As most of you will know, my Dad passed away quite suddenly over Christmas. In his garage was his retirement toy, a dark blue 1970s Morgan +8 3.5 on SU carbs. He'd only owned it for a couple of summers and had added barely 800 miles to its 45,000 total in that time.
I wasn't a fan of the thing; too many memories of BL engines, dodgy dashpots and Lucas electrics had put me off anything ancient and British. My job also brings me into contact with all manner of exotica, so in a sense I've been spoiled to expect jetplane performance and granite build quality from a sports car. But I spoke to the insurers, they reconfigured the cover to suit the circumstances and a couple of weekends ago I spent half an hour checking all its vitals and took it out for a quick blast.
Three hours, a hundred miles and forty quid's worth of juice later I got it.
It's not the fastest car in the world (at one point whilst giving it shovelfuls of beans I glanced in the mirror to see a Vivaro van comfortably keeping up) but it put a smile on your face. The noise is intoxicating; Dad pootled about in it never exceeding 3,000rpm (in my presence at least) but north of 5k it roars like a dubbed US NASCAR film. The wooden chassis makes it feel alive, it squirms and bucks and really involves the driver. The passenger spends most of their time either in hysterics, or holding their hat on with both hands.
I can't sell it now, I'm hooked. It's never been out in the rain or on salted roads, it was nut-and-bolt restored a decade ago and has a folder full of straight-through MoTs and annual service invoices, with no large bills on the horizon. It will never depreciate. And above all, it was my dad's (and my children's grandad's) so it will remind us of him every time I lever myself into the cockpit and turn the key.
It's insured for 3,000 miles per year, where shall I go in it?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:18
|
That's the $6M question.
Anywhere there is scenery and good roads. - Wales, Scotland the Lakes. This is a beautiful country. Pack a bag and enjoy :)
|
Thanks for that Dave; put a smile on my face.
As you may know I've got a few old Harleys and I can totally relate to your experience. It's not all about what a vehicle does, it's also about how it does what it does best.
Always fancied a 60's or 70's Morgan meself. Maybe one day..... enjoy it mate.
|
You've said 70s
Not sure where the cut off is, but I think it might be the same as non reflective numberplates, ie end of 72. These cars can be valuable as they are eligible for some forms of historic racing and import into some countries where later ones can't be.
Moss or Rover gearbox?
|
>> It's insured for 3,000 miles per year, where shall I go in it?
You get your ass and your toy down to goodwood for the revival or the Festival of Speed. Drive there cross country.
|
|
Wales...Travel in across the Wrekin, then up to Shrewsbury, up the A5 as far as Betws down the 470 to Dolgellau and thence to Welshpool and home.....
|
North Pennines. A686 Hartside pass. Promoted by the AA as one of the best drives in the country!
If you stop in Alston I shall come out and admire.
Otherwise, South of France
I have always wanted a Morgan ever since I was given a ride in one when I was about 16.
|
>>
>> It's not the fastest car in the world (at one point whilst giving it shovelfuls
>> of beans I glanced in the mirror to see a Vivaro van comfortably keeping up)
>>
It should go faster than that. I had a long wheelbase Landrover with a 3.5 V8 conversion and foot down it accelerated like a rocket, and that weighed over a ton and a half I think.
It may just need tuning. I found the carburettors quite temperamental, and rather prone to gumming up if left with petrol in for a while. Getting the balance right was quite tricky but very important.
Hydraulic tappets were prone to sticking if the oil wasn't changed frequently.
|
Early Plus 8s have a high ratio axle and accelerate like scalded cats. Even if it has the later lower ratio axle it should still go well.
The absolute top speed is a bit limited owing to dreadful aerodynamics but even a standard car should top out at about 120.
Sounds as though the car needs a good cleaning out and setting up.
|
>> high ratio axle and accelerate like scalded cats
Sorry to be pedantic, SP, bt you seem to have got high and low ratio axles the wrong way round. Low ratio for acceleration, high ratio for high speed cruising. High usually better except for hillclimbing or other competition use, and much pleasanter in normal use.
