Morgan +8 Forum

I have always been fascinated by California's emission standards, Jan! Many times it has
caused the development of fueling systems specific to that market. Did you know the first
EFI Rover V8 was made for California used on the TR8? It was a Rover L-Jetronic on a
low compression (8.13) I was so curious, I actually bought an entire system 20 years ago
just to see how it functions and compare with the later Rover/LR V8s. Pic below.

I see Hotwire 13CUs amongst Bill Fink's shipments of the day. He removed them.

Lorne

P.S. Actually, unlike, Switzerland, the US and Australia, Canada had the same emission
standards as the UK. No changes in that area, no propane, no low compression, different
fueling.
However, Canada did have the same safety regulations a the US, but with one important
codicil. All cars had to be crash tested. Affidavit compliance was not permitted as it was in
the UK and the USA. Without affidavit compliance being accepted, new Morgans could not
be sent to Canada. That has been the situation since 1994 (IIRC)

These thingies will always give you a code. The question whether it is the right one! There was a world of trouble posted to eMog when the US then the UK received GEMS. That is why I happily gave the GEMS responsibility to David (Poole) He worked long hours with Adams and Rpi. Sadly, the Factory, then in dire need on this themselves, didn't follow what these guys were doing, and their attempts made things worse. I remember Factory was caught between the LR aftermarket division (who programmed the thing for Morgan and caused the issues) and our guys who knew how to fix it. You see, GEMS was the first fully comprehensive, a modern car management. Many of the things the original programming addresses, a Plus 8 does not have! They did many things, for example, removing the all-important knock sensors, which control ignition timing, which in turn, controls power and response.


One huge UGH. Can I pass?


Is the ones I posted the one? I like its idea. I am just unsure whether whoever sorts this problem will need to a bit of reprogramming. Want some US Morgan history you'll like? Before the MMC, after PM retired, insisted on US compliance modifications being done in Malvern rather than in the US, (ugh!) Bill Fink was the leading light. Before, Peter Morgan had a wise policy not to get involved in foreign compliancy. Bill used to pay extra, buy the Land Rover code readers for the Hotwire 'puters and stash the reader behind the glove compartment. Most owners did not have a clue they have them! Very cool. I have been grateful for them 30 years later!!!


Hey, want a Christmas present? 20 years ago I used a connection and bought the Morgan all model
code reader and programmer Morga forced all their dealer to buy at a silly price. I have only used it a few times
to help people. Want it? If you remind me when I next visit Canada, (July-August) and if I can find it in storage,
I'll send it to you. If you become familiar with it.....


That is great. But I wish we could do better than that. Problem is Morgans do not age and go to the yard like
other cars.


GoMoG is too large for me to keep all of it up to date unless someone mentions something. AND As I said, it
wasn't my area (If I can quote John Travolta from Michael). But I have stuff which I will browse. I also have
friends and we exchange daily. No promises.

Thanks for helping!

Lorne

The MX+ you show is the one I have. I went looking for a more reasonably priced one. No luck, so I guess they have gone up a lot in price. So far the codes it has read have been correct, although fortunately there have been few codes, so not a definitive test.

Replacing the MAF cured the poor running problem in the mountains and the Immobilizer code occurs every time I forget and try to start the car the first time I turn the key and it doesn't start. Doing the ignition dance gets it running and then I have to clear the code. As I said, more an annoyance than a real problem. So far in 10 years, the car has always started on the third try.

I will take you up on the Christmas present offer. I'll try to remember to remind you at the appropriate time. Thanks for the offer.

Thanks,
Dave

Lots to digest. I really appreciate all of the contributions! Stay tuned. FYI, after reading the GEMS document I decided to seldom if ever use the security system remote.

I purchased the first TR8 in California, fuel injected of course. It proved reliable and trouble free for the 6 years I owned it. What I do know from drag racing a few SU carbureted TR8s is that it was actually faster, and got better fuel economy. 'Ran better, in other words. The low compression was due to the requirement for unleaded fuel, NOX emissions and the lack of technology. Eventually, the TR8 was traded for a Porsche 951, which was actually a mistake. However, the Turbo 944 is still in the family, nearly 40 years later, having burned the equivalent of two TR8s in maintenance costs and warranty claims. Mom, now 93 still doesn't want to sell it.

California was unique, the unique emissions driving accelerated research and development. Often, we had the better engines, with the latest fuel injection technology, before the rest of the country. There were really good reasons for this, best understood if one actually lived here in the early 60s, when it was nearly impossible to breathe in LA and the Pasadena area on a hot day. Our particularly so called draconian emissions measures did in fact clear the air, and drove the tech that gave us far better cars, with more power, and better fuel economy with incredibly low emissions. Within a couple of years, we had "50 state" cars, and the carburetor disappeared forever. CA got mass air fuel injection systems first, along with cats eliminating the thermal reactors that caused hot running engines, poor fuel economy and tuning problems.

