RE: 'Classic' Morgan Three-Wheeler Returns

[Digga]

Lightningman said:

The price quoted by PH is taken from the telegraph and is rubbish.

http://www.morgancarnews.com/2010/10/new-morgan-3-...

£30k sounds more sensible, especially when the original (surely more desireable) 1930's classis are only £35k.

I wish I hadn't seen that link posted earlier; I;d have never assumed the classic Mg 3 wheeler was so reasonably priced and I'd have never seen this:

Beautiful, perfect.

[DonkeyApple]

Lightningman said:

The price quoted by PH is taken from the telegraph and is rubbish.

http://www.morgancarnews.com/2010/10/new-morgan-3-...

Maybe they took the 46K from the USD price?

[Digga]

Ozzie Osmond said:

With geriatric vehicles the biggest problem on the road today is generally not the "going" but the "stopping". It's easy to forget how stunningly good the tyres and brakes on a modern car are.

A 'geriatric' vehicle, in action:



Now if that doesn't look like fun, I don;t know what does!

[shoestring7]

Digga said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

With geriatric vehicles the biggest problem on the road today is generally not the "going" but the "stopping". It's easy to forget how stunningly good the tyres and brakes on a modern car are.

A 'geriatric' vehicle, in action:



Now if that doesn't look like fun, I don;t know what does!

I seem to remember reading that you need three hands to drive the things, a combination of bike engines, pre-auto advance/retard, mixture, hand throttle and clutch.

Like a mobile krypton factors..

SS7

[mickrick]

shoestring7 said:

mickrick said:

There are plenty of folks who will pay good money for quality, in this age of crap.
Looking at the pictures, I just want to get in and drive it!
I bet it's a hoon. As that American TV host with the huge garage (Can't remember his name) said about driving his original Morgan three wheeler, he didt realize he could have so much fun at 30mph!

Jay Leno.

SS7

That's the Fella'! Thanks for that. I was having a "Geriatric" moment yesterday.

[will261058]

DonkeyApple said:

will261058 said:

Dont fancy Morgans with 4 wheels never mind three, however a lot of people do love them, but this reminds me of several things that have gone across the pond, the Yanks take it and make it and suddenly its their idea and not ours...Im thinking Harrier aircraft here!

edited for not having the respect to spell Morgan with a capital M.

Edited by will261058 on Tuesday 5th October 01:23

The Yanks paid for the Harrier project, without their money it would never have existed.

I'm also not sure where the Yanks are claiming this Moggie as theirs?

I was referring to the fact that morgan will be building their own design under Licence from the American company.

American money did not pay for the Harrier. Funding for early engine developement was granted ( 75% ) by Nato under Mutual weapon developement and the rest was paid by the Bristol company. Hawker developed the airframe. It was later on that a lot of American money came in when they wanted to co-develop it. It was a British aircraft using British know how. I spent almost 30 years in the RAF. The vast majority of Americans I have met who are involved with the AV8 think it is an American invention. So whilst it is true that most of the Nato money was American sourced that money was also available to American industry.

[mph]

DonkeyApple said:

Lightningman said:

The price quoted by PH is taken from the telegraph and is rubbish.

http://www.morgancarnews.com/2010/10/new-morgan-3-...

Maybe they took the 46K from the USD price?

That's what I was thinking, the American one is priced at $46k on their website, reckon it's sloppy journalism from PH.

At around £30k I don't think they'll have any problem shifting them and the Harley engine is the perfect choice IMHO.

[slomax]

rswift said:

Ok it's a kit car....but arguably looks as good, and I think you could get one assembled for a lot less than 50k


http://www.pembleton.co.uk/PMC.html

Check out my thread on 2cv based cycle cars if you want to see a few of the options.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by slomax on Tuesday 5th October 15:00

[Risotto]

£50k is just what things of this nature cost. Look at the LCC Rocket - a similarly basic, light, bike powered two-seater. I think you'd have to hand over a similar sum before they'd deign to put one together for you.

[srob]

Digga said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

With geriatric vehicles the biggest problem on the road today is generally not the "going" but the "stopping". It's easy to forget how stunningly good the tyres and brakes on a modern car are.

A 'geriatric' vehicle, in action:



Now if that doesn't look like fun, I don;t know what does!

I've never seen anyone hanging out of a Morgan!

I know a couple of fella's that race(d maybe now!) them and another bloke that went for a rip as a passenger in a full-on - alcohol snorting bored out JAP engined affair. He said that you basically lie flat on your back in the footwell and pump the oil (which can look 'dodgy' as you just see an elbow pumping up and down from outside the car ). You're only there for balast so you can race against sidecar outfits.

