Steve in Lititz PA

Hi, Ed No apologies needed, and thanks for all the additional information. It caused me to go back to my purchase notes, and notes from the original owner who spec'd the engine build. FWIW, at that point it became a custom build, and reading through his communications with Caterham, the US dealer, and the shop which performed the engine mods, here is what I have determined, all of it shrouded in uncertainty, ie, I don't really know: The 1600 crossflow was overbored to (possibly) 1760, and has the A2 Burton camshaft. The builder specified clearances at 0.020/0.022, which, coincidently, is the same as Burton cites for the A2 in its catalog. The builder claimed 150 hp, which, of course, makes all of the above suspect, because most of us know that the builder's quoted hp, and the dyno hp, are two different numbers. I subtracted 10% from the builder's number and arrive at (!) 135 hp, exactly what Caterham states in its specification sheet. Imaging that! ha ha. I included you very helpful information in my "engine" folder, it adds to the body of knowledge. steve rineer lititz, pa

Hi, John So glad to hear from you on this forum in addition to the Europa forum. You have been a HUGE help to me many times with my S2. As you have undoubtedly gathered, in addition to the S2/843/395, I've acquired a 1985 1700 Super Sprint...GREAT FUN! The madness continues! Steve Rineer Lititz, PA

Oops...sorry Ed, got confused between you and the author you mentioned.

Tony, Lotus7Stats (2).xlsxLotus7Stats (2).xlsxHere's the spreadsheet

ara Thank, Tony, but mine is a 1700 Supersprint, not a 1600. According to "Lotus/Caterham Seven Model Statistics" (I can't recall where I got it, but it's three pages and lists every Seven from the Series 1 through the Caterham 7 1.8 K-Series Supersport Roadsport), mine is listed as a Caterham 1700 Supersprint 1982-1999, Caterham Mod Ford Cross Flow, 135 bhp (101kw) 6000 rpm, along with other pertinent information. I downloaded it from either USA7s, or the UK Club, Caterham and Lotus Seven Club www.caterhamlotus7.club The staytistics doesn't include clearance information, but I've seen 0.022/0.024 elsewhere; if I was competing or tracking the car I might be inclined to use the clearances from race engine builder Ivey at 0.010/0.020, but I don't. Just for fun, and looking at only the intake clearance difference, 0.022 minus 0.012 = 0.010; that's a really small difference, and the exhaust is practically identical So I'm not too concerned that I'm losing much hp...and hp isn't what I bought a Caterham for, anyway. But thanks for you comment! steve rineer freezing in Lititz PA (16 degrees tonight)

Here's what Burton says in their catalog regarding the A2 camshaft: Well proven fast road/rally type camshaft with good mid range to top end power. No modifications are normally required but piston to valve clearance must be checked when fitting in X/flow engines. Valve Clearances: .020" inlet/.022" exhaust The original owner told me 0.020/0.022, and if you recall he contracted the build out. My guess is that the engine builder got it from the Burton website, or Caterham, which suggests the piston clearance was checked at that time. So I could go as tight as 0.020/0.022. I am at 0.022/0.024. I don't compete or do track days, so it's good enough for me.

I doubt the engine has been apart since its 1985 build date. The previous owner ordered it from Caterham with the 1700 Super Sprint engine; he contracted out the build. It has about 20,000 miles on it, runs very well, engine feels strong. Caterham claimed 135 bhp, and I can believe it. At some point it was fitted with an Electromotive ignition; I was concerned about lack of information and support since they've been out of business for years. I'm installing a 123Ignition Tune+ distributor (it clears the intake manifold) with a Bosch Blue coil. While turning the engine to #1 TDC figured I should check clearances. Which bring me to the original reason for the post.

Well, there's a question which I suspect a lot of folks have opinions on: prev owner's notes say intake 0.020, exhaust 0.022 (didn't say hot or cold, I assume cold OTOH, Caterham's specs say 0.022/0.024 cold, (which seems to be what was used...a few clearances, particularly exhaust, were a little tight, but not 0.022 tight. Ivey says 0.010/0.020 HOT, Lamont says 0.010/0.018 HOT. Seems to be a Burton A2 cam, 40/76/76/40 = 296, I haven't confirmed that (and have no intentions to dive that deep into it, it is what it is). But I have no reason to disprove of it, either. So 0.022/0.024 seems safe since I'm not searching for the last bit of HP.