Eventually, low compression was bumped to 11:1, with 3 way cats, octane sensors and other advancements in ignition control. 400 HP Corvettes were getting nearly 29 mpg on the road.

Interesting. The US V8 variants, with their fueling systems and low compression were rated
at 134bhp.

A similar output was created by Win Sharples at CanTab, the first Morgan dealer appointed
by Charles Morgan, to compete with Bill Fink at Isis. He used low compression blocks and
TR8 fueling on his first Plus 8s to make them officially compliant. Bill went in the other
direction with propane conversion, eventually super charged. They are the most powerful
new Plus 8s that ever left a dealer's premises, worldwide, much more potent that the Factory
stock 4.6s. Most of the Fink and the Cantab-copies in propane have been converted. Propane
is not a popular fuel in the USA...more so in Canada and the UK. One merely needs a little
valve chnage for LPG.

My wife owned a 1967 e-type (XKE in the US) for many years. It was originally imported by
a dealer in Manhattan. Jaguar's route was to change the axle ratio for the US market so that
the car could compare to the Corvettes of the day. It made them, of course, much more
reactive at lower speeds at a sacrifice to top cruising speed, which was hard to believe. I rebuilt
the engine down to bare block and reboring oversize, and swapped out the US required two
Strombergs to the UK three SUs. I felt it was too iconic a car to switch to non-original Webers,
though they are more potent and less fiddly. That was a set-up that was hard to source!

L.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-05-07 12:18 PM by GoMoG.

You need to re read post. You jumped to a different paragraph in your "quote", misplacing information that had nothing to do with the TR8 that I purchased new. The main point was that the exclusive to CA fuel injected TR8 was faster, and had better fuel economy than the SU carbureted version. I didn't see any compromise, given the emissions requirements at that time. It was, essentially, the state of the art in its price range. There really wasn't anything better available. In period, it was pretty nice.

As for the intakes you presented, the information is not complete. One is an intake, the other is a plenum cover. The important part was what was underneath, the actual intake. In any case, this is what hey were doing back then, and what we had available to purchase. At the time, the TR8 made us very happy, especially my Mom. The car was refined for a TR back then, and was a wonderful freeway cruiser. My first trip was to pick up the TR from the dealer, put our bags and cameras in the trunk and head for Monterey for the hysterics. The car was well received, being the only one there. Big crowds at the track. I really liked it. No complaints, really.

I also owned a clapped out '65 E Type Coupe that I used as a daily driver, then built into a vintage racer, so I am pretty familiar with the Series 1 4.2 cars (I had the entire car apart, every nut and bolt), as well as its contemporary, the '65 Corvette ('Had one of those too). BTW, '67 E Types here had three carbs and still had the glass headlight covers. The '68 was the emasculated version with the twin Strombergs, when the US federal emissions standards and safety rules were enacted. BTW, I never had problems with the E Type's (We called them "E Types" here, too. No one said XKE, other than Jan and Dean and the Rip Chords) SUs. 'Ran just fine, putting out about 300 HP after its rebuild that included a heavily ported cylinder head, and a set of Winfield cams. It's in a collection in AZ now. My car didn't need a shorter final drive, not that it would matter. E Types were about 300 lbs lighter than the C2 'Vette. It actually took a the solid lifter 327/350HP version or the fuel injected version (or the rare big block) to beat a 3 carb E Type back then. As for the change in the final drive, who really cared? Nobody.

Corvettes had axle ratios available from 3.08 to 4.11 available with a tick of a pencil on the order form, along with engines from 250 HP through 425 HP in the rare 396 version. Jags were pretty good performers, but the Corvette still had the engine options. PosiTraction was $45. My Uncle ordered his (eventually mine) with the 3.08 for relaxed cruising, 300 HP, Posi and the quick ratio manual steering;. Being a jazz musician, he ordered the FM radio. It was fast enough with the 300 HP engine. Wish he had ordered the Fuelie, or at least the 327/350 solid lifter option... It cost around $4200 out the door on a very good deal from a local dealer. Unfortunately, it was stripped bare about 3 weeks after delivery. It was then completely rebuilt, but, for the purists, no matching numbers. The car was properly assembled, and was trouble free. I had it for a few years before I sold it for a Porsche 911 SC.

'68 was the year that everyone thought marked the end of performance cars. 'Turns out that it was not quite the low point (indeed, things got worse for a few years for some makes), before the advances that brought us what we have today. Now, we have 11:1 compression, extremely accurate fuel injection systems and ignition systems that make it possible to build 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engines with 400 HP, getting high 20s fuel economy and extraordinarily low emissions. All because of CAs pioneering emissions rules. Then, the fuel economy mandate kicked in, and things really started to progress, for the better. A four cylinder turbo Mustang has as much power as my V8 '90 Saleen and gets better fuel economy and much lower emissions. It's faster too. Progress.

