Lotus 7 Project Arrived

[ianashdown]

3 hours ago, MV8 said:

Sounds like you don't want to do a full resto. I'd tape the holes and fill the rails with metal prep/phosphorous and let it sit a few days before draining to dry, followed by the same process with boiled linseed oil, fill the old rivet holes with a mig and grind flat so if the new holes will not need to be exactly where the old ones were and if they happen to be, the rivets will hold. When filling close to a brazed joint, wrap it with a wet rag just in case. I'd start with a cold chassis close to the joints, working away, pausing and alternating to keep the peak heat down and prevent potential warping with thin wall tube. Similar to welding thin sheet steel.

Green scotchbrite pads applied with wd40 (rubbed longitudinally only) make a nice brushed finish that is low maintenance and can hide a degree of imperfection.

Hi,

 

It needs a full ‘rebuild’, some parts need a full restoration.  Some parts are in really surprisingly good condition and just need a good clean - years of Arizona dust!  The chassis need a fair bit of work.  There are missing sections, some that are damaged, a few that have been added that are just crap!  The roll hoop for example; I think it was made of gas pipe as I found some threads on on end of a diagonal!  Sawzall time!

[ianashdown]

A nice discovery when unpacking a box last night!

 

All the original lights are present and all in very nice condition!  I heard the rear lights are not available so I’m very happy to have original parts.

 

Ian

[ianashdown]

Found this too!  It’ll look good in the collection on the wall!  I wonder if the AZ DMV has any records . . . 

 

The more I dig in to this pile of parts the more certain I am of its complete authenticity.  I am very confused as the why the ‘arbiters of originality’ were so convinced I should not buy this car.  Just because the plate is missing/misplaced doesn’t minimize the originality of the vehicle.

 

I do understand that the Lotus Chassis number that this frame number was connected to in the Lotus Records is currently running around somewhere, so a totally authentic ‘plate’!  Alternatively, the title that I have only a photo of and is one number later, 19 Vs 18, is what it was on the Lotus plate and therefor issued by the State of Arizona.  It’s not beyond Lotus to mix up the numbers!  My Elan was wrongly recorded too!

 

Very confusing!

 

Ian

Edited June 7, 2023 by ianashdown

[ianashdown]

And for those that asked about the ‘medallion’ on the scuttle cover . . . .

 

 

 

Ian

[anduril3019]

8 minutes ago, ianashdown said:

And for those that asked about the ‘medallion’ on the scuttle cover . . . .

 

 

 

Ian

For anyone who was doubting the authenticity, now it's confirmed as a "Super" 7!

[straightcut]

Congratulations on scoring that Super Seven, Ian!  I had called the brother-in-law a few times to inquire about that car.  I was absolutely polite, but for some reason, he just had little time for me.  I'm glad it found a good home!

 

Here's a site that shows some information on which years the burgundy license plates were issued:

http://www.15q.net/az.html

 

 

[JohnCh]

9 hours ago, Christopher smith said:

I can send the "SCCA approved" Lotus drawing of the front frame area modifications.

 

Thanks to @Christopher smith, this is now live in the Downloads section:

 

[IamScotticus]

8 hours ago, ianashdown said:

And for those that asked about the ‘medallion’ on the scuttle cover . . . .

 

 

 

Ian

U joint lubrication access cover? Im holding out hope there is a purpose..

[IamScotticus]

There was a discussion recently about a reproduction source for those tail lamps

[ianashdown]

1 minute ago, IamScotticus said:

There was a discussion recently about a reproduction source for those tail lamps

I have no doubt that these are original parts, they are quite beautifully made.

 

I did see something about someone reproducing the tail lights, but what I read seemed to indicate it was just the lens and rubber mount.  
 

These need to be cleaned a little and can go straight back on the car, they are that good condition!

 

Ian

[ianashdown]

13 minutes ago, IamScotticus said:

U joint lubrication access cover? Im holding out hope there is a purpose..

Given that this car originally had a BMC A-Series engine and whatever gearbox that came with, but was converted to the 105E and Ford ‘box, I assume it was the previous shift position.  It’s not made to be quickly removable, it glued on there!  The new hole, a fair bit further forward look like it was made by a trained rat on acid!  I’ll leave that mental image with you . . . .

 

Ian

[IamScotticus]

 

Its a mystery 🤔

Edited June 8, 2023 by IamScotticus

[ianashdown]

I’ve taken a look at some pictures of the Lotus 7 ‘America’ cars that had the same engine and gearbox as my car when shipped.  The gear lever seemed to be in about the same position as the ‘patch’ on my scuttle cover.  It also seemed to be in about the right position, just a touch forward of the dash.  If my current engine/gearbox puts the gear lever in the rat-hole I’m going to need to grow my left arm about 6”!  Something is not adding up here . . .

 

I think I’ll take some measurements and see if I can make any sense from this.  I wonder if anyone has a definitive dimension foe/aft for the engine.  Rear face of the block is a common datum.

 

The mystery persists!

 

Ian

[MV8]

Early cars had a remote linkage on top of the tunnel. Later cars used a modified triumph shifter extension housing that bolts to the transmission main case. Is there a hole under the "medallion"? I guess it may be am arm rest to keep from cooking the elbow.

 

Acrylic tail lamp lenses darken with age. If you every need a new one, get two so they match.

Edited June 8, 2023 by MV8

[SENC]

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?

Edited June 8, 2023 by SENC

[SENC]

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.

 

 

[Christopher smith]

I have wondered for some time about S1 vs. S2 frame design. I think the photos last night clear that up. Thanks. I had read in a couple of places that Lotus decided that the S1 frame was more complex than necessary and started to remove tubes. Looks like the 3/4 inch round diagonals that triangulate the frame next to the S1 driver's ( and passenger's) upper and also lower leg areas were removed. Apparently Lotus thought the stressed inner skins in those areas compensated but I also heard that not everyone agreed--- something about rigidity? Perhaps they were looking at the very complex T61 "birdcage" Maserati being built at that time and decided to go the opposite direction.

[IamScotticus]

There is the old story that to reduce cost and weight, Chapman had frame tubes removed until collapse, then put the one back to hold.

Trial and error design back in those days. He would say he wanted pounds ouf of that car.

Pounds weight and pounds sterling. 

[ianashdown]

5 hours ago, MV8 said:

Early cars had a remote linkage on top of the tunnel. Later cars used a modified triumph shifter extension housing that bolts to the transmission main case. Is there a hole under the "medallion"? I guess it may be am arm rest to keep from cooking the elbow.

 

Acrylic tail lamp lenses darken with age. If you every need a new one, get two so they match.

Hi,

 

Yes, my gearbox has the Triumph shifter extension, and there is a hole under the patch.  The rat-hole that is further forward is too far forward to be for a shifter.  The forward vertical face of the scuttle is at the center of the hole.  Something is not adding up here!

 

Ian

[ianashdown]

3 hours ago, SENC said:

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.

 

 

Hi,

 

This would make sense!  This car was originally a BMC powered car.  I have a quite well engineered, if a bit on the heavy side, gearbox mount that is attached to the tunnel.  It certainly appears to be a retrofit.  Looking at the mount again in these photos, it seems like part of it might be original and only the very heavy part is the retrofit to adapt to the gearbox change.

 

I just need to mock this up to figure it out, but I think the flat cover is not going to work with this combination.  So, a round cover may have to be made.

 

Ian