SENC

Not certain why you're worried about stepping on toes as I don't think there is necessarily disagreement. Bill's excellent site is a great reference, one that I use often - but if you read further in that section you'll note that he makes special note that his findings are NOT intended to describe how things left the factory, but rather as he found them some time later and perhaps modified. I did state that I had a recollection that the U may have been used for Universal-made replacement frames - I'm unfortunately away from my notes and other non-digital references so can't search to see if I can find such reference - but as I said that is just something in the back of my mind and I certainly wouldn't put money on it. I think the main point of my post was to try to assist the OP, who appeared in early posts to have particular interest in trying to establish whether this is actually a 1965 Lotus Seven (ie., was sold as such at the time). I don't see much in his posts nor the pictures that would make me confident in stating this is likely a 1965 Lotus Seven. A good history of ownership, matching up some numbers with Lotus records, a certificate from Andy at Lotus, or a review from John Watson would, in my opinion, be the only way to establish this isn't a bitsa Seven. As I stated in my original post - there is nothing wrong with a bitsa, unless having an "original, from the factory" car is important to a particular owner. To the OP - these cars have long been challenging to validate as a "real deal" Lotus Seven, for lots of reasons. There were very few to start with, many (most) were sold as "kits" and not necessarily assembled with parts as supplied; many were raced and modified and raced and modified; many were wrecked and rebuilt; Lotus records were not great to start out with and some of what did exist were lost; Lotus itself frequently changed suppliers, pulled from old stock, used stock out of sequence, etc. etc. What I'm getting at is that it isn't easy to validate a particular vehicle even with a lot of good indicators, but with the information you've shared, IMO, it is almost impossible to have a high degree of confidence that what you're looking at is something that Lotus sold in 1965. Could it be? Sure! But I'm seeing more that raise questions for me than I'm seeing evidence of authenticity. To be specific: 1 - the VIN/Chassis plate is incomplete, at best, but perhaps a reproduction- as I stated earlier, if it actually starts with SB11xx, that would most likely be for a car built prior to 65 - if it starts with SB17xx, that would seem more likely around 64/65 2 - lack of a title - certainly there could be lots of explanations, but this one has to raise a question 3 - frame number and stamping - it isn't clear to me from the picture the location where, on the frame, this stamping is found - when Universal stamped the frame near the clutch and slave cylinders, that stamping is directly into the frame and NOT a second piece welded to the frame - If yours is welded to the frame down in the foot well, then it may be OK, but that would suggest to me a car built earlier than 1965. I've not seen anything definitive on when the stamping moved from foot well to near the cylinder mount, but based in the limited sample size I've seen I'd guess that happened pre-64. Could Lotus have used, in 1965, and older frame with a welded on U#, sure, it just raises a question for me. 4 - lack of information on the engine, carbs, etc. - the block should have a number that corresponds with what is on the VIN plate - also engine type and any identifying cast numbers plus carburetor type and numbers MIGHT provide valuable clues (see lotus7register.co.uk for good lists by model and year) 5 - various modifications - later, S3-style rear fenders (likely needed for the larger after-market wheels and tires - given these mods, there is a decent chance you'll find a non-stock or upgraded rear axle and differential underneath); the heavily modified bonnet; the dune buggy bumper and light rack 6 - pictures of the dash, wheel, instruments, foot wells, gas tank, radiator, and suspension could all go a long way to swaying opinion, but given what is obviously modified (#5) it seems likely to me that these things may have been modified as well and wouldn't likely yield conclusive evidence to support originality. So, could this be a 65 S2 originally sold by Lotus but with lots of subsequent mods and maybe a replacement frame? Yes, I think it is conceivable - but without some solid history from the current owner and/or a definitive VIN/Chassis number and an ability to match it to a frame number and/or engine # (via John Watson, Andy Graham, or one of the few others with access to copies of Lotus records), I don't think you could ever be confident of that fact. You more likely could, however, get confident that all the bits and parts were appropriate for a Lotus Seven, were made by Lotus or one of it's suppliers, and that the vehicle is consisten with a 60s Lotus Seven that has been used and raced and updated over its 60 year life.

If "provenance" is a part of your decision-making on how much to invest, the best thing you can do is send as much detailed information on numbers and owner history + whatever pictures you have to John Watson - if anyone can identify the vehicle, it is likely he. As Croc suggested, there is not a lot of value in these cars, even when good provenance can be established - ie., if you could rebuild its entire history while renovating the vehicle itself, and did both completely and spotlessly, it still won't be worth a whole lot (mid-5 figures). I need to go back to my resources to confirm, but in the back of my mind I think the "U" may indicate a replacement frame - the Universal Radiator-made frames built into Lotus 7s had numbers with "B" and were located near the clutch/brake cylinder mount. An vehicle plate with SB# starting in 11 would suggest a vehicle earlier than 1965 (my 65, for example, is SB2042). Maybe if that is really 17xx it could get into 65. The plate in my vehicle was stamped, but I've seen a number that were scratched - so that doesn't mean a lot. If I had to guess based on your opening description and the few pictures, like Croc I'd speculate you have a bitsa car - one built-up out of many parts of different Sevens. That may not be the case, just a guess. And that wouldn't make it any less fun to acquire, rebuild, and enjoy. As for color - do whatever you want. Regardless of what you can eatablish about the history of car, it has clearly been significantly modified over the years - the rear fenders and the bonnet, for example, are absolutely not S2.

That would be my bet.