There was also a CA "Fox" Saleen Mustang "sedan" that I built from new. That one had the CA first mass air EECIV, big valve Edelbrock heads (California EO Legal), cast GT40 intake (a production part) and the E303 emissions legal performance cam, bigger injectors and a very special X pipe exhaust system with high flow cats. It made more than 350 HP, still with its 9:1 compression. No chip. No compromises. Just the adaptive program that was part of every EECIV system. Passed emissions every single time, both visually (it appeared to be , and on the pipe. The chassis came in for some radical changes as well, as I was testing parts for the SVO catalog. That car got me into the SAE. I built 4 copies for friends. 'Kept it for 16 years before I let it go to a collector, who still has it. I think that it is still on the internet, under "Saleen Mustang 90-235" White, with black trim. I was looking for a Morgan +8 back then... Built it all myself, did the suspension setup and proved all of the suspension components for Ford's SVO/FRPP/SVT catalog.

The current stable includes a couple of R5 Turbo 2s, one of which is a 400 HP German tuner version that I am re engineering so that it won't burst in to flames every 15 minutes. The other is a 3000KM rescue barn find, now a 100 pt show car with a 6 figure price tag. Once it is out of the garage, I can then pull the engine on the +8 and finish the clutch installation, and hang the rest of the parts on the car. Perhaps Summer, it should be ready to enjoy again. There is also a Porsche 951 (93 year old Mom's car), an E500, C280 and my dear Westfield 11 ("Lotish", which has been doing duty as an errand runner.

I have only had couple of "bad" cars, that were bad mostly because of dealer service issues. Some were just poorly built, like the brand new '76 Police Nova 4 speed 4 door that had problems with parts falling off, and primitive catalytic emissions system using a carburetor (but with an available 4 speed, for about two weeks at the end of production). Eventually, I got it straightened out (all 150 HP of its 5.7 liter V8), and immediately traded it for another new Alfa ('cause you know, more power, and, well, I am a sucker for any Alfa). Note that I have skipped over the high school cars, which included the Max Wedge Dart (413 stage 2) that paid for most of my dates via bracket racing, the Healey 3000 with three SUs, and the 1725 Sunbeam Alpine V . Oh, and later, in college, not one but two SAABS, a 96 and a 99. mmm. Mercedes 200 D, punishment for crashing the Alpine. And then the first Alfa. I kept that one for 36 years.

Variety is the spice of life, and I have had experience maintaining my own 2X4bbl Mopars, Weber carbureted everything (including the Ferrari 250 GT P1 cabriolet, and lots of different fuel injections, including the latest in self programming after market units both throttle body and sequential port injection.

Yes it did. California reduces performance for compliance (though I can get the earlier Morgan
EFIs past the tester with minor temporary tweaks. The sprightly UK SU engine output of this V8
was cut from 165bhp to 126ish for California and most of the USA. The early "Federal" L-Jets were a
bit more, and certainly accelerated more robustly. But that variant was merely ok for the time
and place. What I like about it is that it forced the birth of a new technology for Rover/LR/Lucas
that lead to much better things for the world. To this day, the 1984/1986 Vitesse L-Jets
(according to the Factory and 3rd party testing), were the most powerful Plus 8s that left
Pickersleigh Road and infinitely home mechanic tweakable.


You are speaking only to one place in a very big world (and you are forgetting dear Switzerland).
From the point of view of stock SUs in the world AT THAT TIME they were 20% less potent. I am
just happy that California pushed the technology I had 3-4 years later. My 1984 stock EFI +8 had
(when it left the Factory) 50% more bhp without the CA measures.


You know well enough that you are dealing with verbiage, not commons sense basic engineering.
A plenum, whether used with carbs or EFI is part of the intake airflow. The Federal plenum was
severely restrictive...and created by people raised on a much earlier and different technology.

What bugs me the most was the lack of attention to sports car basics on the part of foreign sellers to
California. Bill find and Peter Morgan HATED the compromises they saw..despite Bill being a Californian.
They moved to propane (actually an idea fo the local EPA chief), which takes nothing away from the
legendary Bill Fink. The result was 200 bhp, and then an amazing 224 with his turbo version which
John Sheally II constantly with wins with since despite the hugely heavy fuel cell. 224 Plus 8s versus
TR8s with 134ish?? I like that initiative very much. When we were becoming friends in the 1990s, I
interviewed Bill. The article is here. https://www.gomog.com/mi/GoMoG/madeintheusa.html
On the other hand, Cantab played with Federal technology or worse.


The overwhelming majority of them (XKEs) were sold in the USA, where they were most popular,
not in the UK or the rest of the world. That changed now. In fact, we sold my wife's example to a
European who had the thing picked up at our Quebec country house!

But we are talking apples and oranges. The Morgans, the TRs, the Corvettes were sports cars. The
Jag e-type is/was a touring car, incredibly more comfortable, and even 1960s far more advanced
technologically than its competition 20 years later. Buy frankly, I prefer performant simple sport cars.
Are there any sports cars left?


