SENC

I can't say for certain about earlier S2s, but that is different from the handbrake lever and mechanism on my 65. I only have this picture on my phone, which probably doesnt help you much, but will try to grab one today or tomorrow of the mechanism itself to see if it has any identifying numbers/markings.

Totally forgot to add when posting last night, but I suspect Redline will have what you need for the handbrake. I'm pretty sure I recall reading that Caterham continued with that brake design for a bit, thus my thinking parts are likely available. If not, it's not a terribly complicated design - essentially a cable levering the rear Triumph brake drums - and wouldn't be hard to figure out I think. Do you have the Tony Weale book? If not, order it pronto- it is a very useful reference and also helpful with identifying parts from other cars and when parts changes occurred

This might be useful - an extract from a Lucas parts reference book. Includes the wiper motor numbers which do appear available on ebay.

The amp, temp, and oil pressure gauges look right to me I can look for #s in mine if you'd like. I seem to recall a reference to the wiper motor and use in other vehicles somewhere - will scour my notes when I can.

DCOE2s are what the S2s that came with them had, and those numbers are close enough together they are likely a matching pair. Must have been picked up from another Seven by the PO? Great luck! EDIT - I found after rebuilding mine that a differently angled butterfly aided in getting the progression holes coming in as designed. I think all that is in my 65 S2 thread, but happy to go back to my notes if you need/want.

duplicate

Would be a lot of hot air, but on the other hand might mitigate the low pressure in the cockpit problem that causes so much buffeting. Re: the steering wheel, if you want a period Lotus look without the crazy cost of an original, check out jacobengoneering.co.uk - their repro is excellent. Not cheap, but a LOT less than an original.

5-speed? Interesting, haven't seen one of those fitted but valuable for higher speed tracks or highway cruising I'd bet. If I'm not mistaken, that T9 doesn't have a remote for the gearbox, rather it is built into a modified tailstock. I'm thinking the remote is what caused the need for the rounded tunnel cover - or in Ian's case with the 105e box and adapter/raised remote perhaps a rounded cover still wasn't tall enough so the remote would be over the flat cover?

AHA! Makes sense. Seeing your following post of a Cosworth cam cover, though, if you're upgrading to that level you probably want to upgrade to the gearbox that goes with it. Should be the same tailshaft extension and bellhousing, just a different box and innards.

Your gearbox's difference from my Ford box piqued my interest enough to keep digging a little - I had not remembered that Lotus offered the 997cc 105e engine and gearbox, I thought for Ford engines it was just 109e and up (which used later gearboxes). At any rate, the Lotus7registry site even comments about an adaptor plate for the 105e gearbox... Available between January 1961 and early 1968 - 997cc. FORD 105E overhead valve engine with twin side-draughtH2 SU carburettors on Lotus manifold developing 39bhp at 5,000rpm. Compression ratio 8.9:1. Matching 4-speed gearbox using Triumph Herald remote and gearknob with special adaptor plate on most cars but a few 116E gearboxes with Ford GT remote and gearknob at the end of production. Standard ratios 4.118:1, 2.396:1, 1.412:1, 1:1. Reverse 5.404:1. Close ratios (Hobbs?) 2.917:1, 1.696:1, 1.280:1, 1:1. Reverse 3.83:1.

Ian - looking again at the picture of your gearbox, it looks like it may be a Ford Anglia 997 gearbox (105e) rather than the 113e/2321e gearboxes Ford used in the Cortinas, Corsairs and Lotus in Sevens and Elans. It may be that Lotus used this with early 105E engines, but I'm not sure. It may be worth checking the gear ratios to see if they are what you want. If the 105e box is shorter than the 113/2821 box (I'm not familiar with the former), that might also explain the custom mount.

Here is my mount (no pictures after cleanup, sorry), if it my help you. It looks like yours was modified to mount a different gearbox up and forward - may account for the rat-hole. If that is the case, I'd guess your propshaft would be longer, too?

Perhaps they were trying to run a retrofit remote above that flat cover?

I think I answered my own question - I went back through pictures and found these of the gearbox/remote without the tunnel cover. Clearly the flat tunnel cover wouldn't work with the standard Ford gearbox and remote of the time - so seems most likely the flat style cover may have worked for gearboxes on BMC-engined cars and was later modified for the Ford-based engines.

I've noted some cars with these "flat" center tunnel covers - is that an early Seven feature, or specific to cars with the BMC engine and associated gearbox? On my 64 S2 (Ford/Cosworth 1500 and Ford gearbox with external remote), the tunnel cover is round (like the back of the tunnel) - which I suspect was required to house the gearbox and extension. The gearstick hole, by the way, is up just under the dash - agree moving it forward wouldn't make much sense - perhaps instead of a remote a prior owner was using a long and bent gearstick?

Your Elan suppliers DBE and RDE are both sources to reach out to, though they have fewer Seven bits. Tony Ingram is also a good stateside supplier. Chris Mintoft at Redline and Mick Beveridge at xtraspecialsevens are at the top of my list in the UK, then all the other usuals for the Elan. Having said that, I've also had to spend a fair amount of time determining original source vehicle and haunting their forums (Anglia, Triumph, Standard) to find leads on bits. As to paint vs aluminum... a prior owner of my 65 stripped the body and bonnet. It looks fantastic, but it is a beast to polish and, I'm told, to maintain. I did a comprehensive, wings off polish about 18 months ago and am trying to pay attention to how long I'm happy with it. I suspect I will paint it (back to original) at some point. If I was at a point where I had to choose one or the other, I'd paint for sure.

There is a scan of the Standard 10 manual section on the rear axle in the downloads section, should you need it.

Thanks Ian, will check it out!

The manual and other useful documents are in the downloads section of this forum. https://usa7s.net/ips/files/category/5-lotus-seven/ I'm not sure how to upload an excel file, but if you send a note to @croc and @JohnCh they may be able to help.

"Universal Radiator on the other hand, fusion welded their chassis using an oxy/acetylene set-up with the filler rod the same as, or similar to, the metal to be joined." This from William Fayer's site, https://www.anglocanadianlotus7.ca/lotus-seven-parts-and-repair-notes/. I've found his information reliable.

A level of accuracy unneeded for this discussion, but the nerd in me can't leave it unsaid... The Seven was the 13th car in the Lotus lineup.

I frequently use transglobalexpress.co.uk - you can arrange for them to pick it up, all the seller has to do is pack it and print the packing label you send.

People will do some crazy stuff. All that should need is the paper gaskets and some wellseal or aviation gasket goop. If the breather is functional there shouldn't be any pressure to speak of forcing fluids through reasonably sealed surfaces, and the only other places for leaks are the single bellhousing bolt that enters box and the tailshaft - which with a new seal and good propshaft shouldn't leak.

Well done. I don't see a breather bolt - but then it looks like there may be a hole in the 2nd cap that serves as the breather. Is that correct? Is it baffled?

MG Maroon would fit with the thread discussion above, at least for 1500 supers. In rebuilding mine, I found that POR15 has an engine enamel in MG maroon that looks good. Whether it would satisfy a purist or pass a concours inspection I don't know (or care), but it looks good to my eye. Also generally agree that while lots of things can be determined "standard" for Sevens of certain eras, there was enough variation and they were so heavily modified that current owners can feel pretty free to do as they please without being "wrong".