ScottR400D

19 hours ago, raw said:

@Jonathan Kay If you look carefully at the picture you will note that the top hose actually rests on the chassis, thus supporting the top of the radiator; similarly at the bottom the same thing happens. Additional support does come from the silicon hose bobbins.

I should point out that my car was originally K series powered in an imperial chassis and when the K let go spectacularly in 2007, I installed a Raceco 210bhp Duratec but still running the K series style radiator albeit a deeper core. The metric chassis and radiators for the Duratec cars leave clearance between the top hose and the chassis rail, so the radiator bobbins do have to carry the weight of the radiator rather than utilising the hoses as well. My solution works for me but it may be worth trying a variation of it on a metric chassis.

Cheers

Andrew

I’m sorry Andrew, but that’s what I would call a lash up. It doesn’t really sound as if it works  given “The rad in the picture has just been swapped for another Radtec due to a leak that has steadily worsened over the past few years ”

There is no way that the ‘silicon hose bobbins’ offer any real support to the radiator other than fore and aft. I can’t imagine why you chose to do that rather than fit proper bobbins. Except that the way you’ve fitted the hoses would then  mean they were subject to more stress. 
 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Kay said:

Thanks for sharing your solution, and I'm glad that it's working.

But I thought that the objective was to reduce mechanical load on the hose stubs or any part of the radiator other than the mounting points. 

Jonathan

Definitely. The weight of the rad should be supported on the bobbins and the hoses should be so they naturally slip onto the radiator stubs without any side load. 

On the original set up which the CC hose was designed for, it fitted perfectly. Didn’t need to be that flexible.
 

12 hours ago, Geoff Brown said:

You do mean 2021 420R  as it did not exist in 2001?  When the R400 became the 420 the radiator cooling fan position was reversed so the radiator mounting configuration was changed to accommodate the implementation. IMO this change created unnecessary stress on the radiator & if one looks at the bracket arrangement it can be seen why so many failures are occurring. 

I believe that CTR Mint  found a solution by modifying the brackets to allow more radiator freedom of movement.

Not quite right Jeff. For a few years the 420 was exactly the same as the R400 before it. CC then stopped fitting the smaller rad and separate oil cooler and fitted the ‘420 race radiator and cooler’.

There seemed no other reason for doing this than to reduce stock. The new system offered no advantage whatsoever and heralded all sort of issues. 

To compound the problem, CC couldn’t be arsed to design a new top hose but just continued to supply the hose designed for the original set up, which it fitted nicely. 

Another self inflicted wound that has been left to fester. 

Nylon nuts and bolts?????! 

Can’t see why the clutch would leak only when the engine was running and the level should clearly fall if there’s a puddle. 
 

Yes, I got those exact grommets, depinned the connectors, punched a hole in the grommets, fed the cable through and refitted the connector. Worked well. 
 

I too was unhappy with leaving a huge hole to fill with crap. 

28 minutes ago, Ainsley said:

Me too, it felt wrong filing off the PC.

Never mind, I can spend an hour this weekend unbolting the engine mount, painting the filed down bit and then reblotting the engine having loosened off all the other engine bolts as it will have shifted 🙂

 

👍

For years CC recommended the remove PC and fix to engine mount. Lots of builders will have done that. I’m sure it works and no one gets serious corrosion there but it went against the grain for me to deliberately damage the PC. 

That diagram shows the earth strap going to the M8 rivnut. To be honest I thought they’d changed it after I discussed the possibility in 2015. One lead to the bell housing, one to the rivnut. Back in 2015 I had to make up a short lead to replace the long one supplied but I thought they’d supply a short one now. 

Connecting to the engine mount was the old way. 

Is that what the manual said? I thought they’d stopped recommending that destructive method. 

Perhaps he means 10psi not 10 bar. 

“The short black one is now under an engine mount and earthed to the block, so that should be good.“

You haven’t scraped off the PC and put one of the ground leads to the chassis at the engine mount have you? 
Back In 2015 I was reluctant to damage the PC that way and asked why I couldn’t connect the lead to the spare M8 rivnut to the left of the battery. CC had no good reason for not doing that so I did and it’s been fine. 

30 minutes ago, JAL73 said:

It used to have lumpy idle, kangaroo and serially fouled its plugs which was down to corrupted map and faulty TPS but this has been resolved perfectly. 

In that case I’m with 7 Wonders. 

Could be as much to do with the fuelling set up as anything else. Has it been set up since leaving the factory? 

Did you make a fixture to support the diff in the Jack? A few years ago when my Titan expired I had mine in and out several times. First time was a bit of a pain but then I made a very simple fixture and it became pretty easy. As said, note the washers coming out and centring is easy. 
Since then, 2020, I haven’t needed the diff out having fitted a a Tracsport. 
 

1 hour ago, John Vine said:

 

Thanks for that.  So, unlike the earlier text-rich AG, the later (pictorial) AG suggests using HM washers (WPH1/2 chamfered) to space the A-frame:

 

I don't know what year the OP's car is, but it looks like it has this later (correct?) arrangement.

JV

From first post: 
“ ……..this is a factory built 2022 car“

I’m not even sure ‘mass’ production would be necessary. They’re only needed on Duratec cars and they’ve got a finite time to go.

Maybe that has something to do with the slow response? Perhaps Titan aren’t happy about making the investment? 

I very much doubt that CC have the capability of producing their own. 

As Neil (7 wonders) says the Tracsport is proving very good. Nigel B now has best part of 20k miles on his and there are a lot of 7s using them with no issues being reported as far as I’m aware.

I’ve done about 6k and the preload is still what it was when new.  It’s also been silent and clunk free since the beginning and I think that’s the same for everyone. (Mine was the first installed in a BMW diff I believe, August ‘20)
In September 21 Steve Perks told me he had more than 100 Tracsports on the road, there must be many more by now.  
I’m sure the Drexler is fine but for twice the cost of a Tracsport? Why would you? 

A relic from a past life!! 

A dynamic shift plane balance compared to a static is far more than just a weight position difference and as it’s no more difficult to achieve why wouldn’t you?

The old Calloways? Given to me by a mate, they’d be more use to me as levers than for golf!! I think there may be a fault with them, they rarely hit the ball properly…….

To be honest James that’s too far to the front to be a centre balance, and centre balancing (or single plane/static) isn’t really ideal. 

Shift plane balancing with 1 weight as you show and the other 45mm in from the inside edge is much better. This is my kit which does make it easy! 😉
 

As it happens I was in the garage just now. 
 

60 shore is the answer. 
 

Thanks James.