The Contemporaries Series has been written to achieve the following objectives:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The British specialist car market has been extremely vulnerable to economic downturn and its history is littered with casualties .Those that have survived are worthy of examination.<\/p>\n Please note the editors have striven to achieve objectivity and consistency of comparison throughout however it will be appreciated with many conflicting sources, references and specifications this is not an easy task and some inaccuracies may occur. We are happy to correct these presented with reliable alternatives,<\/p>\n Commonality<\/strong><\/p>\n Both marques shared these in common:<\/p>\n Note that several sources have been drawn upon for specifications.\u00a0 For general consistency the editors use Taylor, The Lotus Book .In this article other additional\/ complementary sources are used and stated where appropriate.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Morgan have held patents on their front suspension, \u201cZ\u201d section chassis rails and more recently on the Aero.<\/p>\n Brief Company Histories and Design Methodologies<\/strong><\/p>\n Morgan<\/strong><\/p>\n Denis May stated in Automobile quarterly:<\/p>\n \u201cMorgan recoils from doctrines fashioned by the changing hour\u201d<\/p>\n Morgan is a unique English marque some consider it an anachronism even an enigma but this article will attempt a more insightful analysis.<\/p>\n The company was founded c 1910 by Henry Frederick Stanley Morgan; \u201cHFS\u201d His father was PHG Morgan.<\/p>\n \u201cHFS\u201d is believed to have studied first at Stone House, Broadstairs followed by Marlborough College with technical education at Crystal Palace Engineering College. He was employed as an apprentice at the Great Western Railway Co; Swindon then set up his own garage business in Malvern Link. The original capital required to set up Morgan Motor Co. came from the personal portfolio of George Morgan Its believed that \u201cHFS\u201d father helped with a loan of \u00a33,000, Its thought the first premises were at the Worcester Road Works,<\/p>\n This allowed the business to be established providing the funds for buildings, tools, materials etc. . . . .The garage included the operation of:<\/p>\n Between 1908 and 1909 it\u2019s believed that \u201cHFS\u201d experimented with the construction of a cycle car possibly assisted by Stephenson-Peach. Some sources suggest that Morgan appeared at the 1910 Olympia Motor Cycle Show.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know if \u201cHFS\u201d had a deliberate design philosophy or he simply designed pragmatically for an anticipated market and customer profile, and or the local terrain. [Objectively we ought to appreciate that we are talking about almost 100 years ago and practical considerations were possibly greater as was reputation] We should perhaps credit \u201cHFS\u201d with some market research that led him to believe there was road tax advantage for owners if they owned a vehicle of a certain specification. Of course we must recognize from the outset that \u201cHFS\u201d might have had reservations about engine power and that a light weight chassis would help compensate.<\/p>\n The outcome was that the three wheelers enjoyed a high power to weight ratio. This vested the machines with performance and economy.<\/p>\n It may be entirely consistent that \u201cHFS\u201d designed the three wheels with quality engineering and simplicity to keep down costs, provide a competitive product that was easy to repair. All of these qualities are important if we relate them to the economic depression of the 1920\u2019s and 1930\u2019s. We ought to appreciate that \u201cHFS\u201d might have been consciously attempting to attract the family motorist unable to afford an Austin Seven.<\/p>\n The Morgan three wheeler formula also stacked up because a range of proprietary engines were used. These included JAP, Matchless, Blackburn and Anzani. The reliability and performance of this essential component would have been known to prospective purchasers adding confidence.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also worth noting that \u201cHFS\u201d patented his front \u201csliding pillar\u201d suspension. This was not totally original<\/p>\n The Morgan had potential for racing and this was quickly recognized, further more \u201cHFS\u201d drove competitively himself generating useful publicity. Before the First World War Morgan may have competed at Brooklands. Around this time the cheapest Morgan cost approximately 85 guinees compared to a \u201cBullnose\u201d Morris Oxford at \u00a3175.Production was well established and some sources suggest around a 1000 units per annum was achieved.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom the crudest form of cycle car the Morgan three wheeler emerged as an accelerative sports tricycle\u201d<\/p>\n During the First World War government contract work was undertaken. Its suggested by the end of 1919 Morgan had established a new factory at Pickersleigh Road. During the 1920\u2019s production increased and some cars were made under license in France. The model range catered for a large section of the public and included the Standard, Family, Grand Prix, Aero and Super Aero sport to which there was a choice of engines. As we have noted Morgan provided economy in road tax and running costs. Some students will collate the 1920\u2019s with \u201cMetroland\u201d and the better off families who could afford to buy their own home might also desire an affordable car. The Post War boom ended with the Great Depression and changes to taxation classes in 1935. Many British car manufacturers suffered but his era witnessed the birth of the Austin Seven<\/p>\n The appeal of the three wheeler Morgan\u2019s is reinforced through their price. In 1934 for example these applied:-<\/p>\n It\u2019s worth noting that Morgan production in 1934 equaled 659, but only 137 in 1936.<\/p>\n 1935 saw the introduction of the first four wheel car the 4-4.<\/p>\n Morgan cars competed successfully in many events including rallies, marque and trials.<\/p>\n During the Second World War [1939- 1945] they undertook government contract work again.<\/p>\n To understand post war history for both marques Morgan and Lotus subscribers might like to read A&R articles on Lotus Design decades. This will put the manufacturing scene into social and economic context.<\/p>\n The essence of Post War economics was \u201cExport or Die\u201d Morgan would make its contribution but first it would have to establish dealerships. Also emerging was significant competition from other manufacturers and the impressive Jaguar XK 120, the Triumph TR\u201d and later MG.A [see below]<\/p>\n The Morgan 4\/4 was quite a practical purchase through the 1950\u2019s and it was generally observed:-<\/p>\n \u201cWould prove attractive both to speed and performance\u201d<\/p>\n The Series II Four-Four c 1966-1960 offered the Ford 100E engine , retailed at \u00a3638 including tax and according to Autocar had the following performance:-<\/p>\n \u201cHFS\u201d ran the company until 1959; when Peter Morgan took over and remained until 2003.We have noted that Post War export was an economic necessity. Morgan sold cars to Australia and also enjoyed a considerable market in America, however the early 1960\u2019s witnessed a collapse of the aircraft industry in California and with it disposable income.Luxuary imported cars including MG and Triumph suffered.