All Activity

I can see that these will not work for my car, thank-you for the photos.

Basically the same regulator. Take a better look and you’ll see the second hose outlet at the bottom..

Faster. I never drove the car with the fast rack, but on a road course I can't image needing anything faster than the normal ratio.

For what its worth, with my Birkin having a Duratec and my FPR a different unit, the location is the same as yours: This is an old picture I pulled from my other thread, with an arrow added to point out the FPR.

It certainly appears to be a regulator, and fuel makes the most sense. But it also appears as though only one of the barbed tubes is connected to a rubber line. That seems odd if fuel is going through it. Is there a third connection, perhaps on the underside?

It looks like the same FPR I ran in my fuel injected Birkin. I think mine was an Aeromotive.

In case it matters, this Birkin is fuel-injected.

FPR? edit: Fuel Pressure Regulator?

I'm York area, so not too far. Let me do some measurements and get back. Pics came through fine.

@Vovchandr is right. An adjustable FPR. Scott

Thanks everyone for your comments/feedback. I also reached out to Caterham and asked the question and no response so far. Does anyone have the dimensions of that tank? If I had that I can do some measuring. From the photos I have found, the chassis tubes in front of the engine timing cover is similar in design except that newer frames have a hole where the chassis tubes meet for the tank to mount to. I haven't checked mine to see if it has that. I'm using the photos below without permission, the one with the tank pictured comes from https://www.caterham7diaries.com/post/dry-sump-tank-install The one of the imperial chassis... from racecars direct. Issues with the tank in front of the engine aside, I'd prefer the ease of that over modifying the passenger footwell, which I believe I'd have to do on my car to get a tank there. I did reach out to some local folks today and I could have a triangular tank fabricated for far less than the 900uk, plus shipping and tariffs (ouch). I think a triangular design using .125" aluminum sheet without the curves would be easy to draw up in Fusion 360 and the aluminum bungs/fittings are available at a variety of places on the internet. The only concern would be proper oil/air separation. The Caterham tank appears to deal with that with internal plates, probably drilled or slotted, for the oil to flow down through. Thanks, Scott

That's what we're all here to find out.

Are those fuel lines? Is that an FPR?

I need to know what this device is. Is it for controlling the heater? I'm standing on the left side of a 2003(?) Birkin with the Zetec engine, so the left side of the photo is towards the front of the car. On the left of these photos are the spark-plug wires heading forward to the engine. On the right of these photos is the heater core with two heater hoses coming out of it. In the middle of these photos is the gizmo I want to identify. It's in my way. If it is needed only for the heater, I would like to make it go away. I do not need a working heater. I can bag it and tag it.

see below

So, you are saying that the Caterham triangular dry sump tank will fit in front of a Duratec in a S3 imperial chassis?

The footwell tank can be bought but would require other engineering/plumbing solutions that are already solved by using the Caterham setup. Assuming it fits in his imperial chassis, everything would be plug and play. Maybe I'm just lazy and I hate modifying stuff. But it seems any improvised solution can trigger a set of unintended consequences and further troubleshooting.

I thought Scott was asking if there WAS an off the shelf and well tested solution.

I put my tank where the battery mounts, and moved the battery to just in front of the cowl. Different engine, same chassis.

Berks County PA, near Kutztown. Here is a link to pictures. Let me know if it doesn't work. Price? I haven't really done any research so at this point I'm open. https://photos.app.goo.gl/v3AxFkQsUCCASLYv8

Why would you want to reinvent the wheel and engineer/fabricate a new solution to a problem that already has an off the shelf and well tested solution?

I would like to report that after years of troubleshooting, discovery, fixing, tuning and I movements my latest calculated mileage is a whopping ... 11.8mpg Short trips end up eating up half a tank or more. With the wideband live reading the problem is sort of obvious. I'm extremely rich at most of my fuel map and the sensor pings out at the lowest allowed sensor reading of 10:1 for most of the drive. God knows how low it truly is, so I'm running very very rich. Next step is to rebuild the map and see where that gets me. Good old chatGPT gave suggestions. Time to have AI fix what human intelligence hasn't been able to figure out so far

Why would you want to put more mass in front of the engine? Your passenger does not need room for pedals.

Ouch! Good thing the car is so light. My gas gauge reads "full" all the time, probably because there is no sending unit whatsoever. I deal with it by keeping an eye on miles driven. So far so good... 🤞

How much? Where in Southeast PA? Pictures? THANKS