Alaskossie

Bob, When you refer to "spats," are you referring to the rear wing protectors, or to the rear wings themselves? I was not aware that Caterham had modernized the left rear wing mold, to account for the fact that a cutout notch and a short left rear wing is no longer needed for a rear exit exhaust -- particularly now that with the Duratecs, the exhaust exits on the other side of the car entirely! Talk about resting on tradition.... Even aftermarket wing suppliers, in both c/f and fiberglas, mimic the CC offerings, and don't seem to offer a full-length left rear wing... unless I'm mistaken..

Just picked up the April '09 issue of Car & Driver for a little light reading; I see that editor Csaba Csere has left; no explanation as to what he is doing now, which is curious given the glowing full-page farewell given him by the publisher's president. Anyway, in this issue's road test of the 2010 Mazda 3s GT coupe (pp. 44-48), the photos are credited to Morgan Segal, our own"MoPho" on USA7s. Not only is Morgan credited with the photos, he also contributed a sidebar "Counterpoint" on the car. When do you recall a photographer for a car photo-shoot being offered a chance to comment on the car being photographed? Looks like MoPho is working his way into the C&D routine -- good show!

The Caterham fiberglass clams are just barely wide enough to cover a wide-track suspension, so I think most people with the w/t go with cycle fenders. Also, as noted, several European countries require the cycle fenders. So clams are not common now. Years ago, I rode in a Seven in D.C. that had clams, with a 1-inch square aluminum spacer tube to move them outward a bit. Rif (Richard in France), the carbon fiber guru, has designed the molds to make carbon fiber wide-track clams, but he says he hasn't got time now to actually make them up. I think he'd find a ready market. If he ever does produce them, I'll be first in line! I definitely like the "Prisoner" look of the clams, and the lines of the Seven with clams, and the top up and the spare tire out back, is definitely super-retro -- just what I'm looking for!

Go to SoftBitsForSevens, and order their bikini top.

John, thanks!

Southwind, Any photos of your "nice rack"? On my planned rack, the bags won't be secured, except perhaps by a bicycle-type cable and lock. My rack will be used in conjunction with a Softbits E-bag. I am planning for storage that did not stick up above the profile of the Seven, and not too far out the back.

Slngsht, How do I activate that feature that when I respond to a thread or start a thread, later responses to that thread automatically get flagged to my e-mail? I had it once, on one early thread, but not on any later thread.

DB6, I am in the process of fabricating an aluminum luggage rack for my Caterham Seven. I have thought a lot about it, visualized it in my head, and am now finally getting out the saw, drill, tubing bender, tubing cutter, etc. etc. I'll have to send any welding out to be done by someone with the equipment and skill -- probably the major expense. The aluminum raw materials I have bought from McMaster-Carr, which has an infinite variety of aluminum stock. The basic frame of 1-inch x 1 1/2-inch aluminum box tube will lie behind the spare tire, and its bases will slip over the spare-tire holder (which has been cut off, and will be re-mounted 1 inch further rearward, and made removable). At their tops, the bases will have tension straps that go around the roll-bar braces, under the rear tonneau cover. There will be a side-rack of 5/8-inch aluminum tubing extending out on each side of the spare tire, and a top rack on top of the spare tire. The side racks will be removable without removing the rest of the rack, if I want to carry only one bag, instead of three. The top rack will be removable, if I need to take the spare tire off and replace it with a flat tire. The right-hand side bag will have to be removed to reach the gas tank filler, which is the only downside to designing the side bags on the rack. I bought three heavy-duty black nylon ski boot bags from Sierra Trading Post for $25 each, and these will be the designated bags that I will use on the rack. Each bag is approximately 16" x 14" x 9". The two bags for the side racks will lie on their sides (to narrow their width and confine it mostly to the rear panel and not onto the rear fenders). The bags will be secured to the rack with nylon straps and buckles, and I will have waterproof nylon over-covers made with drawstrings, to insure that the bags stay water-tight. At least, that is the plan..... When it's all done (and if it works, and does not look to amateurish), I'll post photos. Otherwise...... Ben at RMSC is right -- the Caterham "luggage rack" is a pretty marginal affair.

i think the 4-point racing and street harnesses for the Caterham are the same. You definitely want a 4-point harness in my opinion; 6-point is better. Too much freedom to be tossed about with a 3-point harness.