Thanks, MV8, I noticed them, but wasn't aware they were also a valve train mod. Someone in the past put some thought into it. This morning I had time to adjust the valves with #1 at TDC: 1 I & E 2 E 3 I I'll rotate to #4 TDC and get the others in a bit. None of the first group are off more than 0.001, but this is much easier than the old "lock nut and screwdriver" method. Steve Rineer Lititz, PA

Hello all, I'm a relatively new owner of a 1985 Caterham Super Sprint and have a question about valve adjustment. I'm not new to adjusting valves, just new to what I'm seeing. Engines in my experience have a jam nut which is loosened, then one adjusts the valve with a screwdriver, then tightens the jam nut. Naturally, some trial and error is always needed since the jam nut changes the clearance slightly. What I'm seeing, however, appears to be similar to a tube nut which bears on the pushrod, but with no lock nut. Is this correct? After adjusting clearance with nut part of the tube nut, what maintains the clearance? Picture attached. Thanks in advance. Steve

I'm glad he does it...I imagine he buys certain things in batches from UK distributors, perhaps he gets a wholesale discount, and saves on average shipping cost. There's not likely anyone else competing with him in this particularly small market. It wouldn't be particularly cost efficient for any forum member to buy one item of what they need. More power to him. And he gets the correct thing...what happens if one buys from a UK source, and gets the WRONG thing...hard to return it, so that person eats the cost. Insofar as Caterham, his market is axles and brakes, truly a niche market.

Skip was out of rebuilt shoes, but had new ones on hand, he also had the reinforcing plates and clips (which I did not need). He is very prompt, I should have them on Monday, he's in Arkansas, I'm in PA.

Thanks, Tom Marina Man came through for me, but I may take you up on your suggestion on my old brake shoes so I have a spare set. steve rineer

that's true, I'm putting in what came out, I have no real reason to change. If it's not broke ...

Indeed they do look promising, they're Plan C, after Marina Man and relining. I read with great interest the two articles on rear axles & hubs, I'll be replacing the rear seal, and perhaps only re-packing the bearing. Thanks for the information. steve rineer

My wheel cylinders are 0.75...but who REALLY knows that's what they came with...could be just about any size you happen to have laying around.

BTW, That's a GREAT Hemming's article, and, oh, another By The Way, I was born in Lancaster, PA, grew up there, and now live about seven miles from there. In my twenty's I had a '66 E-Type (DON'T even think about yelling, I know I shoulda kept it), and needed a fuel pump. Looked in the JC Whitney catalog, the same p/n for a 66 Jag fuel pump was called out for a Healey 3000. I went to the same Lancaster CountY Motors dealer mentioned in the article (they sold Healey's) and asked for a fuel pump for a '66 Jag. They told me they don't sell Jag parts, so I asked them to sell me a 3000 Healey fuel pump. They reluctantly did...worked like a charm. Now they sell Mercedes (always did), and Suburus. Nothing from the UK

I did check dif fluid level and really dind't have to add any, but I use Redline 75W90 in my Plus 2, and that's what I'd use in the 7.

thanks to both of you, I emailed Skip and he thinks he can help; I thought of relining, it used to be popular, now...not so much. I might look at the early TR7, if I do I'll let the group know what I find. steve r

sorry, brake SHOES, not drums. Brain fade. you'll be old too, some day.

Does anyone have a source for brake drums on the Austin Marina? width is 1-1/2, length of friction material, is 6-5/8. The emergency brake slot on one end of the plate has a tab retained by a funny-looking, triangle-shaped spring. FWIW, my wheel cylinders are 3/4 thanks, steve

And I finally did that too, ie, fabricaed a firm mount attached to the bell/block, alinment was good, and with a spacer, location was OK too. But there was another issue going on, as I wrote, regarding the clutch release bearing, with about half of its "slots" for the clutch fork gone. At startup I'd hear a rasping sound as the fork jumped out of the two slots, and, at that point the slave cyl not perfectly alined (and, possibly, the rod not perfectly adjusted). And not really certain what was going on with the rest of the assembly. The whole assembly was coming out to replace the broken parts. And fabrication and mechanica stuff isn't my strong point...I'm a retired accountant, for goodness sake. And there is a dearth of real mecnanics around, they're retiring/dying out, and I thought i could do at least as well as those remaining non-mechanic mechanics ot there, at a much cheaper hour rate. And, I had a T9 in storage. So, like you, I think I had the slave cyl mounting figured out, my last version of the mount was ok, the plate needed an in-out bend to clear the sump, and a final iteration would have been better. But I had gotten tired of shifting, and having my foot go to the floor, and limp home shifting with no clutch. And hearing that loud rasping noise at startup as the clutch fork fingers continued to destroy the release bearing. So, like many things, the decision was based on, well, many things. If I didn't have the T9, my decision would likely have been different. I applaud your solution, mine would have gotten there too, but the difference between your situation and mine was slightly different, so my solution is slightly different. Do you need a spare T2? Thanks for your comment, steve rineer BTW, Willwood makes a similar "pull" slave.

