 190SL pioneered in 1955 (and the Porsche even earlier).
Sliding pillar IFS was quite innovative, when Lancia used it on the Lambda in 1922.
The funny thing about Mercedes-Benz reputation for advanced engineering is that they used antique chassis technologies into the early ’70s too. Even the lovely Pagoda SL and 300SEL 6.3 were bereft of ball joints at their fronts and were still saddled with treacherous swing axles at their rears. There are certain things that swing axles do better than a decently located live axle, but going around a corner isn’t one of them. Nor is braking or accelerating on a smooth surface in any direction of travel. They allowed for excellent ride quality and isolation, but there are good reasons you could still find new cars with solid axles long after swing axles were moldering on the ash heap of history. Meanwhile, Mercedes took almost twenty years too long to replace king pins with ball joints on some of their front suspensions. Essentially, Mercedes-Benz was still relying on pre-war chassis technology every bit as much as Morgan was.
I suspect you’re going to dismiss me pointing out Mercedes-Benz failings out of bias, but I was a huge Mercedes-Benz fan until they started putting 90-degree V6s with SOHCs and three valves-per-cylinder into engine bays that formerly had DOHC, four-valve-per-cylinder inline sixes. Lucky for me I stopped buying them then too, considering it also coincided with their adoption of time-bomb biodegradable wiring harnesses.
TIL Benzes had kingpins into the ’70s. Even Rambler went to ball joints for ’62.
You’re making generalities about swing axles. The low pivot rear suspension that the 190SL pioneered was widely praised during its long run. Ever hear anyone say that the 190SL or Pagoda was “treacherous”? Or the 300SEL 6.3? Go re-read their reviews from your stock of old magazines. Not all swing axles are alike.
My point was that in the ’20s through the 40’s, they were still better than a hard sprung solid rear axle in most situations. Especially when they didn’t have a heavy engine hanging out the rear, which Mercedes briefly tried and quickly dropped.
Admittedly some companies (Alfa comes to mind) made solid rear axles work quite well. The swing axle was the pioneer in IRS, and it was eventually improved upon.
My first Mercedes-Benz was a W114, so I didn’t know they were still using king pins into the ’70s on some models. I wouldn’t be surprised if most period reviews were favorable for the W108 and W109’s chassis, but I read about the faulty king pins and swing axles in the August,1973 Car and Driver comparison test of the Oldsmobile Colonnade Salon and the Mercedes-Benz 450SE. They rehashed their 1972 comparison test of the Oldsmobile Cutlass Town Sedan and the 280SEL 4.5 on page 42:
In terms of suspension design, the old 280SEL 4.5 Mercedes was a veritable antique. Its suspension was fully independent, but the unequal-length control arm system in front had neither ball joints nor provisions for anti-dive geometry. The low-pivot rear swing axle had no pitch control either, so nose dive was most dramatic during hard stops in the Mercedes. Braking in the 1972 car was plagued by more serious directional stability problems than the new 450SE, but seventy-to-zero stopping distances were comparable: 210 feet(0.78G) in the 1972 Mercedes versus 208 feet(0.79G) in the 1973 450SE.
The 1972 Mercedes swing-axle rear suspension discouraged the use of a rear anti-sway bar, so that car understeered heavily on the skidpad. It cornered at 0.66G compared to the new Mercedes at 0.68G.
Then they went on to describe the advantages of the antique’s ride and noise compared to the new Mercedes and compare the two Cutlasses to one another before concluding:
The two marques have changed drastically in just one year. In performance—cornering, braking, acceleration and economy—the 1972 Olds easily topped the Mercedes. For ’73, the balance is slightly in favor of the M-B although it still can’t match the ’72 Olds. The Cutlass suffered a great performance loss in ’73, but it made an equal advancement in comfort—exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the new Mercedes.
Anyway, if the 1972 test shows up, I’ll see if they actually called out the Mercedes W108/W109’s archaic chassis performance while it was in production instead of waiting until they had a new one to credit with addressing problems they were silent about before, as is often the case.
That combination of heavy, aft-mounted engine and swing axles was what gave first generation Corvairs their reputation for poor handling
To be fair to Morgan, $2655 has to be a good bit less than a 190SL (the SCI test of it doesn’t seem to mention price); it’s even $300 cheaper than the Plymouth Fury although you could certainly get a lesser Plymouth for that money.
For decades, I’ve read about Morgan’ unique “sliding pillar ” ( as Road & Track would write) suspension, but I’ve never seen a picture or a diagram until now. It looks just as simple, primitive and dubious as I imagined.
I’m not sure how a country’s huge defense industry produced (and continues to this day) such effective and innovative weapons systems but their auto makers really struggled to build decent cars.
Any of us who had diecast scale models with movable suspensions should be familiar with that sliding pillar design. My Maisto 300SL has it!
I’m not a fan of Morgans but I do get the appeal. I get a certain rush out of something crude and rudimentary being able to match or come close to matching something meticulously engineered and crafted with fine precision. The inherent drawbacks and consequences as seen here become part of the character, which is a totally unscientific unquantifiable quality. I believe in science in my mind, but the drive to triumph in the face of adversity is in my soul, whatever that may be. Morgan beyond all logic still exists today, and many sports cars and brands that adapted and modernized are not. There’s something to be said about stubbornness and principal. The classic crude british sports car always seemed more about having experience of a motorcycle for people uncomfortable on 2 wheels, and similarly mostly are taken out on weekend drives when the weather is fair.