We disagree. I do not see advances and progress. I see humans dumbed down. I have
nothing against technology, merely the silly way it being used.

In this field, one can no longer easily interact with a modern sports car, even mechanically
i.e modular construction = don't change the light bulb you must change that corner of the car.)
Immobilizers prevent usage, ABS ends braking on a snowy slope over ice, Morgans come with
the fuel maps of 4x4s..I could go on. The "sports car" that drives itself is nigh. They are not a
sports hobby, they are conspicuous consumption.


I see bad cars (Morgans) every day. I guess it is, surprisingly, my calling. However, I am NOT
and carsonova (as one mogger used to always say), though I have had many sports cars. I am
selectively only a Morgan lover. I grudgingly fix other vehicles only out of convenience and
necessity.


You mean the Holly aftermarket stuff? Old or new. Non-multiport EFI. Logic says they cannot near
match any used L-Jetronic (flapper) or Hitachi Rover (hotwire) system at a fraction of the price. I also
like that they are original Morgan. The British government, a VERY important factor in the community
and more far-reaching for Morgans than CA regs, take authenticity points off for modifications. Once
they add up, you must register the car with a "Q" plate (aka kitcar). A later system used in the same
model is not considered a modification. Many of the people I help must deal with such stuff.

L.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-05-07 12:37 PM by GoMoG.

You say that the intake is "restrictive", but don't say why. The real reason that the engine produces less power is due to the reduction in compression ratio, cam timing and ignition. Changing the intake on that engine specification would change nothing, as there is nothing to support better breathing. The engine ended up with low power in order to make emissions for the 50 state US market, with the technology that they could afford, in a time frame that allowed them to get the thing approved and into production.

That YOU can't interact with the modern cars is really your problem. I have no problem interacting with them. I can service them, diagnose most problems, should they ever pop up, and know that they will run reliably. The transmissions will shift crisply, the clutch will be easy to modulate (or I will simply adjust my technique, as I did with the Porsche Carrera GT), and that they will handle reasonably well, even if I turn off the stability control (which one should never turn off on the Porsche Carrera GT). I love driving them, and I love driving the old stuff as well. After all, I own a +8, and an 11ish, made up completely of 50~60 year old parts. I enjoy all types of sport cars, and I adapt easily. I only use my senses to evaluate what I drive, and don't have any set ideas about such things as stability control, transmission type or engineering advancements. For me, it all depends on how it works. My expectations only go as far as my experiences in like machines. Of course if you are evaluating a Morgan, or Bugatti Veyron or Chiron, well, there isn't much of a point or reference. 'Probably why I like both.

Things change, but not so much for our "classic" Morgans, even less for my Moss box +8. I am pretty sure that I will enjoy the +6 as well. Morgans have seen the installation of radial tires, then synchromesh 4 speed transmissions, then 5 speed and 6 speed gearboxes, all enhancing the driving experience . Engines from Rover, with traditional SU carburetors, then port type fuel injection, rack and pinion steering, and yet... They are still Morgans. Not one of the changes is dumb, and some, like fuel injection, kept Morgan in business, and for many of us, in our garages.

But there is something far more important. If not for the technology, Los Angeles (if not the whole country) would still be choked in smog. When I was in grade school, there were days when we could not breathe, literally. Taking a breath caused a fit of coughing, eyes were stinging. We were lucky, being closer to the beach, but the people living in the valley, or Pasedena/Glendale... Eventually, there were smog days, when they would be locked in the class rooms, not allowed outside. So, we got emissions rules and equipment. First, there were the PCV valves, evaporative systems, then electronic carburetors and thermal reactors, then unleaded fuel, leading to lower compression and really low HP ratings (a typical V8 of 5.7 liters didn't make 150 HP) and dismal fuel economy. Then came the oil embargo, and. finally, they went the European direction, with fuel injection, and catalytics. With fuel economy becoming more important, we got higher compression ratios again, with 3 way cats killing the NOx emissions and smarter ignition systems. Dumb? My kid is 8, and will live longer because of this. Life is better when you know that you will be able to breathe every day. . Oh, and it has not stopped me from working on why own car or modifying it for better performance.

Modifications? Well, if you go with a GM, Ford or Stelantis product there are whole catalogs from the manufacturer, and more by the aftermarket, of hot rod parts that have California (and therefor Federal) EO numbers allowing them to be fitted to modern engines to improve power output. I am not talking about air filters here. Cams, cylinder heads, intake manifolds, ignition amplifiers, MAF units, exhaust headers, higher flow cats, superchargers and turbo chargers that can easily double the HP output without busting your emissions test. If you had an LS powered Morgan, you would have lots of parts available, from intakes to cams, rockers and exhaust systems. Of course, you can take your LS 1 and replace it with a LS3, picking up 100 HP and not messing up your emissions one wit. Heck! Why stop with an LS3? Why not a 7 liter LS7 with over 500HP (or 600+HP with a Katech version) and still keep your emissions certification?

