The Morris 1100 (2/2)

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Sir,
With reference to the “self-levelling” suspension of the Morris 1100/M.G. 1100, I would like to make an observation which, apparently, has escaped the notice of the manufacturers and the motoring press.

When the car travels over a bump, the front wheels are pushed up. This action forces the rear wheels down (through interconnection), levelling the car. Similarly, when the rear wheels pass over said bump, they “retract,” pushing the front wheels down, again levelling the car. This is all very clever, but when, instead of one pair of wheels being “retracted” by the road, they are retracted by a downward force on the car, either by load, severe braking or acceleration, the system has the effect of exaggerating the resultant dip.

A few minutes thought will make this painfully obvious!

I remember seeing an 1100 pulling away with four people on board. The two passengers in the back weighed the back of the car down, the same as they would tend to do on any car. However, this forced the front wheels down (interconnected remember), and as they could not bury themselves in the road, the front of the car reared up, and the car continued on its journey in this somewhat alarming attitude. There was not even any luggage in the boot. This is a 4-seater car?

A weekly contemporary of yours recently published a report of a converted Morris 1100, and remarked that “not even” the self-levelling suspension could cope with the tail-dip produced by the very rapid get away. Of course not, it would only exaggerate the dip and make the acceleration look even more impressive. (Could this be the real motive behind the design?)

Frankly, I hope B.M.C. can shoot down this criticism. The suspension would seem to be ideal for a vehicle used only on cart-tracks, and without passengers or a load.

During the year which has passed since I sold my last car, I have considered, fallen in love with, and subsequently rejected a score of possible replacements. I have now come down to earth, and settled for a “plain jane,” who has one other fault. Her name, “People’s Car,” does not do her justice. But then, her creators are engineers, not poets.

C.R. Langley.
Berlin, Germany.