Plus 4 or Roadster?
Discussion
Interesting. My feeling is that the Plus 4 and Roadster are outstanding cars at their list price, 36k and 45k respectively, however, the addition of some basic items like a radio, tonneau, spare wheel and sports seats, takes you to 42k and 51k, at which they are competing with Boxsters and Caymans, with which the technology is not comparable, despite the undoubted craftsmanship.
The reason I asked is that it is very hard to find an objective road test of a traditional Morgan. Most of them say things like unique and fun, which is understood but doesn't take us far. I don't take Jason Plato's review of the Plus 8 seriously as he comes across as starting from total opposition to the car, but he does make some telling points. I once owned a Honda S2000. Superficially it was a nice sports car with a screaming engine and very quick steering. If however you pushed it into a drift, you very quickly found yourself with a serious oversteer problem, on occasion so bad as to come to a stop sideways.
In my limited experience of driving a Morgan I liked the seating position, but thought the performance seats essential. I liked the way you sit inside the car and behind the wheel. The view over the bonnet was epic, magnificent. I liked the whole mechanical feel of the thing. The 2.0 litre engine was brisk and sounded good, reminiscent I thought of a souped up TR4 or even a TR6 in sound and performance. It felt low, fast and real. The brakes were alarming, in that the pedal was not where you expected it to be and once you had found it you had to apply some serious force to stop. I understand that is because it is using rear drums. Is there a reason for this? Maybe you would get used to that, but in the meantime I wouldn't like to find myself in an emergency situation in the car. In a ten mile run the headlights stopped working, the speedometer only worked intermittently and the driver's door flew open twice. This was a nearly new demonstrator. It made me wonder about the value of craftsmanship, and I wondered if the same degree of care goes into the classic Morgans as goes into the BMW engine variety. At no point did I get anywhere near breaking loose nor did I get any feel for what might happen if I did. I buy totally into the low tech approach. Why have stuff you don't actually need and which only turns a 'sports car' into a luxury GT? Radios, AC, traction control etc etc. Less, as they say, is more.
What I find myself thinking however, is that when the cars are costing the same as a Boxster, a Cayman or even an F Type Jag once sensible discounts are applied and a manual box specified, this concept only works if it is carried through with total integrity. A Ford engine and a Mazda gearbox will probably work fine but its a cheap solution, not a Porsche drivetrain. So we are not paying for handbuilt or blueprinted engines. A car which might be a no brainer, simply as a one trick vintage experience and fabulous looks, at 32k is a more considered decision at 43k, and even more again at 52k. A chassis does not need PASM, PTV, Adaptive dampers etc, and is indeed technically and morally superior, if it has genuinely been developed so they know exactly how it will respond, and which will work with you in the traditional way to the limits of its performance. Is that what you are buying from Morgan, or are we saying simply that it is good because it is old? I'd quite like someone like Chris Harris to tell us the honest answer to that.
In my limited experience of driving a Morgan I liked the seating position, but thought the performance seats essential. I liked the way you sit inside the car and behind the wheel. The view over the bonnet was epic, magnificent. I liked the whole mechanical feel of the thing. The 2.0 litre engine was brisk and sounded good, reminiscent I thought of a souped up TR4 or even a TR6 in sound and performance. It felt low, fast and real. The brakes were alarming, in that the pedal was not where you expected it to be and once you had found it you had to apply some serious force to stop. I understand that is because it is using rear drums. Is there a reason for this? Maybe you would get used to that, but in the meantime I wouldn't like to find myself in an emergency situation in the car. In a ten mile run the headlights stopped working, the speedometer only worked intermittently and the driver's door flew open twice. This was a nearly new demonstrator. It made me wonder about the value of craftsmanship, and I wondered if the same degree of care goes into the classic Morgans as goes into the BMW engine variety. At no point did I get anywhere near breaking loose nor did I get any feel for what might happen if I did. I buy totally into the low tech approach. Why have stuff you don't actually need and which only turns a 'sports car' into a luxury GT? Radios, AC, traction control etc etc. Less, as they say, is more.