No. The Clutch Bearing Carrier/Hub is p/n GB2E208, and from the picture in Burton's catalog is definitely not plastic; in fact, I have one on my bench for my Plus 2 ready to install into that car. Basically, it holds the Release Bearing. On Burton's suggestion, I'm getting CRB p/n HD3259. My car is a 1985 and has an extenion above the tailshaft, similar to the T9...on my Plus 2 the shift lever comes directly out of the top lid of the gearbox. Using your terminology, both my T2 and T9 are "remote" shift gearboxes, while the Plus 2 with the shift lever coming directly out of the top lid, is not. My memory on my conversation with the Burton rep isn't precise...there were many variants of T9 gearboxes, and what with machining variances, perhaps the bearing carrier WILL slide right over my T9 input shaft. And perhaps some carriers will not, and if not, then the carrier must be bored out by about 0.010" .

I was born in 1948, back then there was a tendency when naming children to relate to ancestors...my parents balked, or else I might have been Aaron or Fred...no offense to you Aarons or Freds out there. My dad, however, was named Sheldon (like his uncle), and i suspect I was named Stephen in a small nod to the first name beginning with "S". Anyway, I am a Stephen, not a Steven, or even a Stephan. Regarding the shifter, it comes up from the tunnel about the same position as the dash...I don't know if that makes it remote or not, I am certainly not the expert you are. So if I indeed have a remote shifter, because you've never seen a T2 without one, and you're planning on using your T9 with the same type remote shifter, I will be happy again. Yup, the GBT9509 is on my list. And Burton said the carrier may have to be bored out 0.010", sorry if I didn't make that clear. The complication with the hydraulic clutch was no fault of the hydraulic clutch, it works fine on Elans. The problem was that the original owner specified he wanted a hydraulic clutch instead of the cable clutch that was fitted to the T2, and with the T2's integral bell housing, there was no good place to attach the slave cylinder. It could be done, but i suspect the alinement of the slave piston wasn't perfect, and the seals wear out. Since I acquired the car about two years ago I've gone through four slave cylinders. By the way, this is all conjecture on my part, I may be totally wrong. But in fact, a few days before I picked up the car, the previous owner called to tell me "the clutch is leaking", and he might not have the replacement in before the agreed pick up. So it's got a history. Some time ago I picked up a T9, so I figured now is the time to put it in, AND solve the hydraulic issue at the same time. There was already an issue with the clutch fork/release bearing, I could see a chunk of the release bearing was missing, where the fingers of the fork fit into the release bearing, so the whole thing was coming out anyway. I suspect THAT issue was the result of inept prior mechanical aptitude of the shop that was doing all the work for the previous owner, who apparantly was not mechanically inclined. The hydraulic master cylinder is already in place, and I am familiar with the clutch arrangement with Lotus Elans, so I went the "familiar" route rather than the centric route. If you are good at math, you'll figure out that I'll be 75 on my next birthday, so the "Lotus" arrangement only has to last another, what, ten years, or until I'm unable to get out of the Cat (gravity is working with you getting in), then it will be someone else's decision to change. Regarding the speedo issue, I plan to plug it, and if it is REMOTELY close to actual, I'll stick with it. I am assuming that the connection is common between the T2 and T9. It's a 90 degree fitting, so probably OK. If not, a GPS or some other arrangement may be a possibiilty, but it won't be a priority. I have several OTHER non-Caterham issues in the fire, I have a few more other Lotus, and regarding the Cat issues, I am looking for the simplest solution to several problems that works. You know, simplify, then add lightness...can't remember who said that. steve rineer

7Westfield, thanks for your response as long as the shifter doesn't move forward, or aft more than one or two inches, I'll be happy. Regarding having to cut away some of the left side starter mount, so much of re-engineering something is to discover what you got, when you get there. A variation in one company, eg, Lotus, Caterham, Birken, Westfield may change what one needs to do with a major change like engine/gearbox, etc, in fact almost anything 7 related because of the tight packaging. But that also applies to all of our "smaller" cars from the past, and looking at the packaging of engine bays in newer cars, it's only gotten tighter. Roger about the driveshaft, too, that change is already in the conceptual area, and proves that a change in one thing, eg gearbox, affects other parts of the package. Which is one reson why I commented in an earlier post that I would be delighted if the shift lever didn't move at all. steve rineer