<\/p>\n Peter Morgan inherited many issues requiring resolution. He was special person possessing both an idealism combined with pragmatism and a good business sense. To avoid over dependency he set up agencies in Europe which included Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Germany and Belgium.<\/p>\n Morgan remained in competition and enjoyed considerable success and international publicity in the early 1960\u2019s with the Lawrence tune Plus Four Super sport which won its class at Le Mans in 1962. Many consider that it was significantly lighter and more accelerative than either the TR2 or Austin Healey 1000. Many authors record that resulting from this Morgan was treated with respect and admiration.<\/p>\n We have noted that Morgan supply led in relation to engines. When the Triumph engine was no longer available they had to cast round and traditional pragmatism played a major role. They turned to the aluminum V8 of 3.5 L produced in Britain [believed to be of Buick origin] and this was developed into the Plus 8.This was launched in 1968. It has been suggested that this model \u201cin fact the most profitable car Morgan ever made\u201d<\/p>\n From this period on Morgan have used a wide selection of engines from various manufacturers. Currently the BMW \u2013V8 is the mainstay of the higher end.<\/p>\n During the 1980\u2019s there was minor recession but Morgan had established markets in Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Spain ,Luxembourg ,Japan and the Channel Isles. The home market during this period is believed to be approximately 66%.<\/p>\n In 1989 is believed that 420 cars were produced<\/p>\n The 1990\u2019s were a period of export and prosperity. In 1999, 580 cars are thought to have been produced.<\/p>\n More recent senior staff have included Alan Garnett, Steve Morris, Tim Whitworth and the current family member Charles Morgan. Matthew Humphries has contributed on design.<\/p>\n In 2003 production is quoted as 496 in some reference works.<\/p>\n Wood has suggested that in 2004 sales breakdown comprised:-<\/p>\n C 2007 Morgan employed 163 people approximately and produced 640 cars.<\/p>\n Below we set out some of Morgan trends for the future.<\/p>\n Morgan is thought of as the longest running independent motor manufacturer in the UK.<\/p>\n Lotus<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s not considered necessary here to recall Chapman \/ Lotus history in great detail. Much can be discovered by the comparison of commonality given above and in -depth analysis can be found in A&R articles:-<\/p>\n For this article\u2019s objective Chapman\/Lotus history [non chronological] might be summarized as:-<\/p>\n Business Philosophy<\/strong><\/p>\n Laban expresses the Morgan approach: –<\/p>\n \u201cMorgan\u2018s way is still to build a smaller number of cars with guaranteed sales and to build them with low capital investment, high \u201ccraft\u201d content, and maximum flexibility\u201d<\/p>\n It ought to be appreciated that Morgan possesses:<\/p>\n The conventional economic wisdom of mass production requires high volume, high investment to achieve low cost and hence large sales. Linked to such processes are a tendency towards obsolescence, change and frequent retooling. This strategy can only be successful if the product is correct and that the competition is weak.<\/p>\n Conversely Morgan has followed a more sustainable production methodology even if it were not called this for most of the marques life. Adaptability, flexibility and pragmatism have been the central plank of Morgan philosophy .These practices have much to commend them but are not easily replicated. It seems an attractive formula and one that several manufactures have attempted to varying degrees but not to same success.<\/p>\n Morgan<\/p>\n The Morgan family suggest the reasons for the marques longevity are:-<\/p>\n Motoring journalists have summarized the Morgan magic as:-<\/p>\n To which we might add the powerful synthesis of successful evolution and fault elimination harnessed to customer orientation and satisfaction. Many owners will be repeat or multiple of the marque.<\/p>\n Haynes commented succinctly in \u201cGuide to Used sports Cars2 that the 4\/4 Series I &II was a:-<\/p>\n \u201cA good, cheap, economical sports car \u201c<\/p>\n And about the Plus 4:-<\/p>\n \u201cAs far as reliability is concerned the Morgan has been about for so long that all the faults have been sorted out, and the car is a regular winner in marque sports car races.\u201d<\/p>\n And added that:-<\/p>\n \u201cWhen the Plus 4 was introduced with the TR2 engine. It was the cheapest 100mph car on the road, selling for \u00a3969. The fully substantiated the Malvern Firms claim \u201cfastest at the price\u201d<\/p>\n The Morgan package is undeniably attractive and perhaps deserves the sustainable cachet. However their formula for success is not universally applicable or adoptable although there are principles to understand. Morgan have been able to maintain in existence through a mix of good fortune and sensible management .Other substantial factors are:-<\/p>\n We are fortunate that the better publications relating to Morgan give important cost breakdowns that reinforce circumstance. This is not so much the case with Lotus.<\/p>\n Morgan explains the burden of legislation and how this has to be absorbed into much smaller production .They also quote the following breakdown, which is revealing with regard to product competiveness, profitability and volume.<\/p>\n Morgan give the figures on a 4\/4 costing \u00a325,000 that tax is \u00a33723 and then the following deductions are made:<\/p>\n All of which apply on production of around 500 vehicles.<\/p>\n The editor\u2019s quote these figures as they believe objective analysis cannot be achieved with out these insights, and that prospective engineer, entrepreneurs ought not to underestimate costs and that business plans need to be brutally realistic.<\/p>\n It works for Morgan perhaps because:-<\/p>\n \u201cMorgan makes a special kind of car for a special kind of customer and makes cars in their own traditional way while using what ever benefits of modern\u00a0 machinery and modern methods that they deem appropriate- but by no means all of them\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n From the beginning the Morgan design philosophy was largely defined by local geography which but an emphasis on light weight and flexibility\u2026. simplicity and lightness allow for a relatively simple build process producing a car with excellent performance for its engine size and power.<\/p>\n Colin Chapman<\/strong><\/p>\n Possible the quotation that most encapsulates Chapman design methodology is by Rudd:-<\/p>\n \u201cThe most elegant and effective and traditional Lotus solution is the one with the least parts effectively deployed\u201d<\/p>\n This was design mantra that permeated his road and competition cars. It brought him international success through British Club Racing to Indianapolis, Le Mans and seven FI Constructors championships.<\/p>\n The philosophy of Chapman relating to manufacturing cars is complex. He started in a humble fashion with limited resources but considerable ambition and the application of innovation to overcome limited resources.