There's some really interesting three wheelers race in the VMCC now. One day I'll be able to afford one and have a go!

[Hasbeen]

A mate of mine had one of the last of the old three wheelers. When the twin Matchless got tired he had trouble getting some bits here in Oz, so he adapted the barrels of a rotary hoe engine. He ended up with an 80+ BHP 1300cc engine. Well he was a racing mechanic.

In 64 I was racing a 62 +4, [124.6 MPH down conrod straight, Bathurst]. Not too bad for a tractor engine in 64, [Triumph TR3A].

He wanted to try my +4, to compare to a 56 +4 he owned, so on a Morgan Owners club run we swapped cars.

Driving that 3 wheeler was an incredible experience. At 25 MPH in top, it was revving so slowly that it rocked gently from side to side as each of those big cylinders fired. It had enough torque to drive down to about 10 MPH, which was just as well. Back in second, any more than slight throttle opening brought wheel spin, which I'm sure would be great fun, once you knew the thing.

At speed [about 70/75 MPH] the exhaust kind of went boom boom boom, & every second boom was a telegraph post. He did tell me it would do about 110 MPH, if asked.

I have never experienced anything in any way like it, & it was truly a great experience.

[Digga]

srob said:

Digga said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

With geriatric vehicles the biggest problem on the road today is generally not the "going" but the "stopping". It's easy to forget how stunningly good the tyres and brakes on a modern car are.

A 'geriatric' vehicle, in action:



Now if that doesn't look like fun, I don;t know what does!

I've never seen anyone hanging out of a Morgan!

I know a couple of fella's that race(d maybe now!) them and another bloke that went for a rip as a passenger in a full-on - alcohol snorting bored out JAP engined affair. He said that you basically lie flat on your back in the footwell and pump the oil (which can look 'dodgy' as you just see an elbow pumping up and down from outside the car ). You're only there for balast so you can race against sidecar outfits.

There's some really interesting three wheelers race in the VMCC now. One day I'll be able to afford one and have a go!

I've seen them going up Shelsley Walsh, looking a proper handfull.

The only thing more entertaining are the old Edwardian, chain-driven hillclimb specials, like the Gnats - possibly the nuttiest motors I've ever seen.

[DonkeyApple]

will261058 said:

DonkeyApple said:

will261058 said:

Dont fancy Morgans with 4 wheels never mind three, however a lot of people do love them, but this reminds me of several things that have gone across the pond, the Yanks take it and make it and suddenly its their idea and not ours...Im thinking Harrier aircraft here!

edited for not having the respect to spell Morgan with a capital M.

Edited by will261058 on Tuesday 5th October 01:23

The Yanks paid for the Harrier project, without their money it would never have existed.

I'm also not sure where the Yanks are claiming this Moggie as theirs?

I was referring to the fact that morgan will be building their own design under Licence from the American company.

American money did not pay for the Harrier. Funding for early engine developement was granted ( 75% ) by Nato under Mutual weapon developement and the rest was paid by the Bristol company. Hawker developed the airframe. It was later on that a lot of American money came in when they wanted to co-develop it. It was a British aircraft using British know how. I spent almost 30 years in the RAF. The vast majority of Americans I have met who are involved with the AV8 think it is an American invention. So whilst it is true that most of the Nato money was American sourced that money was also available to American industry.

Not getting it, I'm afraid. First you say: 'American money did not pay for the Harrier', this is then followed by: 'it is true that most of the Nato money was American sourced'. USDs funded the Harrier to go from paper to sky.

But that is by the by, I still have no idea of your Moggie point. Are you saying that they are claiming it as theirs like they apparently claim the Harrier as theirs?

During your 30 years in the RAF were you testing ejector seats a lot?

[will261058]

DonkeyApple said:

will261058 said:

DonkeyApple said:

will261058 said:

Dont fancy Morgans with 4 wheels never mind three, however a lot of people do love them, but this reminds me of several things that have gone across the pond, the Yanks take it and make it and suddenly its their idea and not ours...Im thinking Harrier aircraft here!

edited for not having the respect to spell Morgan with a capital M.

Edited by will261058 on Tuesday 5th October 01:23

The Yanks paid for the Harrier project, without their money it would never have existed.

I'm also not sure where the Yanks are claiming this Moggie as theirs?

I was referring to the fact that morgan will be building their own design under Licence from the American company.

American money did not pay for the Harrier. Funding for early engine developement was granted ( 75% ) by Nato under Mutual weapon developement and the rest was paid by the Bristol company. Hawker developed the airframe. It was later on that a lot of American money came in when they wanted to co-develop it. It was a British aircraft using British know how. I spent almost 30 years in the RAF. The vast majority of Americans I have met who are involved with the AV8 think it is an American invention. So whilst it is true that most of the Nato money was American sourced that money was also available to American industry.

