free hit
counters
GTK's Content - The Lotus Forums - Lotus Community Partner #ForTheOwners Jump to content


GTK

Full Forum Member (FFM)
  • Posts

    1,123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by GTK

  1. 44 minutes ago, yeller77 said:

    This thread may be getting too much :sick:

    Never!

    I found a couple more images of one of those factory green S2's. If anyone has an Autogespot.com membership it'd be great to see the other 5 images of the car below.

    17 hours ago, snowrx said:

    How green do you want to be? 

    Green S3 b.jpg

     

    I love green, but '70's bathroom green' wouldn't be my first choice of interior colours :D

    Martini Green Esprit1.png

    Martini Green Esprit2.png

    • Like 2
  2. So the three possible greens of the early cars could be Martini [can't find a code ref], Mint L29 and Viper A05. The two colour codes come from the Esprit Registry thread here. I'm dubious about Martini even being a Lotus colour, and maybe there were only two possible greens between 1976 and 1980.

    Viper seems to be Matt Watt's car colour [the farmyard car], which I would have expected to be Altair Green, but Matt's car does seem to be a slightly paler colour.

    Martini Green is claimed to be the colour of KAH 530V below. The thing is, the registry above doesn't list Martini Green at all, unless I'm missing it.

    Which leaves Mint Green as the possible colour of the magazine car, VYW 229S, if that is a factory paint job. The article that the photo is from was the February 1996 issue of Practical Classics, but the car hasn't been taxed since then and it's last V5 was issued in March that year. I wonder does it still exist? It was first reg'd in May 1978 so it's a late number S1. This Europa page has a colour code list that shows the Elan below in L29 Mint Green. It doesn't look at all similar in colour.

    366G is listed here [but not pictured] as Mint Green and 'released' 240478. That could tally with the UK Gov data on VYW229S having been first registered in May 78. The page also lists one domestic S2, chassis 403G, and three export S2 cars 615H, 616H and 700H as being Mint Green.  

    Interestingly 329G is listed simply as being metallic Green, that's Matt Watt's car. No other S1 or S2 cars are listed as having been painted any colour green at all.

    It's possible we already have photos here of the only two green S1 cars that were produced, but I'm not sure because the magazine car is so different to everything else. I think it follows that the 'Martini' green KAH 530V below is actually Mint green. As there was [reportedly] only one domestic green S2, KAH 530V is likely 403G, possibly now in Australia.

    The project car pictured below came up for sale a few years back. It looks close in colour to KAH 530V [given the KAH photos have long shadows and so unrealistic golden hour warm hue] and to the Elan. It's also LHD and wears a Federal style rear number plate plinth. Could it be one of the three Mint Green export cars?

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    Martini Green 2s.jpg

    Martini Greens.jpg

    Elan Mint Green L29s.jpg

    Potential H Mint Green 1.jpg

    Potential H Mint Green 2.jpg

    Potential H Mint Green 3.jpg

  3. Nice to see this thread back, it's such an interesting read. I'm not a fan of electric parking brakes either, but realise that might just be old grump setting in. For me adding modern tech defeats the purpose of a classic. Maybe I'll recant later, but in the first instance I'd like to experience the Esprit as it was. 

    I'm sorely tempted by the VW brakes, for the weight saving. That aspect makes the electric parking brake potential really interesting too. Not sure what extra components are needed, but the Esprit's twin parking brake cables are heavy, as is the lever. Plus not having to do the extra work to reinforce the body around where the lever mounts... 🤷🏻‍♂️

    @910Esprit Steve, sorry for never acknowledging your request for brake dimensions. I either missed that or got sidetracked by my project. I'll be blasting all of my suspension/braking components in the coming weeks so if you [or anyone] still wants any measurements let me know. 

  4. On a flat directly to the right of the fuel pump take off, although I'd guess your mechanical fuel pump take off may be blanked. Look about 8" directly below the foremost spark plug, on the block. 

    I've since been reading 'Coventry Climax Racing Engines: The Definitive Development History', by Des Hammill. It's interesting if halcyon day racing engine development swings your pants. It does detail the changes made to the FWP engine when it was developed for automotive use. The pump was the engine that sparked the interests of Chapman, Kieft et al, and it is the same base unit and a brilliant little engine, but there are a number of things that separate it from the FWA and FWE.

    There were a lot of simple changes made, displacement, porting, combustion chamber development, billet crank, higher compression, more bearings, distributor spark... nothing that couldn't be replicated, but the modern day problem is the availability and subsequent cost of the developed parts. A hand full of specialists hold all the cards. Making a pump engine sing is a project for the love of the project, rather than in the hope of saving money. But man, have you heard one go? :w00t:

  5. Saw that engine too just today, it's still for sale. There are a few for sale in fire pump frames with pumps in tact. If you scratch around online it seems it's not uncommon to find these FWP engines modified to close to FWA spec, if not past, for use in replicas and racers. 