CP is right about tuning SUs too. When it's had a proper going over it will be quite quick I think.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 22 Feb 14 at 15:56
|
The 4/4 I had, had a 4.1:1 axle. A 4.56:1 axle was an option, which is good for acceleration but makes the top speed lower.
I'd say the 4.56:1 was a higher ratio... :o)
|
>> I'd say the 4.56:1 was a higher ratio... :o)
That's the wrong way round. But please yourself SP. You've got a Morgan anyway (he spat jealously).
Perhaps you can reassure Dave that it's the bodywork that has a wooden frame under the aluminium, and that the chassis is a simple steel channel job (although like all those it lacks torsional rigidity).
|
|
Morgan quoted me a lead time of 7 years back in 1980.
|
Chassis has two Z section steel rails that run the length of the car with 3 box section cross members and a cross head tubular steel frame at the front.
The wooden part is the body frame. Traditional coach building is done that way, a wooden frame with either steel or alloy sheet to cover.
As far as I know, only the early Marcos has a wooden chassis.
|
>> The 4/4 I had, had a 4.1:1 axle. A 4.56:1 axle was an option, which
>> is good for acceleration but makes the top speed lower.
>>
>> I'd say the 4.56:1 was a higher ratio... :o)
>>
I agree, but it's one of those things that 99% of people insist on getting the wrong way round.
I think it must derive from the perverse way we all call 1st "low gear" and top "high gear".
|
>> I'd say the 4.56:1 was a higher ratio... :o)
>>
>> I agree,
Oh good God. How many other mechanical illiterates are there here? What utter crap. I am particularly shocked by Sliding Pillar getting this wrong.
Still, no one's perfect or always right, not even me. But I'm right about this.
|
|
AC you'd best start a web campaign then, I found quite a few sites that agreed with my interpretation. Didn't find any that agreed with your interpretation although frankly it's a confusingly written about subject and I got bored of looking.
|
The way I get round the problem of describing gear ratios to my students is always to talk in terms of reduction ratio. So, instead of talking of a rear axle with a 4.56:1 ratio, I would talk of it having a reduction ratio of 4.56.
|
>> instead of talking of a rear axle with a 4.56:1 ratio, I would talk of it having a reduction ratio of 4.56.
Would you say a reduction ratio of 4.1 was higher or lower than one of 4.56 N_C? Lower reduction perhaps, but a higher ratio?
|
>>Would you say a reduction ratio of 4.1 was higher or lower than one of 4.56 N_C?
To my students, neither, I would stick to talking about a reduction ratio. I explain that first gear in a gearbox has a larger reduction ratio than top gear.
Sticking to reduction ratio in discussion and in calculations helps to reduce confusion, and is consistent with more technical presentations in books and journal papers.
In conversations where you can be more sure that the other person has an idea how a gearbox works, the meaning is usually clear, but even then, when the ratio being discussed is near unity, it's easy to get confused.
Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Sat 22 Feb 14 at 23:37
|
>> I explain that first gear in a gearbox has a larger reduction ratio than top gear.
But if they ask: 'does a larger reduction ratio mean it's a lower gear?' do you deny it N_C?
>> when the ratio being discussed is near unity
By unity do you mean what used to be meant by 1:1?
There's nothing remotely confusing about any of this.
|
>>do you deny it N_C?
No, I don't deny it, I just encourage the discussion back towards using reduction ratio. In that way, the discussion becomes unambiguous.
|
>> I found quite a few sites that agreed with my interpretation.
You can find 'sites' that say anything.
Perhaps 'interpretation' is the problem. Even so I am surprised that a mature and knowledgeable motorist like you could get this so back to front.
Bottom gear, top gear, overdrive: Low gear, high gear, low ratio, high ratio. There is nothing confusing about the way it's written about, since it's a very simple matter. I've known which way round this went since I was 10, 65 years ago. I think you will find, if you ask around, that most people know the difference and aren't confused as perhaps you are.
Either you're winding us up or you belong to some small group of mechanical perverts and provocateurs.
Honestly though, let's not bind on about this. It's a mere bagatelle.
|
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions of driving routes. Goodwood is definitely on the cards with possibly the Le Mans Classic before that. I took the car out for a couple of runs between Baldock and Royston this morning as I wanted to give some family members the experience before I relocate it up to the Midlands.
