JohnCh

Yes, those are the required brackets. See this post for some potential fitting issues you may have:

It doesn't seem fair to Vlad and the others to give Simon a one-day head start to breakdown. Shouldn't the clock start Friday at 8:30 with the commencement of tech inspections? I hate to see someone lodge a formal protest later.

Nice spec!

I generally use three for the Caterham but have occasionally used a fourth when I've wanted unimpeded access to the area under the front of the engine. Having four also means you can use them on a real car.

Based on that description, my advice is to not underestimate the amount of porter and scotch you will need on hand. I see the 620 dash setup. What is the rest of the spec?

I’m not presumptuous enough to ask you to call me a god. Either Forum Czar or Your Excellency will suffice. And yes, you have met your debt. For now.

Sounds like TmmGreg got off easy Congrats on the purchase!

Right click on image > Open image in new tab > copy the image URL > paste URL in editing box

@TmmGreg congrats! I'll update this as sold. Required payment is to make sure the new owner knows about the forum

Hmm... Perhaps I should rename this thread to something along those lines? It would be more reflective of the content.

I drove the Caterham Saturday and the Westfield Sunday. That second drive confirmed the MOG seats are definitely more comfortable for me, but I also noticed they are slightly more reclined, which is a contributing factor. I experimented a bit today with rake on the Caterham's seat and ended up increasing it another 10mm; the equivalent of one Tillet spacer. Rather than use those spacers or washers, which only have partial contact with the seat base given the base isn't parallel to the runners when tilted, I decided to print spacers designed to fit. Certainly not necessary, but it soothed my OCD. A proper test will need to wait until this weekend, but based on a short trial in the garage, comfort seems a bit better.

One blue wire goes to a terminal on the output hose nipple, where I'm assuming it attaches to another part of the sensor. The other blue wire goes to the pump and terminates on the same pin as a black wire that goes to pin 1 of the lid connector (see last photo). The other black wire from the pump attaches to pin 4. Pins 2 & 3 are for the fuel level sensor. The pressure sensor shows part number 2112518 068 and a rating of 625 KPa.

Never mind, I just saw your other thread with a link to the kit. Based on how they pitch their kit, I suspect they should have familiarity with the Ford set up and may have a map that runs the pump. I would certainly reach out and ask before bypassing anything.

I took a closer look at the in-tank fuel pump assembly, and it does appear to have a fuel pressure sensor. So perhaps this is less Heath Robinson an implementation than I suspected. But given they don't even use a post pump filter, my expectations were understandably low This does mean though that if you bypass the controller, you are running the pump flat out and may have issues. Is the shop providing the ECU and ITBs familiar with the Caterham or the stock Ford system?

From the research I did earlier, it's a PWM controller used to set the correct fuel pressure based on various sensor input. In the Ford application, one of the sensors is a fuel pressure sensor. That makes sense: cycle the pump on and off to maintain a target fuel pressure based on specific and immediate needs. The Caterham implementation does not use a fuel pressure sensor, so it is not operating in a feedback mode as Ford intended. It's possible the factory map has a table that adjusts the pump based on certain parameters like engine rpm and temperature, but that's speculation on my part. If you want to research the Ford application, the part number is AU5A-9D370-FC.

Are you referring to something built with all new parts or a new kit that still requires the purchase of a donor car to complete?

The controller is on the driver's side of the tank and, on my car, was attached to the boot floor. Keep in mind that because the factory uses a returnless setup, the controller adjusts the fuel pump to achieve expected fuel pressure. I removed this from my car and went with a return-style system with a fuel pressure regulator, so I have no idea what happens with the factory pump if you bypass the controller. SBD programmed my ECU to control a second relay that replaced the controller. I took a look at my build notes. On my car ('22 420R) the signal wire to the pump controller is gray/green, and I think it might be pin 33 on the ECU plug, but you'd have to confirm.

The fuel pump has a digital control module located on the side of the tank that is controlled by the ECU, which is separate from the relay. For safety reasons, it cuts power to the pump if the engine stops turning, and the ignition is still on. When you say you swapped out the ECU, is it still the MBE and did you get it from Caterham or another source? If the ECU either doesn't have the provision for the controller or if it is programmed to use a different pin than your loom expects, this could explain the problem.

The Hemmings link you provided no longer goes to the ad. Did it expire? Your ad here may generate more interest if you edit it to include photos, details, and the price. To edit a post, click on the ellipse in the upper right-hand corner, then select edit.

Nope, you should have a black part called the dry sump guard that fills that gap. It's one of that parts that can be a little fiddly to fit or you luck out and the bolts align perfectly. Caterham uses the same bellhousing for wet sump and dry sump cars, but because the dry sump pan is so much shallower, you end of with the step and resulting gap.

That explains so much...

This is down to personal preference. I've built two cars on Esco flat top jack stands and have never longed for something taller or on wheels. They've been more than sufficient for me. The one caveat is that both times I had plenty of build space around the car. Given your space is more limited, the ability to wheel the car around -- particularly if it's a leisurely build -- might be a consideration.

My guess is you transposed two letters and meant to write SBFS, which is Soft Bits for Sevens <https://www.softbitsshop.co.uk/>

I don't follow your post. I wrote that I had a shop that did Plexiglas work make them from polycarbonate. That statement is true. They positioned their business as a maker of things from Plexiglas. I had them use polycarbonate instead due to that material's strength and scratch resistance advantage.