jlumba81, There is apparemntly a 3.14 rear end ratio available (I think original equipment on some Ford Sierra diesel sedans on the Continent), but I have never read of someone using it with a 6-speed Caterham box to get an effective "overdrive" ratio on the highway -- I think the acceleration penalty is more than most would want to tolerate. Even the use of the 3:38 ratio is fairly uncommon (Alex Wong with a VX Evo engine on Blatchat and I are the only ones I've heard of so far). With 15-inch tires, the calculations show that in 6th, it is close to the Type 9 5-speed overdrive and the more common 3:56 (?) etc. rear end ratios on Sevens. That being said, there was a fellow advertising on USA7s with a 3.14 ring and pinion for sale. Last I checked, he still had it. I understand they are pretty rare. He was advertising it as ideal for a bike-engined Seven type, but I think you want to go the opposite direction with rear end ratios, given the much higher rev range of bike engines?

jlumba81, I got the 6-speed Caterham box, but an uncommon 3:38 rear axle ratio, which should give me reasonable cruising in 6th direct. I also got the 15-inch tires, for a bit more clearance on the road. i got my narrow-chassis S3 primarily for touring, and am designing a rear luggage rack for those long road trips. Registering the car in Alaska was the easiest thing possible. I registered it for seasonal (April-November) use only; I think in Juneau you don't have CO2 limits in winter, so you should not even have this restriction. I got a form from DMV in Anchorage, and had the sheriff in Colorado come over to the garage (the car was still on sawhorses, partly assembled). He checked the VIN number on the chassis and ran his computer to see that nothing was listed as stolen; he signed the form; I brought the form back to Alaska, and I had my plates in 10 minutes. The DMV clerk even knew what a Caterham was! Only problem now is the my 2-year registration will expire before I get the car back to Alaska, but I'll just renew the seasonal use registration, and everything should be fine. Oh, by the way, the personalized Alaska plate, "SE7EN" is taken......

jbanker, Thanks for the info on the Stalkers in the Fairbanks area -- encourage your friends to join this forum! Jumbalai81, keep me posted on your progress with the Seven. I am planning to build a garage this summer also. Have you seen this forum: http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6683 it can be addictive, and some guys' garages will turn you green with envy. If you bring your Seven to Anchorage, maybe we could organize an "Alaska Seven-type tour!" At the max, we could have perhaps 6 participants, which would be 100 percent of the Seven-type population in Alaska....

jlumba81, Once you get your Seven, where are you going to drive it in Juneau, Alaska, anyway?? That'll become the lowest-mileage Seven on the Continent..... I am assembling my Seven (slowly) in Colorado, ands plan to drive it to Anchorage (quickly) next summer. There are already two Sevens that I know of in Alaska; a yellow SV in Anchorage (Jim O'Malley), and a red and silver S3 in North Pole (Peter Marshall). No Seven-types by other makers, that I'm aware of. Welcome to the club!

Boxologist, Is Raceco's (Ammo's) 2.2 build made up of the 2.0 crank in the 2.3 block? If it is, then perhaps he could work with the 2.0 crank and the 2.5 block (if he hasn't already...). Wonder if that could break through the 300 hp barrier...?

Skip, I believe all of the Duratecs 4-cyls. originally have the balance shaft. Tuners (including AMMO and Cosworth) remove them. The internal dry sump pump drive precludes keeping them in any event. So the stock 2.5 has a balance shaft, I'm sure. I don't know how smoothly it would run without it.... that's where mixing the short-stroke 2.0 crank with the larger bore of the 2.5 might be the way to go. The 2.5 is used in the 2010 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and the 2009 Ford Escape. There are some Mazda models that may also use it. (Mazda uses a turbo 2.3 Duratec in the Mazdaspeed 3, with 263 hp. So it might be possible to turbo the 2.5 fairly easily; but getting all the plumbing into a Seven might be a problem). Just to confuse things, the new Ford Focus RS uses a turbo Ford Duratec 2.5 with 305 hp and 325 lb./ft. of torque -- but this is a FIVE-cylinder Duratec 2.5... (wonder if this engine will fit into a Seven....???). And just to confuse things further, there is apparently a Ford Duratec 2.5 in a V-6 engine (used in the Mondeo up through 2002, according to Wikipedia).

Interesting, the Suzuki website does not list any horsepower outputs for the Hayabusa or the R1000.......... Guess they don't want folks to know just how potent these crotch-rockets are......

I wonder who will be the first to put a tuned Ford Duratec 2.5 in a Seven-type car? To re-cap, here are the bores and strokes of the three Duratec 4-cyl. variants: 2.0: 87.5 mm bore 83.1 mm stroke 2.3: 87.5 mm bore 94.0 mm stroke 2.5: 89.0 mm bore 100.0 mm stroke Or perhaps for a more sporting, higher-revving engine, mix the 83.1 mm stroke of the 2.0 with the 100 mm bore of the 2.5 block?? Maybe some tuners in UK are onto this already.....? I assume the 2.5 block is slightly taller physically than the 2.3 block, just as the 2.3 block is slightly taller than the 2.0.....