It's a 1979 model with the 5-speed Rover SD1 'box, it's very long-legged and is quite amenable to a downchange to 3rd at an indicated 70mph. The speedo overreads by about 10%, based on some shaky smartphone GPS speedo comparisons - I was having too much fun to be too scientific about it.
There's a flat spot under hard acceleration for a couple of seconds or so before full bore kicks in. Dad drove it gently for the two years he had it so even my Italian tune-ups aren't shaking the cobwebs free. Going on what folk on here have said it's definitely down on power and torque, it runs out of steam (but not noise!) a couple of mph shy of the ton which is a fair bit slower than it should manage on paper. It also needs 4th gear to maintain that speed, it can't hold it in 5th.
I'm certain it's fuelling-related and will get everything properly set-up as soon as I can - it's a long while since I tinkered with a single SU and the thought of two of 'em with K&Ns atop is too much for an amateur like me.
The only other niggles are that the screws holding one of the sidescreen brackets to the door keep working loose, and the balljoint on the centre rear-view mirror is loose enough for the mirror to move out of alignment every 10 seconds. Neither are major headaches on short runs but will need sorting out before I tackle anything serious.
|
SUs are very finicky. They do get gummed up - there's a big piston inside each one that moves up and down depending on throttle opening and revs, which alters fuelling by withdrawing or inserting the needle attached to its lower side. I seem to remember that the needle may need to be moved slightly up or down to make the fuelling correct at idle, which is the base line. The piston in a gummed up engine can simply stick in one place. The car will run, but not properly. Above the piston there's a small damper in the 'dashpot' whose screw-in cover is on top of the carb. The dashpot has to be kept topped up with the right grade of oil. Without it the piston/needle assembly moves too fast. The engine will run, but not properly.
Balancing, also important for proper running, is another matter. The main tool for that is a vacuum gauge but I've never tried to balance two SUs so I can't comment on how it's done. My Bentley had two, but I never balanced them.
Start by taking the carbs off and cleaning them thoroughly. And unless the ignition is correct, including proper advance-retard behaviour, don't even bother to try tuning the carbs. Ignition first, new plugs and points with correct dwell (unless it's got electronic arrangements for that).
Sorry if you know all this. Don't take what I've said as gospel. Talk to an expert if there are any left alive.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 22 Feb 14 at 22:57
|
>> Start by taking the carbs off and cleaning them thoroughly. And unless the ignition is correct,
>> including proper advance-retard behaviour, don't even bother to try tuning the carbs
I'm not confident that if I took the carbs off I'd even be able to put them back on again! Gasket sealing and all that.
>> Sorry if you know all this
None taken, I know the theory but I'm very rusty at the practice. Must be 15 years since I last adjusted an idle screw.
>> Talk to an expert if there are any left alive
Seems to be a place 10 miles away in Nottingham where they know the black art of twin SU tuning - the Land Rover and MGB forums mention it a few times. I'd rather pay someone who does that kind of thing for a living to sort it, it's not the car for me to practice "Teach Yourself Carb Balancing" on.
|
|
Definitely sounds like the carbs need stripping, cleaning and resetting to me. The old SU is a wonderful simple piece of kit and I have had many cars fitted with them (never had a twin set up though). 25 years ago I could have overhauled them in my sleep, not sure I would tackle the job now though. Also it can be quite tricky to get them adjusted correctly to get them through the emissions test on the MOT now. Am feeling quite nostalgic for the old days when you could (had to !) tinker with cars, as all I do now is refill the screen wash reservoir. However the reality of having to do it was somewhat different !
|
>> Definitely sounds like the carbs need stripping, cleaning and resetting to me. The old SU
>> is a wonderful simple piece of kit and I have had many cars fitted with
>> them (never had a twin set up though).
I have recently set up twin SUs on my Triumph 2000.
There are lots of different variants so details vary -you need the book relevant to yours really.