<\/p>\n Success led to him offering services and with the Lotus MK.VI low scale production. The Mk.VI sold approximately one hundred cars in the early mid 1950\u2019s which the editors believe established Chapman both competitively and commercially. These \u201ckits\u201d were for the enthusiast and club racer. At the same time Chapman was developing the aerodynamic racers which were far more expensive, sophisticated with racing engines.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not known categorically if Chapman built cars just to support racing but they did provide finance. To this ends he designed cars for particular racing classes. Overlapping were the road cars like the Elan, Europa. Some of the cars were over ambitious and lacking development and quality control. [This was probably a function of the idealist\/ engineering integrity specification overcoming available budget and volume \u2013 of course some would argue a proper business plan would have revealed this.<\/p>\n Chapman enjoyed considerable success with collaboration with other manufacturers namely Ford and Talbot.<\/p>\n In the 1970\u2019s he could see that taste , times and expectation was changing and along with VAT the market for the enthusiast kit car such as the Seven was barely viable. He hived it off.<\/p>\n Chapman tried to take the Lotus brand up market through the 1970\u2019s and 80\u2019s but this was not an entire success partly because the product was not the most competitive but perhaps more so the world economy and crisis associated with oil. However the Esprit became iconic as a result of its appearance in James Bond.<\/p>\n Chapman was willing to diversify and this can be seen in theory to be desirable but in practice it was not a commercial success e.g. Furniture, boats and micro lights.<\/p>\n Chapman was implicated in De Lorean.Against the background of other events we might understand the temptation and feelings of injustice but these are not an excuse.<\/p>\n More recently with stability from Proton Lotus has found international success with the Elise [and this is perhaps it\u2019s true to the Chapman methodology and a car suitable for the enthusiast pure driving experience] and improved build quality, reliability etc. Lotus is doing well again in FI<\/p>\n It ought to be appreciated that virtually all Chapman\u2019s designs are essentially green because of their superior mechanical efficiency ensured through low weight and aerodynamics.<\/p>\n Chapman extracted considerable income from consultancy and this applies up to the present time.<\/p>\n Profitability Spreadsheet<\/strong><\/p>\n Company financial information and production figures for Morgan has been extracted from references and in particular: –<\/strong><\/p>\n Lotus<\/strong><\/p>\n For Lotus there are few direct references to annual returns however the Lotus Book by William Taylor gives useful information on production numbers and Nye supplements this with some accounts. Financial information for Lotus is not readily available although the A&R have traced some, this will be the basis for an extended article. For our purposed here it will be sufficient to quote Nye.<\/p>\n We understand the following figures applied for Lotus:-<\/p>\n \u00a0Lawrence has stated:-<\/p>\n \u201cAt the end of 1963 Lotus \u2026\u2026 a total of 1, 1195 Lotus cars of all types were made. On top of that were 567 Lotus Cortina\u2019s .The turnover was \u00a31,573,000\u2026. and\u00a0 generated a pretax profit of \u00a3113,000.The financial figures to not take into account the money generated by Team Lotus , which was paid into the account of Team Lotus Overseas.<\/p>\n Using just one example of race winnings [which is not entirely reliable or representative] we can note that the winnings from the 1966 Indianapolis was $ 77,000 approximately.<\/p>\n Definition of Sustainability in context of Motor Car<\/strong><\/p>\n There are perhaps many criteria, the editors suggest some of the following might be included: –<\/p>\n ERV: Environmental Rating for Vehicles<\/p>\n See:<\/p>\n On the ERV listing the following scores applied:<\/p>\n What contributed to the Morgan 4\/4 respectable score was: –<\/p>\n The following generalized performance figures for Morgan are useful[ sadly at the present time we don\u2019t hold the same comparative data for Lotus but every effort will be made to source].However its well documented that Lotus had considerable success at Le Mans in the Thermal Efficiency Class<\/p>\n During the 1980\u2019s for example construction constituted:-<\/p>\n Body formers were made of green seasoned and laminated ash. This provided for a strong, easily worked material that produced a .light car.Holm suggests that the body comprised 72 pieces in the two seater and 116 in the four seater. Steel or aluminum bodies being available in various gauges.<\/p>\n Weights<\/strong><\/p>\n Weight is a particular good measure of assessing fuel efficiency. Unfortunately we don\u2019t have comparable cd information for both marques to make reliable and consistent comparisons.<\/p>\n The respective weights provide interesting comparisons; particularly when the same engine \/ gearbox and rear axle might have been used in both marques.<\/p>\n Lotus Elite\/ Morgan Plus 4 Plus Compared and Contrasted<\/strong><\/p>\n A specification for these cars was taken from: –<\/p>\n The Lotus Elite<\/em><\/p>\n The Elite was launched at the 1957 Earls Court Motor Show. It was in production in various forms between 1957-1963.<\/p>\n It must be considered one of the most ambitious radical, sophisticated and technologically advanced cars on the immediate post war period. Its primary source of innovation was the stressed skin fiberglass monocoque chassis [body integral to chassis] for which Chapman took a patent [see A&R articles Lotus Type 25 and Design Patents]. Maximar then Bristol Areoplane constructed these bodies. The rest of the specification was totally complementary and integrated within a strict design control.<\/p>\n The Elite was equipped with a light Coventry Climax FEW engine. In various degrees of tune it produced 75-105 bhp. Front suspension was by wishbone and rear Chapman strut. The weight comparisons of the cars appear in the tabulation.<\/p>\n It\u2019s reputed that the Elite possessed an extraordinary cd of 0 .29.\u00a0 With all these factors taken together its not surprising that the Elite archived the highest placing in the 1959 Le Mans Thermal Efficiency Class.<\/p>\n It has been estimated that 1030 Elites were produced.<\/p>\n The Morgan Plus 4 Plus<\/em><\/p>\n This car ought to be seen in the context of the 1950\u2019s and 1960\u2019s [see A&R articles the Design Decades] and also the history and development of Morgan and its products.<\/p>\n The decades after the war witnessed economic boom higher living standards, greater disposable income, a youth market and an increasing scientific application to design. In the early mid 1960\u2019s intense competition from Japan of high quality, specification and price impacted on the market especially for cars and motorcycles in Britain. Britain own manufacturers like MG. Triumph and Roots were upgrading their product range responding to fashion and the acknowledge advantage associated with an enclosed aerodynamic body package.<\/p>\n Morgan in many circles was considered old fashioned and the motoring press in comparison with other manufactures considered it archaic.