ianashdown Posted June 8, 2023 Author Share Posted June 8, 2023 22 minutes ago, IamScotticus said: 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. Hi, I had read this same story. Looking at the chassis it clearly seems to be missing what might seem to be ‘obvious’ tubes. The one at the bottom of the seat back is arguably the most obvious, but there are several panels that lack triangulation. I will be looking carefully at adding some tubes to the chassis in an attempt to gain back some stiffness. What I don’t want to do is loose the ‘essence of 7’ that I’m sure is partially because of the flexi-flyer nature of the car. I will also keep a careful eye on the additional weight I’ll be adding back. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 Perhaps they were trying to run a retrofit remote above that flat cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 Here is my mount (no pictures after cleanup, sorry), if it my help you. It looks like yours was modified to mount a different gearbox up and forward - may account for the rat-hole. If that is the case, I'd guess your propshaft would be longer, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher smith Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 I think I may have one of those trans mount assemblies unless I already gave it away. I got it from Caterham mid 1980s but had to opt for a Pinto box as my Cortina boxes were beyond repair. By the way, we fabricated a driveshaft retention loop just a bit aft of the tail shaft area in case something lets go. Obviously I am overly cautious and not all that critical on a little extra weight (My roll cage adds 80 pounds as it goes all the way to the floor tubes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 Yes, that looks to be exactly what I have but, as you say, with an adaptor for the Ford ‘box. It’s ugly, and heavy, but I might just use it, but I will see if I can take som poundage out of it! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 Ian - looking again at the picture of your gearbox, it looks like it may be a Ford Anglia 997 gearbox (105e) rather than the 113e/2321e gearboxes Ford used in the Cortinas, Corsairs and Lotus in Sevens and Elans. It may be that Lotus used this with early 105E engines, but I'm not sure. It may be worth checking the gear ratios to see if they are what you want. If the 105e box is shorter than the 113/2821 box (I'm not familiar with the former), that might also explain the custom mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 1 hour ago, SENC said: Ian - looking again at the picture of your gearbox, it looks like it may be a Ford Anglia 997 gearbox (105e) rather than the 113e/2321e gearboxes Ford used in the Cortinas, Corsairs and Lotus in Sevens and Elans. It may be that Lotus used this with early 105E engines, but I'm not sure. It may be worth checking the gear ratios to see if they are what you want. If the 105e box is shorter than the 113/2821 box (I'm not familiar with the former), that might also explain the custom mount. This car was shipped with an A Series BMC engine and ‘box, the 105E engine and ‘box were fitted, I’m told, in ‘64or ‘65. So we know it a user aftermarket mod. I will check the ratios one day soon. I’ve read the the 105E engined cars used a gearbox that used a modified Standard Triumph shift extension. Mine has this. Whether it is the correct Ford ‘box I’m really not certain at this point. However, it is the ‘box that was used and therefore will be the ‘box I use. It’ll be the best version of the car that existed in the ‘65 to ‘68 time frame. Hopefully . . . Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 Going through another box, this afternoon, of mostly MGTD parts that I hope I can find a home for, I found a tag, not sure exactly what for, but is little things like this that add to the provenance. APO SF 96323 is a Military address apparently. Both the owner I bought the car from and the guy he bought if from were Military or ex-military. And the date 23 JUN 1968 just adds credence to the story of this car. Cool stuff! Ian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 (edited) In the box unpacked this afternoon we’re two steering wheels, neither of them Lotus, but could be candidates for my long considered wall of wheels! There were also these two panels. I think they are MG, but they have a similarity to the inner cockpit side panel. If anyone disagrees, please let me know. Ian Edited June 9, 2023 by ianashdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 25 minutes ago, ianashdown said: This car was shipped with an A Series BMC engine and ‘box, the 105E engine and ‘box were fitted, I’m told, in ‘64or ‘65. So we know it a user aftermarket mod. I will check the ratios one day soon. I’ve read the the 105E engined cars used a gearbox that used a modified Standard Triumph shift extension. Mine has this. Whether it is the correct Ford ‘box I’m really not certain at this point. However, it is the ‘box that was used and therefore will be the ‘box I use. It’ll be the best version of the car that existed in the ‘65 to ‘68 time frame. Hopefully . . . Ian Your gearbox's difference from my Ford box piqued my interest enough to keep digging a little - I had not remembered that Lotus offered the 997cc 105e engine and gearbox, I thought for Ford engines it was just 109e and up (which used later gearboxes). At any rate, the Lotus7registry site even comments about an adaptor plate for the 105e gearbox... Available between January 1961 and early 1968 - 997cc. FORD 105E overhead valve engine with twin side-draughtH2 SU carburettors on Lotus manifold developing 39bhp at 5,000rpm. Compression ratio 8.9:1. Matching 4-speed gearbox using Triumph Herald remote and gearknob with special adaptor plate on most cars but a few 116E gearboxes with Ford GT remote and gearknob at the end of production. Standard ratios 4.118:1, 2.396:1, 1.412:1, 1:1. Reverse 5.404:1. Close ratios (Hobbs?) 