Which Morgan 3 Wheeler to buy: 2.0 MT Euro 3 vs 2.0 MT Euro 4
If the choice is between the two catalogue versions of the Morgan 3 Wheeler, 2.0 MT Euro 3 is the faster, lighter, more powerful car on the numbers we have; 2.0 MT Euro 4 is the only version with measured mixed fuel use and CO2. There is one generation (2011–2021), Roadster body, two versions, both on sale from 2012-01-01 to 2021-12-31.
Which Morgan 3 Wheeler to buy: 2.0 MT Euro 3 vs 2.0 MT Euro 4
If the choice is between the two catalogue versions of the Morgan 3 Wheeler, 2.0 MT Euro 3 is the faster, lighter, more powerful car on the numbers we have; 2.0 MT Euro 4 is the only version with measured mixed fuel use and CO2. There is one generation (2011–2021), Roadster body, two versions, both on sale from 2012-01-01 to 2021-12-31. There is no second generation to “buy newer hardware” — the decision is entirely 2.0 MT Euro 3 versus 2.0 MT Euro 4.
Euro 3 has 82 hp (60 kW) at 5250 rpm and 140 Nm at 3250 rpm. Euro 4 has 68 hp (50 kW) at 5200 rpm and 129 Nm at 2500 rpm. Same 1983 cm³ Gasoline V-shaped 2-cylinder, No boost, Distributed injection (multi-point), 95 fuel, Manual 5, RWD, 185 km/h top speed. Euro 3 reaches 100 km/h in 6 s at 525 kg kerb weight. Euro 4 needs 7 s at 585 kg. Mixed consumption and CO2 are not measured on Euro 3; Euro 4 is 8.1 (mixed) and 187 CO2. Tank, ground clearance, wheels, and gross weight are not measured on both.
Morgan 3 Wheeler specs: one generation, two versions
The Morgan 3 Wheeler has 1 generation in this catalogue: 1 generation, start 2011-01-01, stop 2021-12-31, body Roadster, 2 modifications. Both versions share the same production window 2012-01-01 to 2021-12-31. There is no restyling listed as a separate generation.
What the generation does not change between versions: body type (Roadster), engine displacement (1983), fuel type (Gasoline), cylinder count (2), cylinder layout (V-shaped), boost (No), injection (Distributed injection (multi-point)), fuel grade (95), gearbox (Manual), gears (5), drive (RWD), front suspension (Independent, spring), rear suspension (Independent, leaf spring), front brakes (Ventilated disc), rear brakes (Disc), and maximum speed (185).
What does change, and therefore what you are actually choosing: power, torque, peak-rpm, 0–100, kerb weight, and whether economy/CO2 were measured.
Engine comparison: 2.0 MT Euro 3 vs 2.0 MT Euro 4
| Version | hp | kW | Nm | cm³ | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT Euro 3 | 82 | 60 | 140 | 1983 | Gasoline | 2 | V-shaped | No | Manual | RWD |
| 2.0 MT Euro 4 | 68 | 50 | 129 | 1983 | Gasoline | 2 | V-shaped | No | Manual | RWD |
Power. Euro 3 makes 14 hp more than Euro 4 (82 − 68) and 10 kW more (60 − 50). That is about 21% more horsepower on the same 1983 cm³. Specific output: 82 / 1.983 ≈ 41.4 hp per litre on 2.0 MT Euro 3 versus 68 / 1.983 ≈ 34.3 hp per litre on 2.0 MT Euro 4. The extra output is not a different engine family in the data — same displacement, same 2 V-shaped Gasoline, No boost, same injection label. The name difference is Euro 3 vs Euro 4, and the measured peaks sit 50 rpm apart (5250 vs 5200).
Torque. Euro 3 has 11 Nm more (140 − 129). Peak torque on Euro 3 is at 3250 rpm; on Euro 4 at 2500 rpm. Euro 4’s torque peak is 750 rpm earlier. If you care about where the Newton-metres arrive, Euro 4’s 129 Nm is quoted lower in the rev range; Euro 3’s 140 Nm is quoted higher, with a larger peak.
