
Inside The Morgan Factory – Why Bespoke Manufacturing Is Thriving
Morgan has stuck to its traditional styling and manufacturing methods
Morgan Motor Company has been a staple of British automotive manufacturing for 115 years. Always dedicated to small volume manufacturing, the brand has maintained its heritage and traditional craftsmanship methods throughout its more than a century long history. To find out more about this unique company, I visited Morgan's factory in Malvern to speak with Managing Director, Matt Hole.
After being appointed chief technical officer in 2021, Matt Hole became managing director last year
Trinity Francis: Tell us about how the company has evolved over the past five years?
Matt Hole: In 2019, the company exited family ownership and now we're independently owned by an investment group. That has enabled us to really start investing in products and product development. We're going through a cycle at the moment where we are trying to set Morgan up for the next 10, 15, 20 years and therefore the products needed some updating to be able to comply with future legislation.
Having invested heavily over the last few years in product development, now we're in a growth phase, building volume and accessing new markets. The US was a critical markets for us. We're really proud that last year we gained authorization to sell cars in the US. Almost overnight we had a couple hundred orders. When you think this year we will only sell 650 cars, it's a big proportion of our volume.
When you walk through the factory, you can see each owner's personality coming to life through their ... More car
Francis: How has the changing political landscape affected the business?
Hole: We've certainly had trials and tribulations over the past few months with the Trump tariffs but we're quite lucky with the team we have, they're creative and agile. As soon as the tariffs were announced, we sat down as a group and tried to understand how we could mitigate the costs and came up with a strategy that took some of the non-car costs out of the price.
Francis: Are there any plans to set up manufacturing elsewhere?
Hole: Malvern is the home of Morgan, we've been here for 116 years. What's really important is the ecosystem around Malvern and in the UK that allows us to utilize a very specialist supply chain. The type of cars we're building require special components and specialist skills, so we've built that ecosystem over the last 116 years.
To take that and put it somewhere else in the world would be a very tricky thing to do. Part of the DNA of the brand and the value proposition is that these cars are made in the UK. We're a very British company and our customers tell us that's something that they value. What we are looking to do next year is move the Morgan Experience around the world. We'll be increasing the experience offering we have in the US and also expanding it in the Middle East.
The Morgan Midsummer showcased traditional hand crafted skills with prominent wooden trim
Francis: What are Morgan's future plans when it comes to EVs?
Hole: We look at sustainability slightly differently from some other car manufacturers. One of the challenges I've set for the team is that Morgan should be synonymous with sustainability without having to deliver an EV. The reason I say that is because the way we build our cars is inherently sustainable. The materials we're using are of a very high recyclability content. We don't have heavy machinery to make the cars, so what we put into the cars has a low environmental impact.
The real story of Morgan's sustainability is that over 90% of all Morgans are still on the road and we cater to these vehicles to keep them on the road. If you want to buy a body panel for a 1950s Morgan, you can call our parts department and somebody will make one and send it to you. We believe we are one of the most sustainable car manufacturers in the world.
Underneath every Morgan is a handmade wooden frame
Francis: Are we likely to see an all-electric Morgan anytime soon?
Hole: At the moment, we can't build a lightweight dynamic Morgan with the technology that's on the market at a price that we could sell the car for, it's not commercially viable. But, we believe we've got a good roadmap that will get us there at the right time. I think people would be surprised by the R&D that's going on in the background which is very much focused on electrification. We don't have any plans for a plug-in hybrid because the complexity and cost don't match our product. In future, we might adopt some mild hybridization which will be forced on us by our technology partners.
Francis: Traditionally, Morgan has been associated with an older demographic, how has that changed with the launch of the Morgan Supersport?
Hole: At the moment we're looking toward a slightly younger demographic, the reason being, time moves on and people get older. If we keep on targeting the same group, as they get older, eventually they'll stop driving and stop buying cars. It's important for us to keep fresh and make sure we keep on building a customer base going forward.
From the Plus Six to Supersport, the demographic has shifted by almost 10 years. The average age of a Plus Six owner was around 65, it's now around 55 for a Supersport owner. Super 3 is even younger than that by another 10 years, so I feel like we've got a broad spectrum of products that appeal to a wide variety of people.
Supersport models have started making their way through the factory alongside Plus Four, Super 3 and ... More Midsummer models
Francis: How do you strike the right balance between keeping Morgan's heritage but also moving the brand forward?
Hole: It's about putting technology in the background to do its job and help the owner but not get in the way of driving. The way we homologate our cars means we don't need a lot of the additional systems that interact with you when you're driving which I think means that the type of motoring you get with a Morgan will always be more analog than a mass produced car.
As you've seen with the Supersport, we're updating and evolving the design language and styling of the cars so they're always recognizable as a Morgan but they appeal to a wider demographic with a more modern aesthetic. We will continue to evolve that over the next few years and you will see new products coming out in future that take that further.
Completed Morgans wait in the factory ready for collection or shipment to other countries
Francis: What sets Morgan apart from other manufacturers?
Hole: For a lot of owners, there's a deep personal connection with the car. A couple of months ago, when we launched Supersport, I had a chance to sit with Richard Hammond's mom. She was telling me about the love that her husband had for his Morgan and why she wanted to come to the launch because she wanted to come back to Morgan and remember the time that she had with her husband here when they bought the car.
This community exists and out of the blue, without any product placement, we found out the NASCAR champion Joey Logano drives a Morgan Super 3. In the opening scene for this season of NASCAR: Full Speed, Logano is doing donuts in the Super 3.