<\/p>\n It\u2019s very probable that to address this negative perception that Morgan commissioned the Plus 4 Plus. Other practical considerations may have been weather \/climate in the primary purchasing countries and the improved performance available in a closed car.<\/p>\n The Plus 4 Plus was commissioned in 1962. The body design and construction was contracted to Edwards Brothers [Staffs] EB were specialists in the field and who had marketed their own bodies for Ford Specials. John Edwards undertook the styling\/ design.<\/p>\n The design brief instructed that: –<\/p>\n These were not unreasonable and sensible requirements. They were aimed at practicality and hence to cost. They possibly aspired to some modernity with a sense of continuity and recognition.<\/p>\n John Edwards had several sources of inspiration by 1962 not least the M.G.A and Lotus Elite discussed below.<\/p>\n The chassis provided was powered by the Triumph TR 4 series .The body was first built in aluminum from which moulds were taken.<\/p>\n It has been suggested the car was completed in March 1963 at a cost of \u00a33,000. The Plus 4 Plus was then launched at the October London Motor Show. It was offered at \u00a31275 and therefore considerably cheaper than the Elite [see price tabulation]<\/p>\n Only twenty-six Plus 4 Plus were sold but not at a loss.<\/p>\n A comparison of these two cars would reveal that the Elite was: –<\/p>\n The Plus 4 Plus was: –<\/p>\n Both cars: –<\/p>\n M.G.A<\/p>\n Consideration of the M.G. A [1500] is worth feeding into the equation. It was launched in 1955, [Coupe in 1956] with the 1498 cc B engine from the Magnette saloon. With various engines and state of tune between 68-72 bhp was possible. Suspension was independent coil spring with wishbones and a rigid rear axle. Steering was rack and pinion. The MG.A is believed to have been sold for \u00a3844 and offered an overall mpg of 27, with an unlaiden weight of 1,904 lbs.<\/p>\n The lines of the car might have been heavily influenced by Syd Evener\u2019s \/George Phillips 1951 M.G. Le Mans entry. By most the M.G.A was considered an immediate success and production of 101,801 has been quoted of all types.<\/p>\n The A&R is able to provide fuller technical specification on these models to request. It\u2019s also recommended that the respective sales brochures be consulted [see illustrations]<\/p>\n Product Prices<\/strong><\/p>\n Projected Futures<\/strong><\/p>\n Morgan: –<\/strong><\/p>\n Morgan philosophy is to meet customer expectation. Their products will continue with traditional looks, character and humanity without the drawbacks.<\/p>\n More recently Matthew Humphries has undertaken some design work for Morgan.<\/p>\n Charles Morgan has stated\u2019-<\/p>\n \u201cIt has to be pretty special, beyond quintessential, above iconic, more than just a brand .It has to have something essential about it tat will go beyond fulfilling people\u2019s expectations. The design has to be right, the engineering has to be right\u201d<\/p>\n Of interest too is the Morgan observation and conduct that relates to the product: –<\/p>\n \u201cCars customers want rather than designer or engineers think they want\u201d<\/p>\n Into the 21 c the range has included:-<\/p>\n Into the new millennium Morgan employ a workforce of around of 150 \u2013 170 of which 125 are craftsmen and women.<\/p>\n It has been noted that Morgan have competed and done well at Le Mans .This has continued through 2013 and no doubt will assist sales.<\/p>\n Lotus<\/strong><\/p>\n Recently the future of Lotus has been cast into doubt. There have been concerns about its financial viability, possible sale and relocation. Lotus has been owned by Proton since 1996. Proton suggest that the future is secure but we are not privy to long term strategic plans or perhaps the vagaries of world economics and motor car demand.<\/p>\n Recent senior staff have included A.Farikullah and S.Z.Abidin.<\/p>\n Lotus has enjoyed considerable success and international acclaim with the Elise.<\/p>\n In 2002 Lotus were granted The Queens Award for Enterprise. In 2010 five new proposed models were introduced at the Paris Motor Show. These were to be released over a five year period. This seemed too many somewhat over ambitious.<\/p>\n The recent range has included the Elise, Exige, and Evora.<\/p>\n The editors feel that the dilemma that surrounds Lotus is focused on its role. Lotus Consulting possible contribute deign to most of the cars in production today but these are invisible and my necessity secret .Its possibly also the greater source of income. The Lotus production models possible playing a promotional role and show case for the consultancy wing. Their economics partly assisted by shared components or related economies of scale. In absolute accountancy\/ economic terms they may not be fully viable. Lotus as such cannot cross subsidize as larger manufacturers might across their range that might include commercial vehicles etc.<\/p>\n Lotus possibly also suffers from placement in the hierarchy of brands. Chapman realized that the economics of the enthusiast sports car was barely viable. He intentionally took the range up market. However in the process reputations, quality, resale value, perception and value for money become critical. No longer in a defined niche competition with the major manufacturers is not easy. Not just Lotus but other British specialist sports cars manufacturers find themselves between a rock and a hard place unable to go back or climb out. Their reputations increasingly becoming regressive and the once predominant purchasing category older and not being seen as so cool as by the younger audience. FI has the means to keep the brand in the forefront of prospective purchasers but this really requires success and is expensive so much so that only the mass producers can afford the cost and potential loss. Chapman achieved miracles with relatively low budgets but he was increasingly aware of the need for ever increasing spend and investment in R&D<\/p>\n It\u2019s to be hoped that Lotus can succeed in the current generation of FI and that this might translate into a wider purchasing appeal in the emerging markets of the East and South America etc.<\/p>\n The Proposed CCM&EC<\/strong><\/p>\n The proposed museum believes that commercial considerations are both necessary and complementary with its educational objectives.<\/p>\n For these reasons our Business Plan includes provision for promoting products and services which share Chapman\u2019s ideals of mechanical efficiency and sustainability. In addition we propose merchandising that explain and interprets the social and cultural context of Chapman\u2019s designs in period. It\u2019s suggested there will be catalogue for on line purchasing.<\/p>\n Consistent with the application of benchmarking is a series of exhibitions based on the display and evaluation of Colin Chapman\/ Lotus and their main competitors. This might take the form of contrasting marque histories, competition, and design construction and assembly methods. Noting how history and changing assessments and perceptions impact on marketing etc.<\/p>\n Cars and design objects can be placed in juxtaposition for maximum interpretation value. In addition test runs and other photo opportunities can be exploited.<\/p>\n Merchandising opportunities are extensive.<\/p>\n Cooperation with marque owner clubs and manufacturers museums could be sought.