Christopher smith

I am not so sure about heavier, mass produced cars having better designed ,stronger parts and some of the failed Lotus parts may have come from cars weighing 50-90% higher. Some engineers at the big operations are restrained by cost considerations and therefore look at the parts bins from existing models when designing a new car (just like Lotus did). Having owned many, worked on friend's street driven cars and moderate budget race teams, I have observed quite a few unusually worn or outright broken parts. For the race driven cars I am only referring to parts that are not particularly stressed by the forces imparted by racing as it is unfair to fault unusually stressed parts that were designed for road use. I am however referring to Jaguar, Lancia, Mercedes, MG, Triumph, AH, Sunbeam, Chrysler, Ford ( USA, UK and Germany) and others. What I do fault is the idea that factory replacement parts should be installed, failure after failure. At a minimum, highly stressed parts should be crack tested and carefully installed but perhaps redesigned or substituted with better materials or only subjected to light loads with relatively conservative driving. Speed with reliability should not be seen as inexpensive or easy.

I had what was probably a series 2 nose in less than perfect condition but I gave it away a couple of years ago. It came with my series 1 back in 1980s when I imported it from UK. I purchesed a new nose from Caterham back then and they said it would fit my series 1 . It did with a bit of coaxing and a fabricated bracket so maybe they are not so different after all. I wish good luck in any case.

I always liked the look of Lotus clamshells as they were required by USA law early on as in the series 2. My series 1 was equipped with clamshells by a previous owner in the UK so I stuck with them. I used to race a Sunbeam Alpine against the 7 America model in SCCA F Production ( the one with the AH Sprite motor , the super 7 was in D back then) and admired that look.

That sounds long enough for many of us who might have put off hardened valve seats and alcohol resistant parts to get them in place.

did a quick look using perplexity search for history of octane improvement and chemicals in lead substitutes. The latter looks a bit like alchemy with magnesium complexes so it looked a bit shaky. Not sure I would fully trust the info sources fully since a lot of the test data was probably proprietary. But it did sort of confirm the idea that aromatics ( benzene, toluene etc.) are common now with only a few unmodified vintage motors asking for lead. Way back (1960s) Amoco premium used to claim lead free way before Federal mandates but I recall very poor spark plug life with my 340 Barracuda. Adding benzene on purpose rather than just as a trace from refining, seems very irresponsible but I suppose they like the evaporation characteristics ( low boiling point) perhaps for colder climates in winter. Somewhere I heard that unhardened valve seats could benefit from lead early in life but once the seats were lubricated that lead was not critical. Probably no way to confirm that so might be risky.

Just a reminder on safety. Boosting octane without lead may mean adding organic ( chemist definition) compounds like toluene and xylene. So please be careful to avoid significant skin contact and breathing since there may be some residual benzene content and that is super bad. Not that lead is great, but aromatic hydrocarbons may cause issues years after contact. So I am a bit wary of very high octane no lead fuels. Sorry for organic chem 101-- I know almost everyone hated it.

I am thinking (hoping) that the 100LL might be around for a while for vintage aircraft such as the B17, B24 and Mustang I saw at a show in New Jersey. I suppose they follow some rules about complete overhaul every X number of hours. But better parts may not be available? It is not like those of us with old British cars stuck on the side of a road when an engine dies.

I understand that Avgas 100LL (as in low lead) does not contain alcohol and Sunoco and VP have a variety of grades that may be ok. Extra octane beyond what is needed should be ok. They are expensive of course. All seem to work in a 1500 pre-crossflow with 10.2 to 1

Great plate! I am using 59 L7 . In Pennsylvania the antique plates are very limited as to the number of letters/numbers, so that was my pick. You sure have some great roads as I recall. One time the car rental guys at SLC stuck me with a Continental Town Car. I recall how scary the thing was on your mountain roads and certainly felt best to keep that vehicle "in Town". How is that race track west of town?

I usually fly a Union Jack mounted to the rear of the roll cage and sometimes add a flag of Scotland - the yellow one. Too many stupid SUV drivers around here and I want them to at least notice me.

Not directly pertinent to your current issue but----Maybe the same motor I have? The 1500 Cosworth was based on the early Cortina GT. The real early series 2 ones had a "ropeseal crank" so yours is probably the newer version. When we built mine fully intending to race SCCA, we used AN ( Army- Navy) aircraft plumbing using, I think, the -8 size to the cooler and Accu-Sump. Mostly the braided stainless steel kind. If you end up replacing any lines, you could consider that approach that virtually all race cars and many high performance street types now use. I would be happy to lend my copy of a great book to anyone interested-- Carroll Smith's --- Nuts,bolts. fasteners and plumbing handbook. From 1990 but a lot newer than much of the technology we work with now. Or simply call Ken at Dave Bean Engineering and describe what you want to do- he has the parts probably.

Thanks for that info. I have that Bean catalog but had not seen the Formula Ford info. That 15 ft/lb seems right for the pressure plate ( clutch cover ) but wonder if blue Loctite means a bit higher maybe if it acts to lubricate the threads a bit before it sets up. It took more to undo the bolts yesterday and I assume they had Loctite on them from 10 years ago. But of course that is no indication of the torque I should use for assembly. I was going to ask Ken at Bean Monday when I order more parts. I did note that the old release bearing was very tightly jammed on the slave cylinder (noted a bit of corrosion after only a year) and wonder if that was causing my release issues when hot.

Thanks guys- sure appreciate the good suggestions. Sure is a lot of stuff that can go wrong I guess. I expected lots of stuff to break back when I was racing but now even light duty is tricky- for me anyway. Actually I did not touch the pp or clutch disc when I replaced the master , slave and release bearings but also did not think to remeasure clearances. The pilot was lubricated but not the splines and both measure fine, having an extra 5 mm depth for the input shaft and correct diameter for the pinto trans input shaft. PP sure looks fine and no unusual colors on old disc, pp face or flywheel. When I put in a new clutch and pp I would always go gradually in cross pattern and I will use blue Loctite. Anyone know the torque required off hand? I tried to pull the release bearing off of the slave by hand and it is stuck on, it spins fine but slight wobble and I think I see a tiny chunk of shiny metal shard in there so hope that replacing all that will fix the problem.

Indeed that was a good place to go. Someone mentioned getting the dimensions wrong and self destruction due to pushing too far. I am checking the dimensions again but that may be it. When it was all together I noticed the release bearing was touching the pressure plate fingers but assumed it was ok since there is no provision for return on the Saab design concentric. Perhaps the newer release bearing I installed was thicker than the one I had used for years with no problem. Also, still not sure why that would be fine for up to 8-10 starts and then get noisy. Also, I did not see any mention of lubricating clutch splines but maybe I should?