What I find myself thinking however, is that when the cars are costing the same as a Boxster, a Cayman or even an F Type Jag once sensible discounts are applied and a manual box specified, this concept only works if it is carried through with total integrity. A Ford engine and a Mazda gearbox will probably work fine but its a cheap solution, not a Porsche drivetrain. So we are not paying for handbuilt or blueprinted engines. A car which might be a no brainer, simply as a one trick vintage experience and fabulous looks, at 32k is a more considered decision at 43k, and even more again at 52k. A chassis does not need PASM, PTV, Adaptive dampers etc, and is indeed technically and morally superior, if it has genuinely been developed so they know exactly how it will respond, and which will work with you in the traditional way to the limits of its performance. Is that what you are buying from Morgan, or are we saying simply that it is good because it is old? I'd quite like someone like Chris Harris to tell us the honest answer to that.
jonny finance said:
Hi CardiganKid I recognise your user name, you might have seen mine in the past, mostly in the 'other' usual suspect manufactures i.e Porsche/Supercars etc.
Personally have been lucky and owned most stuff but lately was finding modern cars more and more predictable, and a touch uninspiring - Always fancied a Morgan and was fully aware that a whole different mindset would be called upon regarding it as an ownership proposition.. Took the plunge and have so far not looked back. Maybe not comparable to what your considering as I went for an Aero SuperSport but this is still from the same Morgan family and is a car like no other..
A big plus for me, which steered my choice, was the relative financials.. They really are not an expensive choice in comparison to some makes when you take into account running costs and the very strong residuals - If you did not like you could sell and not lose your shirt!
Interesting. Where I am is that I have other cars, of varying ages, that are mostly big powerful GT's. All very different and all great fun. They all cosset you, however powerful or agile they may be, and what I don't have is a raw sports car. I sometimes wonder if a 911 GT3 is the only thing that would scratch that itch, though anything with an auto box of any type is anathema, or whether a Boxster GTS, F-Type Jag, or a Morgan would be the ticket. An AM N430 Roadster is pushing the boat out, maybe too far. I do not like motor bikes. I think that they are too easy to come off and are basically a passport to an early grave. For that reason, I don't feel comfortable in a Morgan 3 wheeler or even a Caterham. I am not a scaredycat or a wuss, I just don't regard them as cars and they don't do it for me. Personally have been lucky and owned most stuff but lately was finding modern cars more and more predictable, and a touch uninspiring - Always fancied a Morgan and was fully aware that a whole different mindset would be called upon regarding it as an ownership proposition.. Took the plunge and have so far not looked back. Maybe not comparable to what your considering as I went for an Aero SuperSport but this is still from the same Morgan family and is a car like no other..
A big plus for me, which steered my choice, was the relative financials.. They really are not an expensive choice in comparison to some makes when you take into account running costs and the very strong residuals - If you did not like you could sell and not lose your shirt!
In a Morgan, I love the way the seats are positioned right back over the axle, the hefty feel of it, and the stunning view over the bonnet. I like the responsiveness which results from the light weight, and the mechanical feel of everything. The fact that I am paying a lot for a fairly ordinary stock engine bought in and dropped in the car is offputting, but balanced by cheap servicing, inexpensive parts etc. I don't mind the technology being basic. What puts me off is -1- the basic stuff not working, like headlights. I think that, today, is inexcusable -2- the brake pedal position is odd. On a fairly gentle drive it sometimes took just a little too long to find it, and then a lot of force for a modest amount of stopping power. I shudder to think what might happen in an emergency -3- In any sports car, sooner or later you are going to push the limits of the handling. I know, because I have done it, that in a Boxster or an F-Type they are going to keep you on the road unless you do something spectacularly stupid. The chassis set up is always looking after you. I hear the argument that if you have a problem you have to sort it out yourself. That sounds pretty macho, but it is going to look a bit foolish in your obituary. I nearly totalled myself in an S2000 which I regard as a f
king dangerous car. I don't have the talent to be able to control that kind of thing. I just don't know what the Morgan would do, and given the lack of thought that seems to have gone into some other aspects of it, I don't know if they have actually considered the handling characteristics at the limit. I would love to hear someone say something like, the engine has been placed to give a 50-50 weight distribution, or that it is nicely balanced and breaks away progressively? I don't pretend to know how they engineer that stuff, but I know how it feels at the sharp end. Do they have a chassis engineer? In this connection it worries me that no-one that I have found does a proper road test of a Morgan Plus 4 or Roadster. It is always tongue in cheek or qualified by statements like, its rubbish but you will love it. -4- I don't feel that it is terribly responsible taking ones kids out in a car where the passive safety features are pretty well nil. maybe i just don't get it, enough, anyway. Sorry to come over as negative. Maybe I will wait until the Spring and hire one for a weekend.Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 20th December 10:43
Sorry - were you asking me?
I was distracted. I did do a test drive in a Morgan, resulting in the comments above. While I haven't entirely ruled the Morgan out, I have been looking at another option which was not on my radar at that point, which is a classic E Type. The idea is it is fun and an asset.