<\/p>\n This provides some exciting opportunities because of the extreme contrasts not least visual in many cases. In addition it allows the proposed museum to examine an important and continuing manufacturing activity so desperately needed which embraces a British success and continuity.<\/p>\n An exhibition and interpretation of this nature also permits vivid graphic and practical demonstrations of sustainability in the more considered holistic context.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s worth noting that Morgan has a museum and visitor center at their premises. This applies also too many of the largest quality manufacturers willing to invest, promote their brand, its identity and historical reputation.<\/p>\n Using the comparative analysis that the A&R adopts it\u2019s hoped that the merit of Colin Chapman and Lotus are seen as equally worthy of a museum. As such the investment is intended to:-<\/p>\n The editors are developing a series of comparative articles that will evaluate Lotus against:-<\/p>\n Please let us know if you would like other marques to be included and any preference in sequence.<\/p>\n Reference:<\/strong><\/p>\n Websites:<\/strong><\/p>\n www.Lotus.com<\/p>\n www.morgan-motor.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n Books<\/strong><\/p>\n Morgan 100 Years. Charles Morgan and G.H.Bowden.Michael O\u2019Mara Books.2008<\/p>\n ISBN: 9781843172673<\/p>\n Morgan 4\/4.Michael Palmer.Crowood Press.2011.<\/p>\n ISBN: 9781847972880<\/p>\n Morgan \u2013First and Last of the Real Sports Cars\u2026Laban.Virgin.2000.<\/p>\n ISBN:1852278994<\/p>\n Morgan Plus 8.M.Scarlett.Haynes.2009.<\/p>\n ISBN:9781844253548<\/p>\n Morgan.J.Wood.Haynes.2004<\/p>\n ISBN: 1859608817<\/p>\n Morgan Sports Cars. The Heritage Years 1954-1960.Alderson, Chapman. Atkins. Plus Four Books<\/p>\n Morgan Maverick.Lawrence.D.Loverage Publications.<\/p>\n Morgan Sweep the Board.Alderston&Rushton.Gentry.1978<\/p>\n Original Morgan.Worrall&Turner.Bay View.1992<\/p>\n The Four Wheel Morgan [Vol.II] K.Hill MRP.1980<\/p>\n The Morgan -75 Years on the Road.K.Hill.Blandford.1984<\/p>\n Morgan the Last Survivor. C.Harvey.Oxford 1987<\/p>\n ISBN:<\/p>\n Morgan\u2019s to 1997.R.Bell.MRP.1997<\/p>\n Theme Lotus. Doug Nye.MRP.1986.<\/p>\n ISBN: 0947981098<\/p>\n Morgan at Le Mans.D.Dowse.Temple Press<\/p>\n Morgan Cars 1936-1960. Brooklands<\/em><\/p>\n Motor Sports Car Road Tests. Temple Press.1965<\/em><\/p>\n The Lotus Book .W.Taylor.Coterie Press.1999.<\/em><\/p>\n High Performance Cars.Autosport. [Morgan with a difference \u2013John Bolster- TOK 258]<\/em><\/p>\n Motor Sports Car Road Tests second Series. Temple Press.1965<\/em><\/p>\n Guide to Used Sports Cars Vol\u2019s I &II .J.H.Haynes.Haynes.c 1965<\/em><\/p>\n Lotus \u2013The Legend. David Hodges.Parragon1998.<\/em><\/p>\n ISBN: 0752520741<\/em><\/p>\n Italics A&R<\/em>\u00a0library<\/em><\/p>\n Introduction The Contemporaries Series has been written to achieve the following objectives:\u00a0 To compare and contrast the designs, products and achievements of Colin Chapman\/Lotus with their, rivals, contemporaries, peers and competitors To benchmark achievement by a series of consistent criteria To extract from the comparisons an objective assessment To counterpoise some specific models against each […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":280,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1865"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1865"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1867,"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1865\/revisions\/1867"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/280"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.colinchapmanmuseum.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n\n
\n <\/td>\n CC\/Lotus<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n First Car<\/td>\n 1948<\/td>\n c1910<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sports cars<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sports R-c<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n FI<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Single seat<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Le Mans<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Prod \u2018Cars<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Co-prod\u2019<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Consultancy<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Not known<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Utility Vech\u2019<\/td>\n Not known<\/td>\n Not known<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Indianapolis\u2019<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Patents<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes*<\/td>\n *Morgan various<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Ind Design<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Not known<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Export<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n British Prod Base<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Rela Small Scale<\/td>\n Yes*<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n *From early set up until 1960\u2032s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Existence\u201913<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Essentially Family owned<\/td>\n Yes*<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n * Essential from set up until 1960\u2032s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Used Mainstream Munuf \u2018Parts<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Own Engine<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n No<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sustain Fuel Economy<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Diversified Range<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Gone up Market<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Niche Market<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Impact World Change<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Iconic Design<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Long Prod\u2019 Life<\/td>\n Yes*<\/td>\n Yes<\/td>\n * With considered argument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n Morgan Accounts<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Year<\/td>\n Profit :\u00a3<\/td>\n Deficit :\u00a3<\/td>\n Revenue<\/td>\n Production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1912<\/td>\n 1,314<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1913<\/td>\n 4,707<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1914<\/td>\n 10,450<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1923<\/td>\n 40,841<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1925<\/td>\n 26,721<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1930<\/td>\n 499<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1937<\/td>\n 2,377<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1945<\/td>\n 10,292<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1946<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1949<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1,551<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1950<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 618<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1952<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2,683<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1953<\/td>\n 543<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Morgan