SENC

I suspect this is the crux of many disagreements these days - the growing chasm between those who focus on intent and those who focus on perception. It's a conversation I have frequently with my (now adult) kids, as the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" mentality I grew up with is definitely dinosaur material to the younger set who discount intent altogether. I'm trying to understand it but admittedly struggle. The discussions that prompted this breakout, I think, are at least somewhat reflective of this chasm (and I do see value in this discussion in improving understanding of the various perspectives). I, personally, find Trump repugnant - and have since I started following him in the mid/late 80s (when, parenthetically, he was considered a bit of a liberal favorite). Given my opinion of Trump, had Bruce directed his comment toward me I might have initially wondered whether he insulted me. Having said that, and notwithstanding my opinion of the man, I recognize that there are many people in this country who think extremely highly of him. And because my tendency is to look for intent when something strikes me funny, my considered response to Bruce would probably be along the lines of - "Bruce, your Trump reference doesn't hit me as the compliment you may have intended, but assuming you intended a compliment, thanks for the thought." It seems Croc got to a similar place. Had I been the target of Vlad's Hussein reference, given my focus on intent, I would have been left with a making a conclusion between 2 alternatives: 1 - he truly admires Hussein or 2 - he is making an absurd comparison. Because (unlike Trump) I know of absolutely no-one who actually admires Hussein, I'd have concluded the second intent - and, as a result, ignored the comment entirely as trolling and not worthy of a response. Perhaps, given Vlad's continued insistence he intended it as a compliment I might start leaning more towards believing he does actually admire Hussein (or some of his characteristics) as he claims - but that still seems so preposterous to me. Assuming Bruce has a similar tendency to prioritize intent as I do, it seems quite easy to understand how differently he sees his comments from Vlad's comments. I don't think I'd take offense though, because of the absurdity of them. Alternatively, as I consider how someone who focuses on how comments are perceived upon receipt (rather than intent), I can see how Vlad (and others) see no difference between the "compliments" and find Bruce's reactions to them inconsistent. Of course, by reaching my own conclusions about Bruce's and Vlad's comments based on my own knowledge and experience, I'm doing at least a little of the same. I guess the best response to each would simply be "What did you mean by that comment - compliment or insult?" And then to accept the response at face value. What I personally find even more interesting and confounding than any of the above (and so genuinely would love some insight), is that several to whom Bruce's initial comment were not directed felt called to respond. What drove that? Defense of Croc? Why? Did you know/think he would be offended and think him incapable of defending himself? Or did a comment towards someone else somehow strike you as offensive towards you or your sensibilities? Something else? I'm truly interested in gaining some understanding here, as I can't fathom injecting my thoughts/biases/reactions into a comment Bruce directed towards Croc, at least not before Croc responded. Maybe I need to go back and reread the initial comments again to see if they were more broadly targeted. While I may disagree with or take a different tack than Bruce about many things, I do agree there is value in sussing out different reactions to gain understanding. I very much appreciate that this forum and several others I enjoy, leave the door open for such discussion in a way that folks can choose to participate or not. I think the "zero tolerance" rules that have been enacted in so many places (online and in person) have had the opposite of their intended purpose and have created more triggers and polarization than they have eliminated. I appreciate diversity of opinion and civil debate, and think they add much greater potential for value than shutting down discussion.

To my knowledge, the heater was an option to be added. My 65 did not (and does not) have one.

And perhaps this is the reason for the swirlpot.

I think issue is that the swirlpot isn't designed for it. Found a picture that may help. To overcome this design, the PO had bored out the base plate of the swirlpot to allow for a t-stat, which I suspect caused the sealing problems.

Not disagreeing, Joe, but wouldn't the pump determine the speed? I know there is a problem that it doesn't pump much at all when the engine is idling, thus the need to put a few revs in it from time to time to keep water flowing and the engine cooling. I guess what you're describing could happen with continued high rpms where the pump is pushing water at maximum rate. Putting a t-stat or blanking plate of some sort above the between the pump and the swirl pot would, I guess, put some back pressure on the pump and effectively slow it? I don't race mine so not running long periods at 5k+ RPMs, but will say my Seven runs a much more consistent temp when on the highway at a consistent 4k+ rpm and I only approach issues when idling lengthy periods. Turning on the fan and blipping the throttle periodically to get flow resolves on all but the hottest days.

I don't believe Lotus used a thermostat under the swirlpot on our Cosworth pre-crossflow engines. A prior owner had one installed there, but it didn't seal right and leaked. No problems since removing it.

The same gearbox was used in the Elans, so check the usual Elan vendors (Bean and RD Enterprises in the US; Kelvedon, Tony Thomson Racing, SJSportscars, Mick Miller in the UK; also, Lotus Classic division bought out Matty). The key is to get the right color gear for your combination of differential gear ratio and gearbox ratios. I think there is a file in the documents section, but if not I can dig it up in my files.