What the extra power is not. Neither version lists valves per cylinder (not measured), compression ratio (not measured), bore and stroke (not measured), or engine position (not measured). Do not treat those as differentiators: they are absent for both.
Performance and mpg: 0-100, top speed, consumption
0–100. 2.0 MT Euro 3: 6 seconds. 2.0 MT Euro 4: 7 seconds. The gap is 1 second. Combined with kerb weight (525 vs 585), Euro 3 is both quicker and 60 kg lighter.
Power-to-weight (from the given hp and kerb mass).
- 2.0 MT Euro 3: 525 / 82 ≈ 6.4 kg per hp, or 82 / 525 ≈ 0.156 hp per kg.
- 2.0 MT Euro 4: 585 / 68 ≈ 8.6 kg per hp, or 68 / 585 ≈ 0.116 hp per kg.
Euro 3 carries about 2.2 kg less per horsepower (8.6 − 6.4). That is the largest arithmetic gap in this catalogue pair: not the 11 Nm, but mass versus output.
Top speed. Both 185. Buying Euro 3 does not buy a higher catalogue maximum; it buys the 6 s 0–100 and the 82 hp / 525 kg combination.
Fuel consumption and mpg.
- 2.0 MT Euro 3: city not measured, highway not measured, mixed not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.
- 2.0 MT Euro 4: city not measured, highway not measured, mixed 8.1, CO2 187, eco class not measured.
If you need a mixed figure in the sheet, only 2.0 MT Euro 4 has one (8.1) plus CO2 187. Euro 3 is not “more economical” or “less economical” in this catalogue — mixed use was not measured. City and highway mpg are not measured on either version.
Dimensions and weight
Wheelbase, length, width, height, and similar exterior measures are not in this dataset. What is measured:
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Tank | Wheels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT Euro 3 | 525 | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.0 MT Euro 4 | 585 | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
Euro 4 is 60 kg heavier (585 − 525), about 11% more kerb mass (60 / 525). Gross weight, clearance, tank, and wheel sizes cannot decide the purchase: they are not measured on both. Chassis labels match: Independent, spring front; Independent, leaf spring rear; Ventilated disc front; Disc rear.
Which version to choose
There is no generation ladder. 1 generation covers 2011–2021; both versions run 2012–2021. You are not choosing a facelift year. You are choosing 2.0 MT Euro 3 or 2.0 MT Euro 4.
Choose 2.0 MT Euro 3 if the numbers you care about are speed and mass. It has 82 hp vs 68 hp, 140 Nm vs 129 Nm, 6 s vs 7 s to 100 km/h, and 525 kg vs 585 kg. Same 185 km/h, same Manual 5 RWD Roadster, same 1983 Gasoline 2 V-shaped, No boost. The “extra” here is 14 hp, 11 Nm, 1 second off 0–100, and 60 kg less kerb weight. Power per litre is higher (≈41.4 vs ≈34.3 hp/l). Kilograms per horsepower are lower (≈6.4 vs ≈8.6). Mixed mpg is not measured, so do not buy Euro 3 on a fuel-economy claim from this sheet.
Choose 2.0 MT Euro 4 if you need the only measured mixed consumption and CO2. Mixed 8.1, CO2 187. Peak torque is listed at 2500 rpm rather than 3250. You give up 14 hp, 11 Nm, 1 second of 0–100, and accept 60 kg more kerb weight, with the same 185 km/h cap. Eco class is still not measured. City and highway consumption are still not measured.
What extra money cannot be scored here. Prices are not in the data. You cannot say which version costs more. You can only say what the spec sheet buys: Euro 3 buys more hp, more Nm, less mass, quicker 0–100; Euro 4 buys the mixed 8.1 and 187 CO2 line and a lower rpm for peak torque.
Reliability, problems, common faults. Not in the launch data. Do not infer durability from the Euro 3 / Euro 4 names.
Short rule. Same generation, same Roadster, same 1983 Manual 5 RWD Gasoline 2 V-shaped with No boost. If 0–100 and kg/hp decide it: 2.0 MT Euro 3. If the sheet must show mixed use and CO2: 2.0 MT Euro 4. Tank, clearance, wheels, gross weight, city/highway mpg, and eco class remain not measured on both, so they do not break the tie.