I was distracted. I did do a test drive in a Morgan, resulting in the comments above. While I haven't entirely ruled the Morgan out, I have been looking at another option which was not on my radar at that point, which is a classic E Type. The idea is it is fun and an asset.
OK, funding the classic E-Type, which is only practicable for me as a purchase from the USA, is problematic, and it is a big leap of faith. I can't afford the time or money to get into restoration. If all goes well, it is a beautiful car and solid asset. If it doesn't you have smoked a large amount of cash.
AM V8 Vantage Roadster. Lovely manual gearbox. Expensive to buy, expensive to run, and one massive flaw in my view - no view to aim the car over the front. The bonnet just drops away from you. Cars have to look good from the driver's seat, not just the outside. Nothing beats the Morgan on that, but Ian Callum has clearly got the message and the Jags come a close second.
The Morgan - in the end, imho if you can afford to have one for occasional use, it is a great experience, but it's an eccentric one. I do not think that I could use it every day, the brakes worry me, and I do not think that you get enough content for your buck.
The XKR Dynamic - again a very nice car, and fast - but principally a cruiser, and I have other cars that will do that. The F Type Convertible is a tempting prospect, fabulous sound, and supremely emotive drive. What's not to like? I'll tell you. It is flawed, maybe fatally. There is zero luggage space. It is 250kg too heavy (how on earth was that allowed to happen?) The build quality, and here I mean the interior mainly, is not up to Porsche standards. Look at the seat wear on low mileage second hand models. It is not a 911 competitor. A toddler could tell you that. A 911 is a practical, usable 2+2 stockbroker's express. What were Jaguar smoking when they said it was benchmarked against the 911? The F is a two seater fun sports car directly competing with the Porsche Boxster and Cayman. Only it is a good £20k+ too expensive on each model to compete effectively. With the benefit of hindsight this car needed to be economic to build, good basic quality, and a kit of parts that allowed some interesting model variations without becoming expensive to construct, and priced to sweep the market. In short it needed to be the 986 Boxster which saved Porsche.
The one you really want is the V8S, but it is over £90k. It ought to be £65k. You wouldn't buy a much more reasonably priced used 13 plate, because you are very likely buying one that has been extensively caned round a circuit as part of the Driving Experience programme. I don't think so. The entry model is 330 bhp, similar to a Boxster GTS. But it is so much heavier than the Porsche that you need the V6S as a minimum. That's £67k. You also need the Performance seats - that's £2.5k, the black wheels - that's £2.5k, sundry other basic and black stuff so it looks as much as it costs, which magically comes to a further £2.5k, and suddenly they are asking £75k for a good looking fun two seater. I know that its possible to abuse the options list on a Porsche too, but that's game over, surely? In short, the F Type is not yet at the top of its game, though I hope that it gets there. Otherwise we are going to be pinning our hopes on the G Type.
There is in the end only one answer to this, and I'm sorry to be conventional and obvious but it is a well specced Boxster.
AM V8 Vantage Roadster. Lovely manual gearbox. Expensive to buy, expensive to run, and one massive flaw in my view - no view to aim the car over the front. The bonnet just drops away from you. Cars have to look good from the driver's seat, not just the outside. Nothing beats the Morgan on that, but Ian Callum has clearly got the message and the Jags come a close second.
The Morgan - in the end, imho if you can afford to have one for occasional use, it is a great experience, but it's an eccentric one. I do not think that I could use it every day, the brakes worry me, and I do not think that you get enough content for your buck.
The XKR Dynamic - again a very nice car, and fast - but principally a cruiser, and I have other cars that will do that. The F Type Convertible is a tempting prospect, fabulous sound, and supremely emotive drive. What's not to like? I'll tell you. It is flawed, maybe fatally. There is zero luggage space. It is 250kg too heavy (how on earth was that allowed to happen?) The build quality, and here I mean the interior mainly, is not up to Porsche standards. Look at the seat wear on low mileage second hand models. It is not a 911 competitor. A toddler could tell you that. A 911 is a practical, usable 2+2 stockbroker's express. What were Jaguar smoking when they said it was benchmarked against the 911? The F is a two seater fun sports car directly competing with the Porsche Boxster and Cayman. Only it is a good £20k+ too expensive on each model to compete effectively. With the benefit of hindsight this car needed to be economic to build, good basic quality, and a kit of parts that allowed some interesting model variations without becoming expensive to construct, and priced to sweep the market. In short it needed to be the 986 Boxster which saved Porsche.