As for being considered a manly man car for being rough and crude, that shouldn’t sully it any more than cars being considered “chick cars” for being refined. Turning it around to effectively say intelligent progressive people bought scientific cars like the 190SL and regressive people bought rudimentary cars like the Morgan isn’t exactly an improvement in tact. Without taking anything away from the 190SL’s intrinsic qualities, it must be acknowledged that it is still the little brother to the absolute legend that is the 300SL, and was exclusively expensive, and it more than likely sold more than a few copies to buyers who primarily sought that glamour over the capabilities. I’m not sure that wasn’t the case for Morgans, but I imagine that small group of buyers who wanted a car like that were buying them to take on spirited uncomfortable drives in the cool overcast british countryside, not to be seen among the jet set in exotic locales. Not that I even think there’s anything wrong with that, but there’s nothing scientific about vanity.
“Turning it around to effectively say intelligent progressive people bought scientific cars like the 190SL and regressive people bought rudimentary cars like the Morgan isn’t exactly an improvement in tact.”
My father is a retired UVA professor. I spent many a day on campus in my childhood, and also on the campuses of Berkeley, Georgia Tech, Stanford, and the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Wherever I went, there were liberal arts professors driving T-series MGs; MGAs and Triumphs with tonneau covers over the passenger’s seats on rainy days; and Austin Healeys dragging their exhausts on the ground. I don’t think you had to be conservative to appreciate elemental sports cars even only forty years ago.
I didn’t mean progressive/ regressive referring to politics, but to technological progress.
A bizarrely written article. What is the meaning of the second part of the sentence: ”Brakes are still by far the weakest point of the car in racing, however, and the modern competition seldom gets ahead until they go.” What point are they making exactly?
They seem very reluctant to point out what a dog of a car this is. Hence: “Second gear synchromesh can easily be faulted, but the top two gears are better.” Well that’s a relief!
That the Morgan is still competitive on the track but when they (the brakes) “go” the modern competition (with better brakes) gets by (ahead) in the race. Makes sense to me.
I first saw a Morgan in the parking lot by Trinity Episcopal Church in Findlay, OH. I had no idea what it was at the time (this was in the 1970s).
But I liked the way it looked!
Just saw my first Morgan being driven on my way to work last week. Man was that thing low and wide compared to current car designs. The driver bouncing up and down on a fairly new stretch of highway showed just how harsh his ride was. So wide it looked like it could take a cloverleaf at twice the limit no problem. It looked like a total blast to drive out in the country when the weather permitted.
The most exciting car ride of my life was being taken down the Hutchinson Parkway in a Morgan, at 100 mph, at around 4 PM from New Rochelle to the Whitestone Bridge, back in 1986. Then returning to New Rochelle in just as crazed a manner. That speedometer sits right there in front of you, as terrifying as the traffic you are blowing past. I’d love to experience that again,and, yes, it helped to completely trust the driver. Not quite the same experience as my ’53 Champion that I’d driven into the shop that afternoon.
An interesting look back, thanks for this.
I’m a Morgan fan, but I think I’d like to drive one once, not own one 😀
I took my Morgan Plus 4 to a local autocross and entered in the Historic autocross class with a Porsche 914 and a rubber bumper MGB present. When we gridded up for our runs, I parked my car and exclaimed as I clambered out, “How am I going to compete against all of this ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY?!”
We break out into laughter. My friend who owns the rubber bumper MGB said, “No one has ever said that of my car.” Ah, but I can say it, because I have a Morgan.
My favorite party trick to show friends and strangers was this. My car was the four seater, so I had the luxury of adjustable front seats. I’d lift off the front seat cushion and show people how to move their seat back and forth: loosening a pair of wing nuts that clamped down on a flat bar laid across the seat “rails.” The wing nuts and the seats built like crude lawn chairs never failed to get laughs or astonished looks…
Wouldn’t a Plus 4 run rings around a rubber baby bumper MGB on an autocross course? It has about twice the power-to-weight ratio, and suspension travel is overrated for low speed handling. The Morgan is basically a big go-kart.
For people who have never driven a heavy-duty truck without a suspension seat, you can experience in this Morgan – a real kidney crusher. My cousin had one when we were young. She learned the hard way, too.
I fell in love with Morgan’s gorgeous art deco styling as a kid and always lusted after one. Finally when the kids were paid for I traded a Xantia and bent the plastic for an old ’83 4/4, 1600 hemi head CVH from the XR2 and a 5 speed box, ali body and wires. It was my daily driver for 3 years and I put 35k on it. Three rebuilds of the sliding pillars, conversion to rear teles and Spax all round, replace the steering dampers with toroidal bearings and VW type 2 steering shock which made the steering much lighter. We went on 3 trips to France with the eMog group, belting round the campagne with a dozen Morgans from all over Europe.
“Papa! Voyez les voitures!” We waved like royalty and felt like it too.
There’s a Morgan in our neighborhood which is parked outdoors on the street year around. Judging by its license number I’d guess it’s a 1967 or ‘68. Looks pretty much like this one. In my experience, Morgan’s are a car which some non-car people have heard of and always cite one “fact” about, incorrectly of course, that they have wooden frames. I have met several people who were convinced that the actual chassis, and not just the body framework, was made of English hardwood.