Accounts<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Year<\/td>\n Profit :\u00a3<\/td>\n Deficit :\u00a3<\/td>\n Revenue<\/td>\n Production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1912<\/td>\n 1,314<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1913<\/td>\n 4,707<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1914<\/td>\n 10,450<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1923<\/td>\n 40,841<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1925<\/td>\n 26,721<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1930<\/td>\n 499<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1937<\/td>\n 2,377<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1945<\/td>\n 10,292<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1946<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1949<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1,551<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1950<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 618<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1952<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2,683<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1953<\/td>\n 543<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1989<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 420<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u201c1990\u2032s\u201d<\/td>\n Average 1.m<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1999<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 580<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2002-2006<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1.8m<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2003<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 496<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2007<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 27m [UK]<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n\n
\n Marque<\/td>\n Model<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EVR Score<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Smart<\/td>\n For Two<\/td>\n 61hp<\/td>\n 60<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Morgan<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n 1800<\/td>\n 24<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Bentley<\/td>\n Arnage<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n\n
\n Year<\/td>\n Model<\/td>\n Engine<\/td>\n CC<\/td>\n Overall<\/td>\n mpg<\/td>\n Unlaiden Weight lbs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1936<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n Climax<\/td>\n 1122<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 35<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 182<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1938<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n Climax<\/td>\n 1122<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 35<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1642<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1956<\/td>\n 4\/4 SII<\/td>\n Ford<\/td>\n 1172<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 36<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1568<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1951<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n Vanguard<\/td>\n 2088<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 24<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1904<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1954<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n TR2<\/td>\n 1991<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 30<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1876<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1968<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n Rover<\/td>\n 3528<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 18<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1979<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1978<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n Rover<\/td>\n 3528<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 20<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2128<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n\n
\n Year<\/td>\n Marque<\/td>\n Model<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Weight<\/td>\n lbs\/ cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1948<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Trials Car<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1092<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1951<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Mk.III<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 815<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1952<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Mk.VI<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 952<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1957<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 924-980<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1968<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1210-1258<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1954<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Mk.VIII<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1148<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1956<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Eleven<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1019<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1957<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elite<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1484<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Type 23<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 884<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elan<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1210-1250<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Cortina<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1822<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1966<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Europa<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1350-<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1967<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elan +2<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1180-1970<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1969<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S iV<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1276-1310<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1974<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elite<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2240-2550<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1975<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elcat<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2450<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1976<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Esprit<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2218<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1982<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Excel<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2507<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1989<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elan<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2198<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1989<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Carlton<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 