When I mentioned fuel injection, I mentioned several types, including sequential injection, which is my preference. However, I have actually worked with the latest in Throttle Body types that are self tuning, and have had success on the Rover engine. The end result is better than a carburetor, mainly in that it doesn't have to be adjusted.. It can adjust itself. It is important to use the entire kit, including the auto advance system with the standard distributor. There are limitations with the cam lift and duration to consider, but there is also an available system for variable cam timing that might make things a little better. Induction vacuum is critical. Trying to chase the system by making lots of changes without driving the car 50 miles or so will only lead to frustration. The self tuning is not "instant". It takes time, and miles of driving for the computer to gather enough data to make the thing run properly.

Is an old flapper sequential port injection better? Probably, depending on the engines initial tune and intake. But the throttle body injection is easy to install, and will work better than a carburetor. Also, you don't have to mess with a lot of obsolete EFI parts that might be defective and have to search the globe to find them. Then there is the wiring harness for the system.

That said... you can also install the latest in self programming port injection systems from the usual US suppliers and Haltech. These usually use GM sourced throttle bodies, IACs and MAFs. There will be some adaptation to be done, using the Rover port injection intakes, using the latest in metallic 3D printing. Adapters only need to be designed. Send the file, get your parts back in a week or less. Worth trying if you want something modern, and easy to service. These systems are generations newer than the old GEMS. 'Might even get the car past CA emissions and be able to sustain a better cam shaft, more compression, more power and likely get better fuel economy. My guess is that no one here will be removing a working GEMS or other Morgan installed system to do an aftermarket stand alone port injection system. But, if one is interested, there it is.

The real problem for guys like you is that the modern technology eliminates the problems of maintenance. No longer do we have to change oil every 1500 miles, or even at 3000 miles. With the cold running programs of our modern engines, there is no excess fuel, no oil dilution, reduced bearing, bore and ring wear, reduced emissions and far longer engine life. Dumb? More power, less maintenance, more driving time and longer engine life. Also higher revs, flatter torque delivery, even slicker shifting gearboxes. Look, there is far less to take care of. Even my hot rod Ford Mustang, with an extra 120 HP, 20 years ago, didn't need any more maintenance than the stock machine. This means mostly oil changes, occasional spark plugs and new wires every once in a while. Nothing ever broke. I did 8000 track miles with it. It is still around in a collection in NC.

Morgans were not quite as primitive in the emissions department as their chassis and coachwork. Morgan used available Rover V8s, with lower compression ratios for the widely distributed Range Rovers and Defenders. If you wanted a Morgan, that's what one would live with, albeit in a lighter chassis. Performance was still pretty good for what was essentially a perfectly preserved '30s relic. That's what most of us have, though my early car has more power, and less weight. I know... Your car is quicker than lightening, easily able to do 12 second quarter miles at over 120 mph (that's what it would do if it weighed 2400 lbs with "twice the HP" of my car). We just have to live with our 0~60 in 6 seconds... It is amazing that we don't fall asleep driving out Morgan +8s...

I am over 70 (have been for a while now), and prefer simple systems and light weight. I also like reduced maintenance and reliability. I like manual gearboxes, but I still have an open mind. I drove a brand new Porsche Cup Car, fresh off the boat, during its break in testing. It had a manual, straight cut, sequential gearbox. A clutch was not always necessary for shifting, up. only for down shifts. Pulling the shift lever (it had a conventional shift lever) interrupted the power momentarily to effect a lightening fast shift, up or down. Was there less involvement? HELL NO. Same for the Lotus 23 with the Hewland, requiring precise rev matching, even on the street, shifting up or down. Clutch? Again...Not always necessary. The involvement came with the awareness of the engine RPM, and which gear was selected. I still enjoy driving. Progress has given us even faster shifting twin clutch units. Those may reduce involvement (rev matching is really convenient for those not fully versed on double clutching and "heal toe" tecnhique), unless you use them to your advantage, and find things flying at your windshield faster than ever. You are involved, for sure, with driving the car, and getting the lap time, or carving the canyon. Have fun... And then, some of these gearboxes are smarter than you are, and will shft up and down, automatically, depending on your involvement. Concentrate on the line, on the steering and braking. The gear box has your back. Just be careful with the power, and you will find yourself in the right gear, before you even know it... With our more powerful engines, wheel spin can be a problem. In the two situations where I had a fully auto gearbox to work with my lap times were quicker in auto with one of the cars, the same with another, but the session was cut short. Maybe auto would have been faster. Which was ore fun? I liked both. One for shifting, the other for the quickest lap time of he session. When spending my own money, I usually go for the manual, but the clutch is going the way of the manual advance lever and the manual choke... However, the fun is still there.