Here is a scan of a photo the original owner of my car, a 65 S2, sent me. This was taken in the UK in 66/67. The car was purchased from Lotus in Jun 65 and built by a nearby mechanic for the owner. As a scan of an old photo it is certainly not definitive, but to my eye looks to have the same lights as it does currently (photo above) and definitely has no separate flasher. Maybe you'll look at it and see something different.

Bill, as I understand it (and as reported on John Watson's lotus 7 registry site), the L516s were used in conjunction with separate flashers and the L1130s were used otherwise. Happy to be corrected.

And no flow the other way, too?

@TEM - you may be already aware, but borescope cameras have become quite good and quite cheap. I bought one that connects to my phone a year or so ago for around $40 as I recall, and have used it numerous times since on car and home (in-wall) projects.

Vacuum advance is only going to benefit mpg and emissions, at some cost to performance. I'm a fan of points on these cars, generally easier to dx and cheap/easy to keep a back-up to critical consumable parts in the car. If you go this route, be sure to buy quality condensers and rotors as there is some really cheap sh!t out there. Distributor Doctor in the UK is a reputable supplier if quality parts

@TEM looking at your pictures again, I see someone added side view mirrors to the wings. I can't see exactly where those are mounted, but look to be pretty close to in line with the lights. Is it possible that whomever installed the mirrors used one or more of the original holes for the lights and just moved the lights? Either to minimize drilling or to effect the location of the mirrors to their liking? Then never got around to rewiring, or decided the functionality wasn't worth another hole?

Now that you say that, I think that is my recollection - I'd forgotten. My wings have been repainted, but to my knowledge they are also the originals.

Here is a picture I took when disassembling my wings to polish the alu. Securing the light to the wing required 1 hole/bolt, electricity through the other hole. I know some cars had separate indicators mounted below the headlights, but not sure when that started.

Not sure what parts would be useful given the limited pictures. I only took a quick look at a dash photo but it didn't appear much on it would be original, so if that is any indicator I'd question whether there are many original parts left on the car. It could also be a built up group of parts on a 61 plate.

Count yourself lucky! Mine didn't have the special ones (likely someone's previous work) so it was extra fiddly. A long round head hex key with a 45° bend saved my sanity, but is still tough sledding. The sequence is important.

Indeed, they are a real bugger!

Interesting, I have not seen one with the markings on top (not that I've seen a lot, so could be common). Attaching a picture of mine on rebuild, which also shows the intake manifolds - which I believe to be original/Cosworth manifolds. Yours look quite similar. On this one, like the diagram above, the 116e casting is on the bottom of the water inlet.

This from the Seven manual suggests that the gap between the 2 ridges is 10 degrees btdc. I also found the following in my files. Assuming this marking us how you identified your head, it may explain things as it appears the same 116e casting for the head was used on 1300cc blocks. I think this was related to Cortinas, but would support such a head on a 1300 lotus engine.

I'll have tonight back through my notes and files, but my memory is that the two "pointers" on the cover are 8 and 10 degrees. In the downloads "Lotus 7" section are copies of the Lotus 7 manual, a Ford 105E manual, and an article on the Cosworth evolutions. The Ford manual shows the markings, but it may have been somewhere else I saw the description. The Lotus manual and article describes various initial intended timings. It looks like you have a Cosworth cover, so perhaps you also have a Cosworth head. They did make them for both 105E and 116E engines. How are you identifying this as a 116E head? 116E blocks, in my experience with Lotus, are most frequently marked 120E. Think of 105E and 116E as "classes" that can include several subgroups. It could be that yours was a Cosworth 116E engine where the block was replaced - or a 105E where the head was replaced - or maybe someone just added the Cosworth cover and new manifolds to allow the dual Webers. I can't see the manifolds well enough to tell if they look like the Cosworth manifolds. The unique engine number should be engraved on the top of the motor mount on the distributor side. With that and your vehicle ID number (SBxxxx or LSBxxxx) John Watson (Lotus Seven Registry) could tell you if the block is original and maybe more about original configuration.

I use a good set of noise reduction earplugs that work quite well at eliminating the annoying pressure and noise from buffeting but still allow me to hear the engine, etc.

I wouldn't think it could be shifted that far back without a modification to the tunnel and/or a different transmission. Mine is in the forward position pictured above (120e cosworth) and I have to remove the nose to check the oil. The gearbox is a pretty tight fit into the tunnel - not with it right now to check, but I doubt it could move back more than an inch without hitting. Whatever amount I could move it, it would require a shorter propshaft and relocating the gearbox mount.

It's on my list, too. Let me know when/if you go and I may try to meet you for a ride! And if you still have the axle, we can discuss doing a deal for it.

Thanks Vin, I was hoping it was an original 4.11. I don't have an immediate need, have just been keeping an eye open for a reasonable cost backup knowing the limited lifespan these rear ends. Maybe I should be thankful, Mass would be a long way to go for a backup!