3641<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1996<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elise<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1518<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1946<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 14.5<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1946<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n Coupe<\/td>\n 15.5<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1949<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 14<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1951<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 16<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1951<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n [laden]<\/td>\n 19.5<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1954<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 16<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1958<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 16.75<\/td>\n cwt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1965<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1850<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1965<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus4Plus<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1875<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1965<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four\/Four<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1460<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1965<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Super Sport<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1680<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1968<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1979<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1988<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2022<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1991<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2059<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c2001<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Aero 8<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2502<\/td>\n lbs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n Year<\/td>\n Marque<\/td>\n Model<\/td>\n Price<\/td>\n Notes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1937<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 2 seat 4\/4<\/td>\n \u00a3210<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1946<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 2 seat 4\/4<\/td>\n \u00a3355<\/td>\n pt \u00a3100<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n D\u2019headcoupe<\/td>\n \u00a3395<\/td>\n pt\u00a3110<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sept.1950<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a3652<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Two-seater<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1951<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 4 Coupe<\/td>\n \u00a3565<\/td>\n pt\u00a3315<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n May.1954<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a3830<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1954<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a3585<\/td>\n inc \u00a3830<\/td>\n TR2 engine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1955<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 2 seat 4\/4<\/td>\n \u00a3450<\/td>\n pt\u00a3188<\/td>\n 100E engine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sept.1956<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4 Series II<\/td>\n \u00a3475<\/td>\n pt\u00a3239<\/td>\n !00E engine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Apr-57<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4 Series II<\/td>\n \u00a3778<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jan.1958<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a31018<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n TR3 engin2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1958<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a3677<\/td>\n pt\u00a3340<\/td>\n Wire wheels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c 1960-1961<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4 Series 3<\/td>\n \u00a3738<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Ford 105E<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4 SeriesIV<\/td>\n \u00a3530<\/td>\n pt\u00a3200<\/td>\n Ford 109E<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Oct .1963<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 4 Plus<\/td>\n \u00a31275<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n May.1964<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a3816<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n TR4\/4A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n May.1964<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4Series V<\/td>\n \u00a3659<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Ford 116E<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n May.1964<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a31118<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n SS<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sept.1968<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a31487<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1973<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a31966<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Aug.1975<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a33375<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nov.1983<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a38766<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Fiat engine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nov.1983<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a38569<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Ford CVH<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nov.1983<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a311651<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Sept.1986<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a311082<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Fiat engine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1987<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a315436<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1968<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a3988<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Ford Kent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Aug.1990<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a317,037<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Rover M16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1991<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a317950<\/td>\n \u00a34898<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Feb.1992<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a317452<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n EFI [Ford]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Feb.1992<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a325814<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Oct.1993<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a319152<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Rover T16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n May.1998<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a332489<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n 4.