2.917:1, 1.696:1, 1.280:1, 1:1. Reverse 3.83:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 26 minutes ago, SENC said: Your gearbox's difference from my Ford box piqued my interest enough to keep digging a little - I had not remembered that Lotus offered the 997cc 105e engine and gearbox, I thought for Ford engines it was just 109e and up (which used later gearboxes). At any rate, the Lotus7registry site even comments about an adaptor plate for the 105e gearbox... Available between January 1961 and early 1968 - 997cc. FORD 105E overhead valve engine with twin side-draughtH2 SU carburettors on Lotus manifold developing 39bhp at 5,000rpm. Compression ratio 8.9:1. Matching 4-speed gearbox using Triumph Herald remote and gearknob with special adaptor plate on most cars but a few 116E gearboxes with Ford GT remote and gearknob at the end of production. Standard ratios 4.118:1, 2.396:1, 1.412:1, 1:1. Reverse 5.404:1. Close ratios (Hobbs?) 2.917:1, 1.696:1, 1.280:1, 1:1. Reverse 3.83:1. This is that adaptor! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 This should look good! I hope I fits . . . Should it painted? Ian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11Budlite Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 5 hours ago, ianashdown said: This should look good! I hope I fits . . . Should it painted? Ian That's a nice find Ian! I don't think they were painted from the factory, but I've seen several painted black (wrinkle finish?) with the ribs/name natural aluminum. Check out this photo: http://www.lotus7register.co.uk/images/l7s2pix/s2coseng.jpg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 9 hours ago, ianashdown said: This is that adaptor! Ian AHA! Makes sense. Seeing your following post of a Cosworth cam cover, though, if you're upgrading to that level you probably want to upgrade to the gearbox that goes with it. Should be the same tailshaft extension and bellhousing, just a different box and innards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MV8 Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 (edited) Probably just bead blast, charcoal grey around the cosworth lettering, then a light coat of heat resistant clear. I assume you don't want to mess around with chromic acid coatings. Superior wood wheel is universal. A hub kit determines what it will fit. Edited June 9, 2023 by MV8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 2 hours ago, SENC said: AHA! Makes sense. Seeing your following post of a Cosworth cam cover, though, if you're upgrading to that level you probably want to upgrade to the gearbox that goes with it. Should be the same tailshaft extension and bellhousing, just a different box and innards. That might be a nice idea! At the moment the plan will be to just get what I have running nicely and reliably etc. The engine has already been tuned, to some level, the Cosworth cover is really just for decoration. If I do upgrade the engine it will probably be to the 120E that was part of this deal in a mild-ish state of tune. Ian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, MV8 said: Probably just bead blast, charcoal grey around the cosworth lettering, then a light coat of heat resistant clear. I assume you don't want to mess around with chromic acid coatings. Superior wood wheel is universal. A hub kit determines what it will fit. I’m not one for over dressing my cars. Less is more. So I’ll probably just keep it natural. Neither of these steering wheels will be used. I have a collection of steering wheels from several previous race cars, an E-Type, MG A etc etc and had a plan to make some kind of Art piece with all of them. I guess these may be added to the collection. Unless anyone can use one. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesG Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 On 6/8/2023 at 5:17 AM, SENC said: 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? My ‘94 has a flat tunnel cover with the T9 transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SENC Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 27 minutes ago, CharlesG said: My ‘94 has a flat tunnel cover with the T9 transmission. 5-speed? Interesting, haven't seen one of those fitted but valuable for higher speed tracks or highway cruising I'd bet. If I'm not mistaken, that T9 doesn't have a remote for the gearbox, rather it is built into a modified tailstock. I'm thinking the remote is what caused the need for the rounded tunnel cover - or in Ian's case with the 105e box and adapter/raised remote perhaps a rounded cover still wasn't tall enough so the remote would be over the flat cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianashdown Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 16 minutes ago, SENC said: I'm thinking the remote is what caused the need for the rounded tunnel cover - or in Ian's case with the 105e box and adapter/raised remote perhaps a rounded cover still wasn't tall enough so the remote would be over the flat cover? I’m thinking my car may have run without any cover at all. This seems to have been a track car of some kind and that would have been OK I assume. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now