Bob, You're right (when are you NOT right -- generally speaking, of course??.......). It is the power difference between Caterham's CSR Cosworth 2.3 in UK at 260 hp, and the Cosworth USA-supplied 2.3 engine at 250 hp, that can apparently be attributed to the 98 (ron) octane gasoline in UK; I believe the two engines are identical internally. I erred in comparing the Cosworth-USA Duratec 2.3 and the Caterham R500 engine power output on the basis of different octane gasoline. I believe the CSR was the latest (last?) Caterham to use a Cosworth-Ford Duratec engine, a 2.3. I had forgotten that the R500 engine is a 2.0, not a 2.3, and that it was not around when the CSR was introduced. Caterham claims 260 hp for the 2.3 in the CSR, at 7500 rpm. Interestingly, the Caterham R500 2.0 at 263 claimed hp is almost the same power as the CSR, but at 8500 rpm. The difference in torque is more striking: The Cosworth 2.3 in the CSR has 200 lb./ft. at 6200 rpm, while the 2.0 Duratec in the R500 has 177 lb./ft. at 7200 rpm. Guess it should be evident which one would probably be more usable as a road-going car....

As a point of clarification, the 2.3 Duratec in the R500 Caterham produces a claimed 263 hp in the UK on 98 octane (ron measurement) gasoline. In the US, the same basic tuned engine produces 250 hp on 91 or 92 octane (r+m/2 measurement) gasoline. Cosworth UK used to be the R500 (and earlier Caterham CSR) engine builder, but some other company (I forget who) is building the engines for Caterham UK now. I bought my Caterham S3 kit through Ben at RMSC in late 2006, but of course had to source the engine separately. I got the 250 hp 2.3 Duratec engine directly from Cosworth USA. I wanted a built engine from a supplier already in the US, so there would be no possible import hassle with EPA/DOT. I also wanted a known engine builder that would stand behind the engine, and Cosworth already has, when some unexpected corrosion problems needed to be corrected. It would of course be possible for Caterham USA to establish or incorporate its own "separate" engine builder/supplier to provide the engines for their kits. But the Feds might very well view this as a sham distinction, intended just to claim on paper that the engine was sourced separately, from a "separate" company, in order to evade the federal "car manufacturer" regulations. The risk isn't worth it. If the buyer has to make his own deal with Ford or Cosworth, there is no question but that Caterham USA is supplying only the kit, not the engine. We as Seven owners are just darn lucky to have this generous interpretation of the regulations. Without it, there would probably be no post-1969 Westfields, Birkins, or Caterhams in the US.

DB6, Well, you asked for it... attached are photos of the 1990 8X8 Esarco, the 1980 Unimog 406 Doka (former German air force aircraft tug, 22-ton towing capacity!), and the 1975 Volvo 304 6X6 pickup (presently in transit). Can't wait to take a photo of my finished Seven next to (under?) these babies....

Slngsht, Safari. Everything seems to be working ok now.

Slngsht, Can't help my fascination with odd mechanicals... (Somebody please stop me, before I buy again....!!). In addition to the 'Mog 406 double-cabin, I've got a Land-Rover-based 1990 MWG Esarco 8X8 truck with 4-wheel steering (one of 3 built) and on its way from Germany is my "new" pickup, a 1975 Volvo 6X6 303 truck. (BTW, slngsht, why is it that when I try to draft a reply to this thread, I click on the "reply" text box and right away the text box closes and I get a number of full-screen ads for the Brunton Stalker? (Not that I've got anything against the Stalker....) Anybody else have that problem???

Gert, How much does that armor weigh, anyway?? That looks like the forestry skid plate I'm installing on my M-B Unimog 406, at about 85 lb.!

For those with dry sumps, ground clearance is not quite as critical, but some protection is still good peace of mind. Caterham offers a sort of impact bar of steel that bolts to two threaded sockets in the front of the Cosworth/Duratec dry sump pan. It fits like a charm. We'll see if it does its job....

DB6, My son and I drove the 1995 Escort Cossie to Alaska in the late summer of 1998 (see outdated website at http://www.meachams.com/cossies/) My Cossie has only 24,000 miles on it, and is presently off the road with a broken fuel line that is very hard to get at to fix. My car originally has the 220 hp 2-liter engine, but I had it modified at Eggenberger Motor Sport in Lyss, Switzerland before it was shipped. The engine was enlarged (bored and stroked) to 2.3 liters, the engine management system was altered, and the car now has 378 hp at 5500 rpm, and 435 lb./ft. of torque at 3500 rpm. Enough power to shred the stock gearbox, if I'm not careful... Tom Meacham