Basic principles include checking the pistons are scrupulously clean and fall at the right rate if held upside down, the needles are a proper matched pair and correct for the car, the needles are set at the right level in the piston, the needles are centralised and don't foul the jets, the jets are set at the base level and then wound the correct number of turns to the starting point for fine adjusting, the wax-stat units if fitted are working or preferably binned using the "two pennies" trick, the interconnecting throttle linkage and idling setting is correct.
Then if the ignition is correct, comes tuning. You set the mixture correct on each carb separately, using the lifting pins. Then you set the balance between the two carbs. You need a simple device like a vacuum cleaner suction gauge. Then reset the idling settings and finally the interlinking again.
Then a road test and check the two banks of plugs for soot/heat, and make small adjustments to the mixture. Keep precise records of every 1/6 turn you make and monitor the results.
It's great fun if you are very systematic, and the reward comes when you can confidently put your foot down and feel the surge of power.
Or there's the lovely feeling of driving a car with a very torquey engine of just ambling along hardly ever needing to change gear between 20 and 60. Perhaps just flicking the overdrive button occasionally.
|
Amazingly, you can still get Gunson carb balancer, which would allow you to make a right cods of the job at the first attempt and would then take its rightful place in the garage for the next 20 years, gathering cobewbs between the eezibleed and the colortune.....
|
>> Amazingly, you can still get Gunson carb balancer, which would allow you to make a
>> right cods of the job at the first attempt and would then take its rightful
>> place in the garage for the next 20 years, gathering cobewbs between the eezibleed and
>> the colortune.....
Dont mention the eezibleed. Guaranteed not fit 60% of cars and leaves you with a flat tyre.
|
>>
>> Dont mention the eezibleed. Guaranteed not fit 60% of cars and leaves you with a
>> flat tyre.
>>
And brake fluid sprayed everywhere because the "universal adaptor" is a poor fit.
|
>> Dont mention the eezibleed. Guaranteed not fit 60% of cars and leaves you with a
>> flat tyre.
>>
I agree that it's not the greatest piece of kit, bit a lot of problems using it are caused by people not reading the instructions and not lowering the tyre pressure to what they say.
|
>>
>> >> Dont mention the eezibleed. Guaranteed not fit 60% of cars and leaves you with
>> a
>> >> flat tyre.
>> >>
>>
>> I agree that it's not the greatest piece of kit, bit a lot of problems
>> using it are caused by people not reading the instructions and not lowering the tyre
>> pressure to what they say.
Exactly. you have to flatten your tyre beyond what useable to make it work. And then somehow find somewhere in the engine bay to put the spare because the hose is too short to reach the ground.
I didn't get that far. "Oh no sir it does not fit any Japanese cars" "we are aware the advertising and box doesn't mention that sir" "no sir we don't plan to change that, and no sir you can't have your money back"
I hope the company folds.
|
>> Amazingly, you can still get Gunson carb balancer, which would allow you to make a
>> right cods of the job at the first attempt and would then take its rightful
>> place in the garage for the next 20 years, gathering cobewbs between the eezibleed and
>> the colortune.....
>>
>>
Now the Colortune I always found a useful bit of kit. The eezibleed was a complete joke though.
|
There is a trick for balancing multiple carburettors. No long available to me as I'm deaf.
You might need a stethoscope with some cars, but the trick is this. Raise the idle speed while listening to one carburettor. The note will change and what you are listening for is best described as a bark. The onset of this is well defined and all you do then is adjust the balance so that all carburettors do the same.
|
>>It may just need tuning. I found the carburettors quite temperamental, and rather prone to gumming up if left with petrol in for a while.
Give it to Rats for an Italian tune-up.
;>)
|
>> Give it to Rats for an Italian tune-up.
>>
>> ;>)
>>
The exhaust note alone would frighten the crap out of him.
|
|
Be no good to Rattle, it hasn't got load of electronic black boxes to plug a lap top into and return 50 different fault codes that need a month of agonizing over before someone discovers there's no petrol in the tank.
|
I seem to remember a competition mini, some aeons ago (well, it seems like it!) which had 4 Amal carbs -one per pot. Went like stink when on song, but fiendishly difficult to balance.