    The following text is found in a few places online;

    "In 1953 it (the FW) was adapted for automotive racing as the 1098 cc FWA retaining the cast crank, three main bearing construction of the FW but with a distributor ignition in place of a magneto, a different camshaft, and a higher, 9.8:1 compression ratio. With a bore of 2.85 inches and a stroke of 2.625 inches, it produced 71 hp (53 kW) and was first used at Le Mans in 1954 by Kieft Cars. After the FWA was introduced, the FW engine was renamed to FWP (Pump)."

    __

    So it doesn't seem like you'd have to do anything more to an FWP, to get it to early FWA spec, than you would to say a BMC A-Series engine that you wanted to build for power. Considering a CC FW in fast road or race spec from a specialist is nearly £6k (and I'd be surprised if they weren't starting with a FWP donor given that there were less than 700* FWA engines produced), the prospect of £400-£600 for a base engine isn't to be sniffed at. I saw a post on a forum from the '00's that said a bulk number of pump engines turned up at Beaulieu back then, and were going for £100 each.

    *figure is from CC development engineer Walter Hassan's book. 

     

  6. On 06/05/2021 at 21:02, stephenwhyte said:

    I know I’m sticking my neck out here......  but this is all wrong in my eyes😰

    You're not alone, but we're a very very small club it seems. You're Chairman 🤣

    I think it looks like a purposeful racing car that's been prepared for a press shoot. Could see the appeal in that context but not in the 'ultimate craftsmanship, luxury and driving pleasure' context it's being marketed in.

    • Like 1
  7.  

    It's great that you had that to hand!

    I realised later what you meant, and I've had a chance to measure the aftermarket dampers that came with mine since. Couple of observances too, first that the hole centre on the bottom of the damper is offset on the vertical plane, so the measurement from one side will be slightly different to the other side. Also that my dampers were attached via the upper of the lower arm bolt holes, so definitely not the ideal in terms of the lower arm total travel.

    I'll add a few pics I took. My Gabriel dampers [which someone suggested were common after market back in the '80's/early '90's, were definitely too long. They measure 355mm or 360mm [depending on which side you measure from] and give or take a mm, using the same reference points as you used, at full extension.

    I extend one of them to 343mm and marked the lower body of the unit so that I could then mount it to the chassis [in the lower mounting holes] and accurately extend it to that length. Then checked where the lower arm was in relation to the bottom plate of the chassis shock tower.

    It was *just* touching the bottom plate. I've had to straighten my bottom plates and it's possible that they could be sitting slightly high. If they are, it's not by much, I'd be suspicious about whether the bottom arm would still hit under a heavy bottom out situation that deflected the damper bushes. Anyway all's well that ends well for now. Good to know to be exacting about damper length.

    I have a set of low miles Pro Tech adjustable dampers on the back burner, that I'll measure for ref, when I am able.

     

    IMG_5622.jpg

    IMG_5628.jpg

    IMG_5629.jpg

  8. Hey Steve, hope all's well.

    I didn't even think about the knock on from which mounting hole I used, even though I noticed the two different holes before I put the damper in. I'll check it this morning with the damper in the lower pair of holes. The other damper has never come out of the arm because it's seized in so it'll be interesting to see which pair of holes it's mounted in.

    I'm not with you in terms of where you're measuring the damper, the hole centre of the bottom mount, sure, but at the top? Are you measuring to the tip of the ram at full extension? Basically I don't know what the isolator perch is?

     

  9. I know I'm pulling this chat out of the vault but I'm glad to find it because I've just noticed that my front arms have been bottoming out on the chassis and making a mess of it. I've straightened the chassis plates and the whole bottom panel is removed in the photos below, but both were fairly badly damaged before I worked on them.

    I read that @C43 has made modifications, and was just wondering what kind? Has anyone else made modifications they'd be wiling to show? As the photos below show, the shock absorbers do not act as bump stops. The dampers on my car are aftermarket but when the bottom arms hit the chassis there's still another 25mm / 1" of travel in the damper. [the pin line on the damper body I'm measuring from is the extent of travel in the unit at the point of bottom arm contacting chassis.

    I don't think bending the panels away from the bottom arm would be good for the structural integrity, nor would it create enough free space for full travel. I'm leaning toward a horse show shaped reinforcement in that area, to allow the bottom arm to pass through, this could also be engineered to serve as a jacking point, but I'm torn by originality. 

    That said, the types of road these cars excel on are the types of roads that have fast crests. I don't want to have to back off :D

    IMG_5602-2.jpg

    IMG_5603-2.jpg

    IMG_5604-2.jpg

    IMG_5605-2.jpg

    IMG_5606-2.jpg

    IMG_5607-2.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...