What I don't think is that sport cars should be "uncomfortable". To what end? I often test race cars for magazine articles. The most important thing in the familiarity portion of my invitation to drive is to be fitted into the car. To be COMFORTABLE. This was part of every test that I have done, from the Bugatti Veyron and Chiron (supremely comfortable) to the Benetton and Williams F1 cars that I drove at LRS F1, and the FF cars at Bridgestone school at Mossport. BTW, those Formula Fords were NOT comfortable, for many reasons. I guess that they were real sport cars... And since when were Jaguar XK Es comfortable? They had horrible seats and no ventilation in the coupes (I owned a couple). They got hot inside. I made some changes to mine so that I would fit better. I made similar changes to my Morgan to better fit my shorter stature. Jags were sport cars, to be sure. In the end, memory foam and a few thick washers made a torture chamber a palace parlor. I gave up painful vanity when I was 5, in my first Kart that Dad built for me. If you are uncomfortable in your Morgan, you would not drive it as much as you do, right? The car obviously fits. All sport cars should fit properly you know, like your shoes. BTW, it didn't take much to make the Morgan comfortable. Just a couple of adjustments. Funny, but I had a conversation with Charles Morgan about the Aero at Monterey many years ago. I recommended some changes, which, surprisingly instituted in the very next version. I suspect that my suggestion were made by others as well. A little tilt here to open up an angle there... Should work with the NHTSA rules for head clearance and position for the air bag... Anyway, the very next Aero that I tested fit perfectly.

My friends bought new Morgans (around 2005, as I recall), and the cars drove nicely. No one complained about the performance or of any problems getting a smog certificate. I was directly responsible for influencing the purchase of two +8s and an Aero (all on the same day). Evidently, the cars were not as bad as you would have us believe. Meanwhile, i still had to wait another decade for my own Morgan.

And now, this thread where you tell someone how to service their own fuel injection that is really not serviceable. Ironic, really. No involvement? BTW, there are available Rover specific OBD2 code readers for around $50 or so. 'Might be worth checking out. If you want to get involved.

I thought about not answering. I have come to the conclusion that you will not oppose anything that contradicts you. That means logic is left behind and we pontificate rather than enlighten one another. But all this is being posted publicly, not only to this fine group but also, because of the nature of the site owners\ prfits, to the entire world as is immediately googleable by everyone..which is something dangerous.

I assumed that people would use their eyes.

As I said, I agree. But there are simply additional reasons. I recommend you consult the literature I suggested to you, along with other stuff from the UK and the engine's manufacturers.

And you have a new Carrera GT! Wow!!! That must have set you back! And you do all its repair and maintenance work! You are an exceptionally amazing man with a mass of expensive bespoke equipment. Do you being the stuff it with you when traveling far? You are exceptionally specially exceptional as new Porsches are constantly named (in the UK) as the hardest to maintain with the most warranty claims of ALL cars sold in Great Britain. They could use you.

But forgive me. I repeat that modern cars bore me blind and none more so than those made within the last 20 years and constantly getting more boring. Unless it is far more convenient, I give modern fare to others. I have owned many fancy cars in my distant past. Got rid of them in 1989. They never moved me as much as Morgans. Conspicuous consumption.

Like the newest generation of Morgans, they also shift for their drivers (better than humans can!), brake for you, self-tune as the Factory chooses, and some even 0become sportier for you at the flip of a switch. I imagine you will be buying one..they are about to be shipped to the US!

Have they gotten rid of the mind blowing traffic too? The human waste in man-hours and lost living space is horrifying to contemplate..even more than the smog. talk about smog but our self-indulgence of one-person-one-vehicle is the worst of it. Don't you agree? We have infrastructures that can only handle a small percentage of what we use them for. I have lived remotely for 40 years. I must drive 20 minutes to see other vehicles, but even then I see the silliness of it all. Worrying about what fuel to use is ignoring the obvious. Cars are an indulgence humanity cannot survive. (duh!)

I remember. I am older than you. I had a LOT of business to do in California in the late 1960s through to 1991, when I retired. But the smog laws did not deal with the issue. Those laws dealt with politics not reality. Individual vehicle usage is the problem. I remember my friends and contacts regularly travelling 30 miles to a restaurant! Do people still do that?

I agree completely. You have so much to catch up with with Morgans! You seem to know nothing about Morgan's brush with the LS2.

Briefly:

I so much wanted Morgan to opt for the LS series for the reasons you note. It was 50-50 at one point. The GM parts supplier to the UK, in that era run by the former CEO of TVR in its heyday, Stewart Halstead, offer Morgan to finance their multi-continent compliancy, if they used the series! Sadly, the initiative failed after an aborted palace coup in Malvern.

Europeans are often inexplicable contemptuous of American technology. Were you aware of that? Most notably Charles Morgan got the creeps at the mentioned of Chevrolet and he loved BMW. So instead of buying one of the few GREAT engines in automobile history, he opted to pay three times the price for BMW, an engine with much less bhp, less mileage, more emissions and that couldn't fit into a trad body.