The one you really want is the V8S, but it is over £90k. It ought to be £65k. You wouldn't buy a much more reasonably priced used 13 plate, because you are very likely buying one that has been extensively caned round a circuit as part of the Driving Experience programme. I don't think so. The entry model is 330 bhp, similar to a Boxster GTS. But it is so much heavier than the Porsche that you need the V6S as a minimum. That's £67k. You also need the Performance seats - that's £2.5k, the black wheels - that's £2.5k, sundry other basic and black stuff so it looks as much as it costs, which magically comes to a further £2.5k, and suddenly they are asking £75k for a good looking fun two seater. I know that its possible to abuse the options list on a Porsche too, but that's game over, surely? In short, the F Type is not yet at the top of its game, though I hope that it gets there. Otherwise we are going to be pinning our hopes on the G Type.
There is in the end only one answer to this, and I'm sorry to be conventional and obvious but it is a well specced Boxster.
I've not so much decided against a Morgan as decided that a Boxster GTS is a higher priority. I'm going to get more out of it. I still respect what Morgan do and God willing I may have one one day. If it were solely about views down the bonnet (call me a fetishist, I think that it matters) the Morgan would win hands down. The old E Type was a great idea in principle but the finance just didn't work.
The Porsche has a bit of a view, framed by the wings. I don't like the swage line they have introduced though. The view out of a 986/987 was nicer, as it was out of the 996/997. I think that smooth curving wings, like smooth curving breasts, if I can say that without getting banned, are nicer. But you can't have everything.
I totally agree with you about the Aston. It is an epically beautiful car, by any standard, particularly in roadster form. The interior is stunning, just as you say, in a different class. It would be the right decision, but for a few things. I have a DBS, which fulfils my need for an Aston pretty well. What I don't have is a convertible. For a car that lovely, it is remarkable how little you perceive of it from the inside. I might crash through driving about looking at myself in shop windows! I really worry about the cost of attempting to run two Astons, and I already wake up at night thinking about what happens if something goes wrong with the S, or indeed if I can't keep up the payments. My ticker might not stand two such investments. Also, if we are talking new, (and I feel the need for the comfort of a warranty) a serious kick-ass manual Boxster GTS with stuff like PTV and PCCB is £65k. A similarly good spec F-Type is 75k, £85k if you want the V8, which I do, and the N430 Roadster is £105k which is in a different solar system. It is rarer, yes, but they are going to replace it, though it doesn't need replacing, simply because they can't keep selling £100k cars when Tommy Atkins can pull up beside you in a minted 56 plate that looks just as stunning but cost him £28k. When they do the depreciation is going to be bumclenching. Tommy is a hero though because if something lets go he is facing a mahoosive bill.
The Porsche has a bit of a view, framed by the wings. I don't like the swage line they have introduced though. The view out of a 986/987 was nicer, as it was out of the 996/997. I think that smooth curving wings, like smooth curving breasts, if I can say that without getting banned, are nicer. But you can't have everything.
I totally agree with you about the Aston. It is an epically beautiful car, by any standard, particularly in roadster form. The interior is stunning, just as you say, in a different class. It would be the right decision, but for a few things. I have a DBS, which fulfils my need for an Aston pretty well. What I don't have is a convertible. For a car that lovely, it is remarkable how little you perceive of it from the inside. I might crash through driving about looking at myself in shop windows! I really worry about the cost of attempting to run two Astons, and I already wake up at night thinking about what happens if something goes wrong with the S, or indeed if I can't keep up the payments. My ticker might not stand two such investments. Also, if we are talking new, (and I feel the need for the comfort of a warranty) a serious kick-ass manual Boxster GTS with stuff like PTV and PCCB is £65k. A similarly good spec F-Type is 75k, £85k if you want the V8, which I do, and the N430 Roadster is £105k which is in a different solar system. It is rarer, yes, but they are going to replace it, though it doesn't need replacing, simply because they can't keep selling £100k cars when Tommy Atkins can pull up beside you in a minted 56 plate that looks just as stunning but cost him £28k. When they do the depreciation is going to be bumclenching. Tommy is a hero though because if something lets go he is facing a mahoosive bill.
Edited by cardigankid on Monday 23 March 19:07
The AR Plus 4 looks like quite a piece of kit. If Morgan can translate the work done on that, both the engine and the chassis, to the standard Plus 4 - or maybe offer a tuned engine as an option possibly not the full Cosworth job but something which is going to feel visceral - that would get me excited. Today's review in the Telegraph suggested that the suspension upgrades will be carried forward into the standard Plus 4. This is what is needed. They will sell me one yet.
Gassing Station | Morgan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff