Lotus 7 Project Arrived

[IamScotticus]

If anybody's interested (nobody's interested), the spacing on my 95 Xflow is 11" from square (master cylinder mount) crossmember to rear head face.  I think my engine placement is about as far forward as possible. I can't even fit a toothed belt pulley kit.  I can't get a socket and bar between the crank nut and the chassis tubes. 

With only two inches between the bell housing starter bulge and the footwell corner, not enough space available to attempt a push back.  Unless I shortened the footwell.  nah. Il'l just keep wrench nicking my chassis tubes.

[ianashdown]

Like this?

 

Still confused, but I’ll be building it back to as near to as delivered in ‘61 as possible.

 

Ian

[7Westfield]

Now you have another puzzle

 

What gearboxes fit those propshafts?

 

hopefully, you can get a new yoke for whichever one you use, those are nasty

[Joe Petty]

My 7 uses a driveshaft with a straight collar like that black one.

My transmission is the "Internal Remote" which is slightly different from yours, but I suspect it is the same overall length.

 

Thing with these old cars is that the owners pickup parts at swap meets or wherever so they have them for the rebuild.  Unfortunately, many "English Ford Line" cars use very similar parts and it takes a sharp eye or a good reference book to know what interchanges!

I got 3-4 disassembled pre-crossflow and crossflow engines with my car.  I sorted out 3 complete sets of different length pushrods, multiple valve rockers, oil pumps,...

 

Looks like you have a good engine/transmission pair, be careful adding anything or swapping stuff.

That one rear axle looks to have the proper emergency brake ball crank and rods, don't lose track of that!

 

As always - Good Luck! 

Joe

[ianashdown]

Does anyone know of a number and letter stamp set that matches the early ‘60’s Series 2 Lotus chassis plate style of lettering?  Failing that, what is the height of the letters?

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

[ianashdown]

Here’s another question for the collective wisdom. 

 

My 7 was shipped from the factory in 1961 with an ‘A’ series engine.  Sometime around ‘64 & ‘65 the engine was changed to a Ford 105 E.  The car was disassembled in 1969 and stored until I bought it in 2023.  The engine as I received it had been fitted with a different crank and rods to give 1340cc, ported, had aluminum spacers on the rocker shaft, maybe an cam, and had twin 40 DCOE 2’s fitted, so sometime between ‘64 and ‘69 these various mods had been done.  
 

Does anyone know if the 40 DCOE 2 was a ‘64-‘69 period carb?

 

I have a set of 151’s in addition to the 2’s and I’m trying to figure out which are more period correct and which might be good choice for a 120E (1500cc) with an A2 or A3 cam, mild porting on standard valves.  I’m thinking 151’s, but I’ll be interested to hear other thoughts.

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

[MV8]

The 105E was only for 1961 and had twin SU H2. Twin DCOE40 started in mid-1961-on in the Super on the 109E. Ref: Coulter's Seven "Collector's Guide".

[Christopher smith]

For even more info , If you have not already, you might want to check with Bean Engineering about sourcing all sorts of info and parts. The catalogs are great.

[Joe Petty]

My original Weber carbs for my 1962 1340cc were long gone before I ever found the car.

 

The CoP shows: Weber 40DCOE2  12059 & 11795

 

Good Luck!

[SENC]

The "2"s would be of that time.  My 7 has "2"s with numbers matching the Lotus logbook.

[wdb]

I'm not a Weber wizard by any stretch but I believe the 151's are an updated design to help cope with emissions regulations.

 

Here's an article on the Elan forum discussing Weber carb numbers.

 

https://forums.lotuselan.net/t/weber-dcoe-40-18-or-31/30408

Edited yesterday at 01:56 PM by wdb

[ianashdown]

Ho about these two?  I haven’t seen any reference to these.