Not getting it, I'm afraid. First you say: 'American money did not pay for the Harrier', this is then followed by: 'it is true that most of the Nato money was American sourced'. USDs funded the Harrier to go from paper to sky.

But that is by the by, I still have no idea of your Moggie point. Are you saying that they are claiming it as theirs like they apparently claim the Harrier as theirs?

During your 30 years in the RAF were you testing ejector seats a lot?

The Nato funds went to help develope an engine that was never fitted to the Harrier. It was a flying bedstead affair that helped prove the concept. they then developed another engine that was basically modified existing engines ie with an axial flow compressor rather than a centrifugal compressor one. all of this was using British tech which was way ahead of anything the Americans had, for instance their bombers still needed rockets to get off the ground as their jets didnt have the power only a few short yrs before. The second prototype was called the Kestrel and looked more like the Harrier. The majority of the cost were funded by the ministry of Aviation and the Mutual Weapons development project which was a Nato organisation, not solely American so as I said before ther was USD money but not only USD. The only time I know the US put money in on their own was to buy Harriers for the Marines and this was prob around 1969. Certainly a long time after the Harrier was developed. My point is that the US didnt pay for the thing, they helped fund it. However that funding would have come from somewher else had the MWDP not contributed, just like all the other projects which had no US involvement at all.

The Morgan point - I just find it ironic that they need permission to build something that they designed and built and then licenced to others.

And no I never tested ejection seats, sat on them often enough but never when the rocket motors were functioning, fortunately

[will261058]

prg123 said:

I think we should all celebrate that Morgan are still around making unusual cars and keeping British workers in jobs ..... Good luck to them I hope the sell lots. If I had the money i would snap one up.

Pete

Agree with all the above apart from the buying one bit.

[urquattro]

bobberz said:

Truly, truly want! I love three wheelers and Morgans in general!

One question: Here in the US, any vehicle with three wheels ("trike") is classified as a motorbike, therefore you have to have a motorcycle licence to drive one, is this the case in the UK? Obviously, cars like this and the Reliant Robin, and any number of bubble cars, behave more like cars than motorbikes, so I always thought this was strange.

In UK, the road test success a group licence of solo motor cycles, motor cycle with sidecar but no reversing gear fitted plus some odd bits, the m/cycle sidecar combination then included other three wheel vehicles without reversing gear. Hence Morgans were pushed/dragged round to face other way! but Bond had a more subtle solution, lift bonnet, get inside engine bay, lift and shuffle it around other way. Some had reverse but with a plate in gate effectively denying selection of reverse but a spanner solved the problem unless the law challenged the reversing efficiency and demanded licence check.
With the German Heinkel thing if you drove/parked into a tight space you couldnt get out as the only door release was on outside, cries of help to passers by I seem to remember. A mate hit a cow up the rear in one, distorted the door badly and had to sit in the wreck all
night.
M'shmitt had a three wheel thing, left over plane canopy on wheels that was in this category but the four wheel hot version KR something had reverse as well so needed a car licence.
Not an anorak but old, hated the things, they just got in the way of decent bikesetc
.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/imgs/4.gif

[Paulbav]

I absolutley love it, pricy but if you can't afford it or don't want it don't buy it. My Grandad has always had Morgans since I have been alive and for many years before that (i'm 33). He currently has the protype matchless v twin that was originaly regestered to Mr Morgan in 1930 somthing (iirc) I beleive the original plate however now is lurking on a Fezza owned by one of the Mirgan family.

Paul

[srob]

When I was talking to my old man about this at the weekend (we were at an old bike race meet) he was telling me about a Morgan he nearly bought in the late 70's. He turned it down because it had the Matchless engine rather than the JAP

Luckily he's still got the 1928 Royal Enfield sidecar outfit he bought instead

[Wacky Racer]

If it's a bit too much, just get the pedal car version...

http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/

[Dimski]

RosscoPCole said:

Just added to my dream garage.
Remember seeing a VSCC meet a Donington in 1999 where a Morgan 3-wheeler had to take avoiding action from the flames coming from the exhausts from a single seater racing Bentley.

When racing at Silverstone in the '80s, my dad told me that one of the most entertaining sights he saw was a vintage Bentley being harried by a Morgan 3 wheeler. Over a few laps, (I can't remember the specifics, I think it was during practice.) the Bentley tried harder and harder to lose the Morgan, but to no avail. Like a fly intentionally annoying a Lion, just 'cos it could.