But Bill Fink's attempt was found wanting by the pro-LS management faction.

I was discretely given images of the UK LS prototype. One is below.

I very much like the shape of the first Plus 8s like yours. Lithe and graceful. I had the MMC pull in my wings during their construction of my remaining car. They are the perfect Superform wings, but most of the increase in Morgan width has been their later aesthetic decision, not need. My front end is a tiny bit under 60" rather than 68 or more that was adopted by the mid-1990s. Makes no sense, increases wind resistance and cost, but there you have it. Charles Morgan notoriously likes wide cars. Chacun à son goût!


I gather you have never spent the enormous sums for Haltech or Motech. They are brilliant but not for the Morgan crowd. They are neither inexpensive nor normal Morgan owner-friendly. Why leave the safety and joy of the community you are part of when you can buy a full multi-port system specific to the engine for used under 100£ and have 30 years of lore and experience as a backup!


That is so wrong for our Plus 8s. We have low pressure oil systems (aside from the GEMS units that are sadly doomed to change). The UK stock systems (1967-2000) operate on volume oil flow not high pressure. That scares a lot of people but has proved itself for 40ish years. The oil required is merely a decent (low ash) much cheaper traditional oil, 20W50 or (the UK says 10W40). It simply has to be changed every 2000-3000 miles. Cost is the same if you do it yourself. The consequent engine innards are almost as spotless as those of a Morgan propane V8!

Using the high pressure modern synthetic motor oils do the opposite, even assuming one gets by the fact that the old residue of the traditional oil does NOT mix with the fully synthetics.

Please be careful what you tell people about this engine.


You are confusing Rover V8s with Land Rover V8s. The latter were not used in +8 until 1986/87. Different in many ways.


"30s relic"?

You mean the era universally recognized "Golden Age of Automobiling"?

No. The later cars have more power and less weight, at least according the the Works and engine data of the day..and those were stock UK, not stock California. Stock engines in 1970, Rovers not Land Rovers, had 165hp which translates to 161bhp. Can you read the compression ratio off your block. https://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/BlockNumber+8s.jpg Should be stock (fingers crossed)

I assume you are trying to insult me by posting inaccurate information on my last remaining Morgan. Why on earth would you do that? However, you show how the Morgan world has changed since 2002. When my car was destroyed that year, a few months later I told the community (many of the people here) that it had been re-created at the Factory in an idealized form and had been shipped to me. Within 24 hours, I had received 326 happy emails congratulating the MMC and I. You are of a decidedly different sort.

My car weighs 1822 lbs (full tank), not 2400lbs, and dynos at 306 bhp at maximum tune. The car is an expression of the Works' good will, that of good people advising me, my influence back then (which I decided was no fun), my own experience and mostly the pain of having my beloved Morgan destroyed. I can tell you is not a happy way of developing a more performant Morgan. I have known of your car, for 20 years, from a time before dear Dennis sold it the first time. I am happy it brings you joy.


Me too. But what happened to the hitech modern stuff you speak of above?


Me too. I could never have done the mileage I have in Morgans without the car being supremely comfortable on country backroads. My wife, who loves our Morgan as much as I do, would never have stood for it. I have ever understood why people tolerate most Morgan suspension. Perhaps it is the testing ground. Those roads around Malvern are fantastic, IMHO, though the Factory complains they are terrible. I have found that with mild tweaks, any Morgan trad can be made sensuous without changing the original design! I have had gurus from all corners, including Californians, leap from my mogs demanding I remove the axle area cover to see what I have installed. Derek, ask your Dad and give him my deepest regards.

I am going to put the above down to "anything-he-says-I will-vehemently-deny "attitude.

Other US Opinions


With the top down? Or with top up and the US air-conditioning working?

There is a group of owners and dealers, right now, hoping I will use my contracts and time to find a workable diagnostic programmer for the GEMS Plus 8s and immobilizer relief for all Morgans. Want to help or I you convinced you are right indisputably once again..after 25 years of us all at this?

I do not work with BMW Morgans. I took down the Gomog Aero pages and post-2004 trad stuff almost 20 years ago. It was not the BMW technology, it was because, after PM passed, management adopted a different manufacturing/development philosophy. Instead of carefully recording and reporting remedial modifications, they adopted a system of unreported spontaneous fixes from one unit to another. I could not safely track Morgans anymore, even trads.

L.

Lesson learned: left my draft to check something; came back - all gone.

Today's update: I cleared the P1179 code, undid the battery for 30+ minutes, then went for a drive. Starting idle jumped to 2 grand but immediately settled down to normal by the time I stopped at the end of my street. Covered over 20 miles including a stop for gas. Car ran fine; no Check Engine light (at least not yet).