My racing Cooper S had a Weber 45 with a fairly long inlet manifold. The intake poked into the passenger compartment!
I also had a 4.1 diff which gave a decent, quick off the line, performance, but limited the top speed rather - good for Brands short circuit, but death on the long straights at Snetterton.
|
I hope you will keep us posted on the retuning/fettling process Dave. We won't hold our breath of course.
Was any model of the +8 fitted with traditional Morgan sliding pillar front suspension, or were they coil-and-wishbone from the start? I think the latter.
|
|
All original Plus 8's (Rover engined) were sliding pillar. The recently reintroduced Plus 8 is really a rebodied Aero 8 and has wishbones and coils springs.
|
What a wonderful way to remember your late Dad! Also, my sympathies on his passing - I lost my own father after an unexpectedly short illness just over a year ago too.
Where to take the Morgan? I'd say France, but if you head for the south, take it on some N roads rather than just motorway.
But you don't have to go that far - Brittany and Normandy have some very enjoyable twisty country roads that should do the trick, are easier to get to from the ferry, and there are plenty more possibilities as you head down the Atlantic coast. As I'm writing this, I'm thinking of the D6 road through the pine forests from Lacanau Ocean back towards Bordeaux - that was fun (at sensible speeds!) in a Subaru Legacy estate, so it should be an absolute hoot in the Morgan! Cross country from Roscoff towards Benodet and on to Quimper would be good too...
|
>> Plus 8's (Rover engined) were sliding pillar.
Thanks SP. I am slightly surprised, but only slightly.
The Plus 8 body may well be less aerodynamically slippery than the Aero 8's, but it's a small price to pay for not having to look at an Aero 8...
|
You can get the front suspension replaced with a more normal wishbone affair. There were two different firms offering the service but it's quite an expensive thing to do and really, if you fit hard chrome pillars and lower spring gaiters the front suspension can last much longer and doing so is well within the capabilities of a reasonable keen home mechanic.
Not sure how many cars have been converted to wishbones, suspect not many.
|
>> if you fit hard chrome pillars and lower spring gaiters the front suspension can last much longer
Ah, I suspected the standard set-up might prove a bit short-lived for anything heavier and more powerful than a +4.
Regular cleaning and greasing would probably pay dividends too. I would expect that sliding pillars neglected for long enough to dry out would wear rapidly and not work properly.
|
It's not the power, it's the road dirt and the slight corrosion on the steel pillar that's a problem. Morgan now fit stainless steel pins, but hard chrome is better still, and isn't that hard to get.
New pins, fitting and reaming new bushes is commonly regarded as 7 hours labour, but in reality, can be done in little over half the time. I've done it in less than 4 hours!
|
>> Regular cleaning and greasing would probably pay dividends too
The Plus 8 is fitted with a pushbutton sliding pillar greasing system; one application every 700 miles according to the dealer.
Once I've had the state of engine tune checked and adjusted I shall report back. I only see the car at weekends at the moment but will be moving it closer to home as soon as I find myself passing by with an empty transporter. One of the perks of the job.
Last edited by: Dave_C220CDI on Tue 25 Feb 14 at 21:14
|
And the first mod I'll suggest is put all the bits in the dustbin and fit grease nipples to the auto-lube bolts (top ones on the pins). Put a thin mixture of grease and oil in the grease gun and lubricate every 500 miles or so.
Next, if you've not already done so, join the Morgan Sports Car Club, website here:
www.mscc.uk.com/
They have an email reflector called Mogtalk, and the privately run forum called Talk Morgan which is also useful:
www.talkmorgan.com/
|
>> put all the bits in the dustbin and fit grease nipples to the auto-lube bolts (top ones on the pins). Put a thin mixture of grease and oil in the grease gun and lubricate every 500 miles or so.
That looks like good advice. My Bentley had a centralized chassis lubrication system, tiny tubes going to 'drip plugs' of different resistance all over the car, kingpins, spring shackles, suspension joints, even the clutch thrust bearing. But they didn't all work. The tendency was for the more remote drip plugs to get blocked.
|
Morgan Plus 8 - The start of something beautiful? - Fullchat