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Mar-04<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Aero 8<\/td>\n \u00a355500<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2004<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a324193<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n Ford Zetec<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2008<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n V6 Roadster<\/td>\n \u00a331850<\/td>\n \u00a35573<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Dec.2010<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4\/4Aero Race<\/td>\n \u00a339,005<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Full race<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2011<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Four Four<\/td>\n \u00a329760<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 3 Wheeler<\/td>\n \u00a325000<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Sport<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Aero Super<\/td>\n \u00a3126900<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 4.8 V8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n 4-Apr<\/td>\n \u00a331500<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus-Four<\/td>\n \u00a335400<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Roadster<\/td>\n \u00a351000<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Morgan<\/td>\n Plus 8<\/td>\n \u00a385200<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1952<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Mk.VI<\/td>\n \u00a3400-500<\/td>\n Estimated \/ specification<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Eleven<\/td>\n \u00a3872<\/td>\n \u00a31308 inc pt<\/td>\n Ford 1172 sv<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Eleven S2<\/td>\n \u00a31690<\/td>\n pt\u00a3811<\/td>\n Le Mans<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Eleven S2<\/td>\n \u00a31490<\/td>\n Nett<\/td>\n Club<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1959\/60<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S\u00a0 1<\/td>\n \u00a3892<\/td>\n Eng\u2019\u00a3356<\/td>\n Chassis\u00a3499<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1959<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S\u00a0 1<\/td>\n \u00a31036<\/td>\n \u201cF\u201d<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1959<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S\u00a0 1<\/td>\n \u00a31546<\/td>\n \u201cC\u201d<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1959<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S\u00a0 1<\/td>\n \u00a3536<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n Eng\u2019options<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1960<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 2<\/td>\n \u00a3587<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1961<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 2<\/td>\n \u00a3499<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 2<\/td>\n \u00a3868<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Super Seven<\/td>\n \u00a3681<\/td>\n pt\u00a3350<\/td>\n inc cr gears<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1962<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Super Seven<\/td>\n \u00a3599<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n without cr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1965<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Super Seven<\/td>\n \u00a3645<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n without extra<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1965<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Super Seven<\/td>\n \u00a3695<\/td>\n pt\u00a3173<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c 1968<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 3<\/td>\n \u00a3775<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c 1968<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 3<\/td>\n \u00a31250<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n SS Twin cam<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1969<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 3<\/td>\n \u00a31600<\/td>\n <\/td>\n SS<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1970<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 4<\/td>\n \u00a3895<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1970<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 4<\/td>\n \u00a31245<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n Twin cam<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1970<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S 4<\/td>\n \u00a31265<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n Holbay<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1973<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Seven S IV<\/td>\n \u00a31487<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1963<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elite<\/td>\n \u00a31451<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n Special Equip<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c 1963<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elite<\/td>\n \u00a31966<\/td>\n inc-p\u2019tax<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1965<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elan<\/td>\n \u00a31187<\/td>\n \u00a3249<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1973<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elan Sprint<\/td>\n \u00a32436<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1971<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Europa<\/td>\n \u00a31595<\/td>\n Kit form<\/td>\n Twin cam<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1971<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Europa<\/td>\n \u00a31715<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Twin cam<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n c1973<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Europa Spec<\/td>\n \u00a32436<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1983<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Esprit S3<\/td>\n \u00a315380<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1997<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elise<\/td>\n \u00a320950<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1.8i<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elise<\/td>\n \u00a329050<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Elise<\/td>\n \u00a337205<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 1.8S<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Evora<\/td>\n \u00a353080<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 3.5 V6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2013<\/td>\n Lotus<\/td>\n Evora<\/td>\n \u00a362290<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 3.5 V6S<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
![\"6\"](\"http:\/\/colinchapmanmuseum.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/6.jpg\")
<\/a> ![\"7\"](\"http:\/\/colinchapmanmuseum.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/7.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"