People love Morgans, they want to own them and people cherish them. It's just so nice hearing about the stories and attachment people have with their cars. We joke that Patek Philippe has this thing about handing their watches down from generation to generation but that's what it's like with Morgans. Richard Hammond's dad's car is now his car and people hand their Morgans down which is why we keep cars from the 1950s going because they're important to people.
The interiors workshop is responsible for trimming each vehicle with the customer's preferred color ... More scheme
Francis: What are you most excited about looking to the future of Morgan?
Hole: Since I've been at Morgan, I've realized that the company has such a huge amount of potential. If you look at the cars we design, they're original and we have the flexibility to design cars in a way that nobody else has the freedom to. I feel Morgan has an opportunity in the next five years to really live up to its potential and I think it's a bit of an underdog in the car world. Morgan is a very unique company, there's nobody in the world that builds cars like we do. I think we're blessed with a really talented team and the company will go on from strength to strength.
The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Betting Market in Disarray Over Zelensky Suit That's Also Maybe Not a Suit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A major crypto-currency prediction market placed the odds of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wearing a suit before the end of June at just 3 percent on Sunday, with confusion reigning over the Ukrainian leader's attire days after he appeared to don a suit-style outfit for a series of meetings with world leaders. Polymarket, a platform that allows users to trade on the outcomes of real-world events using cryptocurrency, currently includes a market where users can place wagers on whether or not Zelensky will wear a suit before July. It was intended to resolve based on whether the Ukrainian leader was photographed or videotaped wearing a suit between May 22 and June 30, 2025. It attracted over $12 million in volume, but instead of resolving cleanly, it has ignited a furious debate online and among bettors, despite international news coverage and Polymarket's own descriptions seemingly confirming the appearance of a suit. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives ahead of a formal dinner at the Paleis Huis ten Bosch ahead of the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 24, 2025. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives ahead of a formal dinner at the Paleis Huis ten Bosch ahead of the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 24, 2025. AP Photo/Markus Schreiber Zelensky, attending the NATO summit in The Hague earlier this week, looked to choose a military-style yet formal blazer with a buttoned-up black shirt, including for his arrival to a formal dinner hosted by Dutch royalty on Tuesday. He also appeared alongside world leaders in the Netherlands in a black utility-style collared jacket, a noticeable departure from his wardrobe choices prior to his now-infamous and disastrous White House meeting in February. Zelensky chose a similar jacket for a meeting with British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in London just ahead of the NATO summit. The Polymarket chance of Zelensky wearing a suit by July jumped to 19 percent the day after the summit ended. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, left, welcomes Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Downing Street in London, Monday, June 23, 2025. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, left, welcomes Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Downing Street in London, Monday, June 23, 2025. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth The Ukrainian president's outfit choices have drawn persistent attention and occasionally criticism, not least during his ill-fated trip to the Oval Office earlier this year. Zelensky's team was repeatedly told by President Donald Trump's advisers that Zelensky should opt to swap out his typical khaki or black military dress when visiting the White House, Axios reported in late February, citing two sources with direct knowledge of the topic. "He's all dressed up today," Trump told cameras as he greeted Zelensky at the White House. Zelensky arrived dressed all in black — but not in a suit. Gathered with Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other senior administration officials, Zelensky was prodded by a reporter on why he had not donned a suit. The Ukrainian leader shoots back that he will wear a suit "after this war finishes." From left, European Council President Antonio Costa, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pose for photographers prior to a meeting on the sidelines of... From left, European Council President Antonio Costa, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pose for photographers prior to a meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 24, 2025. More AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert Zelensky typically wears military-style fatigues, or clothing boasting the Ukrainian trident, a nod to his role as a war-time leader showing solidarity with frontline troops, rather than a peace-time politician. There is a "political message" in Zelensky's choices, reminding the world he is a president representing a country actively at war, said Oleksandr Merezhko, the head of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee and a member of Zelensky's Servant of the People party. "Psychologically, the fact the President doesn't wear a suit might irritate only those who don't like Ukraine," Merezhko told Newsweek. "It's about them, not about what the President wears." Zelensky's dress should depend on the situation, Merezhko said. "While the war continues, the President should somehow in his attire to emphasize that he is commander in chief," he said. "In some rare cases he might wear a suit," but one adjusted to nod to the military, Merezhko added.


Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense


New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Not OK, Karen! Court loses it when lawyer calls someone ‘Karen' in legal papers: ‘Borderline racist, sexist, and ageist'
You Karen't say that! A British court tore into an attorney who called someone a 'Karen' in papers for a discrimination case — calling the term 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' according to a report. A British employment tribunal judge ruled that Karen is a 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' slang term. Witoon – Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old black woman, was suing for discrimination after she was axed from a charity company called Harpenden Mencap — but an employment tribunal took issue when the ousted worker's rep used the phrase in court papers, the Independent reported. Attorney Christine Yates argued leadership at the charity — supports adults with learning disabilities — leadership 'acted like stereotypical Karens' — claiming they weaponized their privilege to suspend and fire Constance over 'fictitious claims, the report said. Constance accused the organization of unfair dismissal, racial and age discrimination and of launching a campaign to oust her based on prejudice, the outlet said. Yates alleged that a white, female management team had colluded with white male residents under their care to create a racist and misogynistic smear campaign, the outlet reported. Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with the use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. – Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with Yates's use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist, and ageist term,' Alliot said. The tribunal ultimately dismissed Constance's claims, siding with the charity for firing her in June 2023 over an 'irretrievable breakdown' of workplace relationships, the outlet reported. Alliot also ruled that the complaints against Constance were 'legitimate,' the outlet said.