It suggests that your original setup, in at least one carb, was leaking - a very common complaint, thus the kit - and you've stopped that leak and improved performance. An alternative to the kit frequently used is to "lock" the choke mechanism, easily done with a small piece of coat hanger sized wire with a 90° bend inserted into the choke lever on the carb and the other end locked into the choke cable clamp on the carb. This method assumes the internal bits all fit seat properly and just ensured they remain closed, and is what I've done on mine. Unless you're in, and using the car, in really cold climates, the cold start mechanism is rarely needed. Two quick accel pedal pumps then a slow, halfway depress and hold while starting are all I've ever needed for the engine to catch.

I would be hesitant to think this a major contributor to any issue, given how the system works. That cam doesn't push the pump rod, rather it drops, allowing the pump rod to drop (according to its spring pressure). That spring pressure, along with rod length, accelerator pump jet orifice size, and condition of the (valve) bearings and weights (and their chambers) determines how much fuel is delivered and for how long (and whether there is any leakage). Also remember that if everything is in good condition and working correctly, this should be a 1-shot fuel "injection" and should only occur with a rapid push on the accelerator. Though the cam rotates and allows the pump rod to drop under slow acceleration (or anytime the throttle is open), the weights and ball bearings should prevent fuel flow to the AP jet at all times EXCEPT during rapid accel. In other words, any issues you may be trying to solve are, in my opinion, much more likely to be a result of issues with jet size, bearing seating, rod length or spring strength, or weights (I think some have replaced these with small springs). Thinking about how our engines work, could it also be that the tiny fraction of time difference in how each cam would allow the rod to drop is intentional - that one cylinder optimally needs that fuel fractionally later? You mention a difference in pump travel - I'm assuming you mean by that pump rod travel. Is that actually the case, or are you assuming based on the cam? With the throttle shafts held full open, are both pump rods fully seated (they should be)? If one is being held slightly open, indeed you might have an issue. But if the difference is only that one starts its travel slightly before the other - but the full travel is possible - I'd tend to discount it as a major issue. Again, remembering that the system, as a whole, should only operate on response to a quick throttle opening. You might also check the rods for each to see if their lengths are different (perhaps the carbs were already rebuilt previously from parts carbs and you really do have a mismatch).

I believe the switch from positive earth to negative earth occurred with the Series 3, so should have been neg earth in an S4. I'm away from my manuals at the moment, but will check later to see if I see any specific reference one way or the other. Re other parts, check the Library section - there may be a S4 parts list there that would be helpful. If not, I'm pretty sure there are some Lucas catalogs and crossreferences from that time.

Hagerty pricing went down for me this year, from $990 to $820. That covers my Seven, Elan, and 560SL - roughly $75k in total agreed value. I'm in NC.

For awnings, check out Kammok. More expensive, but their's doesn't require poles and setup and takedown time is seconds. I have one on my LR3 and use it frequently because it is so easy/quick to use - whereas a traditional awning would only be used for long stops and times that absolutely demand it. Would be a great solution mounted on the back and/or side of a trailer.

Yes it is. Pawleys Island is a great area, as is Wilmington.

Happy to offer guidance/assistance for the coastal areas of SC/NC - have lived in SE NC for a long time and spent a good deal of time with up and down the Carolina coast. They're not great areas for your Seven, though.

On a Maine road-trip for the next bit (sans 7, unfortunately) - but will explore the links when I can. I'd definitely like to do something like this - but struggling to prioritize it against other demands on my time (thus my likelihood of selling it on sometime this year).

Assuming you have the Standard 10 rear axle and brakes, the following link to a resource in the library here should be helpful. As Scotticus recommended, Ken Gray at Dave Bean may be a very helpful US resource. As may Ray at Rzd Enterprises. But if neither have what you need, Google around for Standard 10 resources in the UK - there is a Std 10 club that is quite useful. When I replaced mine a few years ago, new old stock was readily available - though I don't remember if through one of the above resources or through ebay. Also check Kelvedon, SJS, and TTR. If you have a different rear axle, you may need to find alternate resources.

I would double-check the specs and manual on your truck to see if there is a max tongue weight (in pounds) for the vehicle and/or hitch (without a wright-distributing hitch). Also check the rear axle weight limits GAWR). As loaded, you've moved a lot of weight off the front axle and onto the rear axle - which I suspect is why it feels sluggish to you - much reduced steering. I might be hesitant to get much above 55 with that much weight moved off the front axle, but you'll know by feel. As an example, my LR3 is rated for 7700 pounds towing capacity... but the hitch is only rated for 750 or 800. So if towing near the max I can only go to 10% tongue weight. At any rate, adjusting your load so that your tongue weight is closer to 10% may improve driveability.

Maybe the #s you posted were before moving the car around a bit, but it looks to me like your tongue weight is 780lbs (3020-2240). As to the tie downs, the last picture shows the rear side dropping straight down to the swivel. I was always taught to "tuck" the straps down inside the outer circumference of the tire... ie., move that swivel roller a slot or two closer to the tire. I'm not certain my way is "right", but it does provide more strap-to-tire contact area and allows less movement. Do similarly with the anchor on the front side of the tire if you don't use the yellow ramps. Like Pethier, with 4 tires strapped I tend to engage the parking break and leave the car in neutral. I tighten my straps down quite tight, then make a point of stopping in the first 50 miles for a quick check of strap tension.

One other thought - if you're having them put track on the floor, get them to put some (horizontally) around the walls, too - makes a good place to store straps and also gives a way to strap other things (furniture, etc.) you may periodically use the trailer to haul.