Dave, only today did the entire manual open (first only 14 pages, then 45, now all of it). For you and Lorne, haven't had a chance to open and study your links, but will. My local shop (they've done several jobs for me before) will work on the +8 tomorrow. We'll change all of the spark plugs which should allow checking for rich running. Also have a new IACF on the way. Might not fit it unless/until needed.

Stay tuned.

I read this topic top to bottom I must admit I understood non of it
Gone are the days when you could fix most of the ailments with set of basic tools
My 1962 Morgan plus four has none of these fancy stuff and even then , sometimes I scratch my head.Couple of things occur to me
With all the technology and low cost of memory why is it that they never make it easy for example a code (as an example P 334 to come up on a screen in plain English the possible faults) it seems that they are creating revenue avenues for dealers. It seems that even an Electronics Masters degree without expensive computers cannot solve issues . I am sure I am not alone in this thinking. If a fault came on my car I would immediately stop and investigate, in the fear that it may have even more expensive consequences.

On my everyday car/cars I have noticed a fancy code number has meant a loose gas cap, which has cost me a dealer visit of over $100 to have it replaced+parts plus tax. End of venting
Merits of cars pre 1965
No electronics to worry about
No seat belt
No catalytic convertor
No smog test
No worries

---

I am always OK............. the trouble is with the others :-)

Bob,

Yes, I sometimes long for the '"good old days" of point ignitions, carburetors, and fixing things with basic tools. I still have several other cars so equipped. However, I had to learn that stuff back in the day, and now I have had to learn the new "electronic" stuff, and of course buy the "tools" needed to troubleshoot the electronics. Every time I start wishing for the old stuff, I remember that I now have more horsepower, better throttle response, better fuel mileage, instant starting and less pollution, at least when everything is operating properly, which has been almost all of the time.

I thought long and hard about whether I wanted a newer Morgan with the electronics and decided I could go either way. The 2003 Morgan presented itself first so I went that way. I definitely haven't regretted the decision. When touring with other Morgans, someone with an older Morgan is always having some sort of carb or ignition issue. With the exception of one time when my MAF sensor failed (and the car still ran, but very poorly), I have happily motored on.

I now carry a OBD Link MX+ code reader ($140) in the car so if I get a MIL light I can determine immediately whether it is a serious issue. I wish I had it when the MAF failed, I could have saved myself some money and several days getting it repaired. The OBD link also has a dashboard function that shows many of the engine operating parameters on my phone screen as I drive. I can now read or reset trouble codes and know what the problem is without even getting out of the car using my smart phone.

I do agree that manufacturers try to make things proprietary and more difficult for the home mechanic, but it doesn't take long for the aftermarket to catch up..... although somewhat longer for us old guys to catch up and figure it out.

So, I guess it's up to personal preference. I have no regrets about the electronics in my Morgan and if I want to go old school, I can go to my Series 1 E-type, owned since the 1970s, and have to crank it a bit to start, let it warm up so it drives well, tune it up occasionally and then have a fantastic driving experience. Is one better or worse. No, just different.

Dave

Well written and reasoned Dave!


I remember one of my first outings with my newly purchased Morgan. We drove down to a huge car Meet in the US. Canada had very severe safety rules but out emissions regulations matched the UK's. Ergo EFI rather than carbs (whether petrol of propane) People forget that the technological difference between the last LR L-Jetronic and the first LR GEMS was merely 4 years (1990 to 1994). The other moggers at the Meet told me that my Morgan was not "really" a Morgan. I was DEVASTATED until I was informed that the rest of the world had Morgans like mine too.

I also like my EFI. It is simple enough to adjust with a screwdriver, and yet it puts out as fine a spray as any Morgan ever made with all that drip-free power. My problem is not with technological complexity per se it is the changed goals of technology which have taken over. Let's call it the post-GEMS world. Now technology is used to produce profits as its primary goal while dodging the dictates of those who have no clue.

BTW, my problems with GEMS have nothing to do with what it is. It is all to do with the difficulty of parts sourcing and the compromises the MMC made. LR chose to end the manufacture of parts and that will force you away from GEMS. Sadly, Morgan keeps using systems and parts or even adopting them, long after they have already become obsolete. It is adorable..but also frustrating. Carbs lasted 100 years. Much easier to source or swap. All that being said, it is very interesting learning all about systems that are WAY obsolete and altered for low production vehicle.

BTW, I have sourced a dealer and owner in Germany to try the immobilizer fix. I just have write all we discovered. But consider the wisdom of installing a security system controlled at the door lock in a vehicle with antique door locks. How can you NOT love them!

L.

Interesting... EVERY SINGLE ENGINE CODE SCANNER, SCAN TOOL, STAR TESTER THAT I HAVE EVER USED READS OUT CODES IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Granted, some were quite expensive, but most current units do read out in English, There are a bunch now for around $50, some are Rover Specific. You can do a quick internet search. I found several.