-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
TR2/3/3A Using 5/8" marine plywood for a temporary drivers side floor?
- Thread starter karls59tr
- Start date
Share this page
I guess a guy could use marine varnish on the wood.
Offline
On my Morgan the floors were made up from .125 Alloy sheet, cut and fitted to the 4 aperture's in the frame,
and metal bonding epoxied into place. The additional rigidity to the structure was part of the idea. Morgans
were the most flimsy chassis I have ever seen,made worse with wood floors.
Mad dog
and metal bonding epoxied into place. The additional rigidity to the structure was part of the idea. Morgans
were the most flimsy chassis I have ever seen,made worse with wood floors.
Mad dog
Does this bond metal to metal ? Can it bond metal to wood?
Offline
This is the adhesive used today in airplanes,It bonds metal to metal regardless of the type of metal.
In this case(Morgan) it is aluminum to steel. It ain't cheap, but it is super stuff. The wood floors of the Morgan
caused severe rust in the contact areas. All was sand blasted clean before fitting the Alloy floors.
Where the wood body tub attached to the frame ,the wood and the frame were skimmed with epoxy to stop
rust& rot.
Mad dog
In this case(Morgan) it is aluminum to steel. It ain't cheap, but it is super stuff. The wood floors of the Morgan
caused severe rust in the contact areas. All was sand blasted clean before fitting the Alloy floors.
Where the wood body tub attached to the frame ,the wood and the frame were skimmed with epoxy to stop
rust& rot.
Mad dog
Did the original Morgans have the TR3 motor? Was there any similarity in how the Morgan handled when driving compared to the 3?
Offline
Original Morgan’s had 3 wheels ?
But yes the early 4 wheel Morgan’s had the tr wet liner 4pot engine
But yes the early 4 wheel Morgan’s had the tr wet liner 4pot engine
Have you driven a four wheel Morgan? I never have and am curious about how they handled seeing as how they might be a lot lighter than the TR3?
Offline
Not driven +4 but I guess inner wheel spin happy out of corners like you say a bit lighter but The 1991cc engine
groupdeville
Jedi Hopeful
Offline
Four wheel Morgans 1936-1949 (or thereabouts) had a non-TR engine produced by Standard, with a special head for Morgan. The model designation is usually termed "4/4 Series 1", and the engine is called a "Standard Special". The name "4/4" stands for 4 wheels and 4 cylinders, as Morgan was mainly known for 3-wheelers, many of which had 2-cylinder V-twin engines, though English Ford 4-cylinder engines were also used.
The early "Plus Four" (+4) cars from 1950 to the 1954-55 era had the ancestor of the of the TR motor from the Standard Vanguard. It's the wet liner design familiar to Triumph owners, but had lower power and there were significant design differences. You would not want to use one in a TR2/3/4.
As the much-improved Vanguard engine entered production as the TR2 motor, is was gradually made available to Morgan for their use. There was, however a significant period in the '50s when both the TR2 and Vanguard were used in the Plus Four production, depending on what the customer ordered and what the Morgan works had available at the time.
Morgan Plus Fours with the TR2/3/4 are a hoot to drive, particularly the lightweight alloy-bodied cars of the '60s. The Morgan frame is less substantial than a TR frame, and is vulnerable-enough to rust that the plywood floorboards occasionally outlast the frame in wet climates
The early "Plus Four" (+4) cars from 1950 to the 1954-55 era had the ancestor of the of the TR motor from the Standard Vanguard. It's the wet liner design familiar to Triumph owners, but had lower power and there were significant design differences. You would not want to use one in a TR2/3/4.
As the much-improved Vanguard engine entered production as the TR2 motor, is was gradually made available to Morgan for their use. There was, however a significant period in the '50s when both the TR2 and Vanguard were used in the Plus Four production, depending on what the customer ordered and what the Morgan works had available at the time.
Morgan Plus Fours with the TR2/3/4 are a hoot to drive, particularly the lightweight alloy-bodied cars of the '60s. The Morgan frame is less substantial than a TR frame, and is vulnerable-enough to rust that the plywood floorboards occasionally outlast the frame in wet climates
Last edited:
Offline
It is hard to imagine a frame for a car that had aTr3 motor ,a Moss gearbox and a cast iron bellhousing ,
being made as flimsy as Morgan did it. Sad to say the wood was a structural component. I am not sure
what the tonnage of this drive train added up to . The gearbox by itself was too much to lift. making a tr4
gearbox seem very light by comparison.
I shall have to corner weigh my Morgan and see what the Miata drive train achieves in overall balance.
The weight savings and the HP gains should make for a quick and fun ride.
Currently the flaws in my junkyard 1600 are now known to be a blown headgasket. So this spring I will
shave the head a bit and maybe do more if needed. The steering rack will be replaced by the quick ratio
rack sold by BPN so the car can retain the factory steering wheel.
Mad dog
being made as flimsy as Morgan did it. Sad to say the wood was a structural component. I am not sure
what the tonnage of this drive train added up to . The gearbox by itself was too much to lift. making a tr4
gearbox seem very light by comparison.
I shall have to corner weigh my Morgan and see what the Miata drive train achieves in overall balance.
The weight savings and the HP gains should make for a quick and fun ride.
Currently the flaws in my junkyard 1600 are now known to be a blown headgasket. So this spring I will
shave the head a bit and maybe do more if needed. The steering rack will be replaced by the quick ratio
rack sold by BPN so the car can retain the factory steering wheel.
Mad dog
Well the TR3 lump is somewhere around 400 lb and then there are the manifolds. The starter and generator is about 20lb. You will probably shave off 150+ lb with a Miata motor. It will go like a rocket.
Offline
Have you ever seen the cast iron bellhousing and ext assy used on a Morgan? Just so they could
fit a cast iron Moss box.I would wager the Morgan drive line weighs 150Lbs MORE than a Tr3 drivetrain.
That is redonkulous. Especially given the flimsy frame.
I personally spent 90 hours of welding on the frame of mine just to make it what I consider to be a bare
minimum of strength for the job. This included adding 1/8 steel plate to the flanges and sides all the way back to the axel.
The addition of the Tr4 frame clip with suspension go rid of the "sliding pillar" and added rack & pinion .
I also added a tube shock conversion I fabbed up (Mustang 2 shocks ) in the rear.
Mad dog
fit a cast iron Moss box.I would wager the Morgan drive line weighs 150Lbs MORE than a Tr3 drivetrain.
That is redonkulous. Especially given the flimsy frame.
I personally spent 90 hours of welding on the frame of mine just to make it what I consider to be a bare
minimum of strength for the job. This included adding 1/8 steel plate to the flanges and sides all the way back to the axel.
The addition of the Tr4 frame clip with suspension go rid of the "sliding pillar" and added rack & pinion .
I also added a tube shock conversion I fabbed up (Mustang 2 shocks ) in the rear.
Mad dog