RE: 3-Wheeler Gulf revealed
Discussion
domV8 said:
Quote:
"1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
Yes, This"1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjn-53H0WfQ
domV8 said:
Quote:
"1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
The 3-Wheeler website (http://www.morgan3wheeler.co.uk/sportcreate.html) quotes 80bhp, but I've just noted that's at the wheel. So maybe it's around 100bhp at the flywheel allowing for 20% drivetrain loss? Some early drives put it at around 115bhp so there remains a lot of speculation! Maybe someone should get that one wheel on a dyno and discover the truth..."1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
I don't know why this particular V-twin has such a low specific output. I think the design is based on an S&S Harley engine so the focus there would be on torque theoretically.
I went to a morgan dealer with the intent of buying one of these and came away without handing over my deposit, the car has so much smile potential but the dynamics are just let down by shoddy brakes and a lack of steering feel that is inexcusable in an 'enthusiasts' car. I wish some aftermarket company would pick them up and sort them out, I'd happily pay the 5k premium that this gulf edition represents for a decent driving experience...
Robmarriott said:
Can someone remind the team here that kW is not equal to BHP. Thanks.
Exactly. It produces 80bhp at the wheels, which according to PH's own story means 115bhp:http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Beefmeister said:
Exactly. It produces 80bhp at the wheels, which according to PH's own story means 115bhp:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Oops. Sorry about that. Now edited for accuracy, and the relevant people have been told to go and sit in the corner and watch back-to-back re-runs of Eldorado for the next couple of hours.
Edited by Scrof on Tuesday 27th November 14:48
elvisburger said:
Don't get this car, or why people really like it - I suppose each to their own, or I have not quite reached my mid-life crisis.
You're not alone. I'm sure it'd be a giggle for a sunny Sunday afternoon or two but, for me, I think the novelty of pretending to be Biggles would wear off pretty fast. What then? You're left with a car that's not very fast, doesn't handle very well and cost you 30+ grand.domV8 said:
Quote:
"1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
The V-twin configuration is matchless! "1990cc V-twin produces 81hp and 100lb ft"
I don't know much about V-twins, and assume that its a very light engine for an extremely lightweight vehicle - but that's a large displacement for such a small power output...
Is there really no other more economical solution to product a similar output, or am I missing something about the V-Twin configuration...?
Much want but would prefer the "chocks away Ginger!" RAF stickers with shark mouth, roundels and bullet holes!
hairykrishna said:
You're not alone. I'm sure it'd be a giggle for a sunny Sunday afternoon or two but, for me, I think the novelty of pretending to be Biggles would wear off pretty fast. What then? You're left with a car that's not very fast, doesn't handle very well and cost you 30+ grand.
0-60 in 4.5s is 'not very fast'? Okaaayyy....In an exposed, low, little car like that, a 4.5s sprint will seem EPIC. Plus, who really needs to go anywhere NEAR the 115mph top speed?? This is NOT a Lambo or a GT car...and it's certainly 'fast'.
Hi all,
Apologies for any confusion on the 3-Wheeler prices; the standard car is £25,000 plus VAT whilst the Gulf car is £29,162.50 plus VAT. With the tax added, they cost about £30,000 and £35,000 respectively. Makes the paintjob even more expensive! Sorry again about the mishap, the article should be corrected now.
Thanks,
Matt
Apologies for any confusion on the 3-Wheeler prices; the standard car is £25,000 plus VAT whilst the Gulf car is £29,162.50 plus VAT. With the tax added, they cost about £30,000 and £35,000 respectively. Makes the paintjob even more expensive! Sorry again about the mishap, the article should be corrected now.
Thanks,
Matt
PhantomPH said:
hairykrishna said:
You're not alone. I'm sure it'd be a giggle for a sunny Sunday afternoon or two but, for me, I think the novelty of pretending to be Biggles would wear off pretty fast. What then? You're left with a car that's not very fast, doesn't handle very well and cost you 30+ grand.
0-60 in 4.5s is 'not very fast'? Okaaayyy....In an exposed, low, little car like that, a 4.5s sprint will seem EPIC. Plus, who really needs to go anywhere NEAR the 115mph top speed?? This is NOT a Lambo or a GT car...and it's certainly 'fast'.
Fast compared to most lardy 'normal' cars but in something this compromised? If you're willing to put up with no roof, windscreen or other creature comforts there are various alternatives that will eat it alive. Why would you choose one over a Caterham, for example, other than novelty value?
hairykrishna said:
Morgan themselves quote 6 seconds; http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/mmc/downloads/brochu... which seems a lot more realistic for ~160bhp/ton.
Fast compared to most lardy 'normal' cars but in something this compromised? If you're willing to put up with no roof, windscreen or other creature comforts there are various alternatives that will eat it alive. Why would you choose one over a Caterham, for example, other than novelty value?
Because the Caterham wouldn't do on three weels what the Morgan can? Fast compared to most lardy 'normal' cars but in something this compromised? If you're willing to put up with no roof, windscreen or other creature comforts there are various alternatives that will eat it alive. Why would you choose one over a Caterham, for example, other than novelty value?
hairykrishna said:
Morgan themselves quote 6 seconds; http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/mmc/downloads/brochu... which seems a lot more realistic for ~160bhp/ton.
Fast compared to most lardy 'normal' cars but in something this compromised? If you're willing to put up with no roof, windscreen or other creature comforts there are various alternatives that will eat it alive. Why would you choose one over a Caterham, for example, other than novelty value?
Fair enough - Morgan don't know how fast it is themselves!!! Ha ha. Everywhere else on the site quotes the 4.5s :Fast compared to most lardy 'normal' cars but in something this compromised? If you're willing to put up with no roof, windscreen or other creature comforts there are various alternatives that will eat it alive. Why would you choose one over a Caterham, for example, other than novelty value?
"Weight: 500kg (Est.)
Power: 80bhp (at wheel) (Est.)
Top Speed: 115mph (Est.)
0-60 : 4.5 seconds (Est.)
Engine: 1990cc 'V twin'
Gearbox: 5 speed + reverse
Aluminium body
Motor tricycle homologa"
Wonder if the engine has changed, since the brochure says "S&S 1976cc ‘V twin’" and the site pages say "Engine: 1990cc 'V twin'"
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff