Catgraham

Looks like you have this sorted, but for info I dug out the following a while back: The connectors are AMP / TE Connectivity MULTILOCK .040 Series (first series, not II or III), Speedo and early tacho - 8-pin part no. 174044-2 RS 362-8768 (£0.94 ea) Later tacho - 20-pin part no. 174047-2 RS 362-8796 (£1.03 ea) Contacts for above - 20-22 AWG part no. 173681-1 RS 712-1889 (£5.10 for 50) Other contacts also availabe to fit this seres. Cheers, Graham.

Thanks Ed - much appreciated... I'd like to take this please, if I may. MM7 - I will message you to sort out the details. Cheers, Graham.

I'll claim next in the queue for this please, if Ed doesn't take it... Many thanks, Graham.

I'd also be interested in a pair of these, please, if you have any left. Many thanks, Graham.

As Jonathan says, AMP Multilock 040 series, part no. 174044-2; RS 362-8768, £1.60ea. You will probably also require contacts, AMP part no. 173681-1 (20 AWG); RS 712-1889, £6.10 for 50. Cheers, Graham.

Still looking! With much appreciated assistance from Wrightpayne, I have now determined that a K-Series top does not fit a Vauxhall belltank! So still looking for a Vauxhall top cover / filler neck.... Graham.

Hi All, Bit of a long shot, but does anybody have a lid / top cover plate / filler neck for a Vauxhall dry sump bellhousing oil tank, that is surplus to requirements? I suspect the K-series one might also fit, as they look to be very similar? Would consider complete (Vauxhall) bellhousing assembly. Cheers, Graham.

Gordon - sorry I wasn't quicker with my post. I only get on the pc sporadically at the moment and had only just read your thread! Anyway, glad you got it sorted. I don't "do spares" as such, just have shelves full of parts from my Vauxhall-engined cars! Good to come across another Sevener in the same part of the world...! Graham.

833VME - Where in Cumbria are you? If you're anywhere near the Whitehaven area I have a couple of the A127 types on the shelf that you're welcome to try. May even be persuaded to part with one.... Graham.

As Jonathan says, standard seat belt bolts are 7/16" UNF, which is 20tpi... Graham.

Thanks for your replies. I hadn't considered that it might be just the increased length that they were after. Of the two I have, the underslung A-frame is 2" longer, at 17" vs. 15", so around 13%, which is not insignificant. Interestingly, as an aside, the longer A-frame is also quite a bit lighter, at less than 1.6kg, whereas the short one is nearly 2kg! I had assumed that the underslung mod was something to do with altering the squat characteristics, which I'm sure it will (just not sure how!), but maybe that wasn't the original intention. I had heard that originally the underslung mounts were further back, so the A-frame length increase would be less, although there doesn't seem to be a specific A-frame available to support this. I had also heard that prior to that there was a bolt-on bracket available, but that it was to convert the standard pivots to underslung, and was used by racers. I agree that it compromises the installation of the lowered floors. Arch box-out the floor to clear the A-frame bush and bolt, leaving a rectangular projection in the outside rear corner of the floor, which may interfere with the seat runner and the old seat mount (crutch strap mount) bracket. The flat floors are also slightly compromised, in that the corner of the floor panel is cut away, therefore the panel is not riveted and sealed to the steel right into the corner. Also, the seat support channel under the floor is cut down to half its width to clear the A-frame bush, losing one of its flanges and one of the two steel rivets holding it to the chassis tube. Regarding race chassis, I was looking on the CC parts website and they list the short "standard" A-frame as "used 1991 to 1996, 2000 Race & updated 2001.5 onwards", so I assumed some race chassis were built without the underslung mounts, but evidently not all. I guess something changed in 2000...? Graham.

Does anybody know what the claimed benefits (if any) were for the underslung A-Frame mounts, introduced, I believe, along with the revised (anti-dive) front wishbone geometry, at the mid-1996 major chassis update, and deleted again at the 2001.5 update? I'm not sure whether all (road) chassis manufactured between these dates were fitted with the underslung mounts, as I haven't seen all that many. I don't think race chassis had them. I would be interested to hear if anyone has first-hand experience of these vs. the "standard" mounts and noticed any significant difference. I suspect that the perceived benefits did not outweigh the disadvantages, as they didn't last for long.... Graham.

Ah, yes, sorry - had to brighten it up a bit to see what was going on.... It does show the high effort pedal as being a good bit longer, probably 8 - 10mm. My pedal is much like the standard one in the last photo, but when compared to the first photo does appear to be a bit longer in the top part. Hard to say, really, and there is a lot of years between them... Still don't like the pushrod alignment on mine though! Graham

Thanks Jonathan. 58.4mm sounds near enough to mine, so I'll assume it's standard. Still too high for the master cylinder though!! Would be handy to know how much longer the high effort pedals are.... Graham

Does anyone know off hand what the lever arm lengths of the high effort pedals are? The pedal on my 2001 chassis looks standard, and I suspect it probably is (it's definitely not the chunky high effort pedal 77198A referenced above), but it doesn't line up well with the master cylinder. The distance from the pedal pivot axis to the master cylinder axis is 2", whereas the lever arm on the pedal, from pivot to clevis pin is 2 3/8". The clutch pedal is 2", but is a cable pedal. Both pedals are 7 1/2" from pivot to pad. The original owner overcame the alignment issue using a cut-price version of the CC wedge shim - leant on the master cylinder to bend the pedal box until the pushrod lined up with the hole in the pedal!! Graham.

Andrew - many thanks. PM sent. Colin - thanks for posting the pics - looks like a very nice refurbishment under way. Your manifold is identical to the other one I have (not the one on the car). I thought it had been re-machined to raise the carbs, but yours appears to be the same - the carb flanges are thinner at the top than the bottom. Must be meant to be like that... Having said that, I did some measuring earlier with a clinometer app on my phone (!). The manifold on the car raises the carbs by 2.5 degrees above horizontal (relative to a vertical engine) and the engine is leaning 1 degree towards the exhaust, so the carbs are 3.5 degrees above horizontal. The other manifold (like the one above) raises the carbs 4.5 degrees above horizontal, so 2 degrees more than the one fitted. So they're not "7 degree" manifolds, but neither are they horizontal. Strange... The vibratech mounts look interesting.. Cheers, Graham.

Hi, thanks again all for your posts... The offending chassis tube that interferes with the exhaust headers is the diagonal in the side of the engine bay. I was thinking that I would have to open up the hole in the body side to allow the exhaust to sit higher, but when I took a closer look I realised that there's a tube right behind the hole anyway. As it sits currently there's 6 or 7mm clearance. It might allow me to get 10mm under the mounts, but haven't tried yet. The diagonal across the top of the engine bay is fixed, but has reasonable clearance. I am coming to the conclusion that the engine is sitting in more or less the right position and there's not much I can do to improve it, so the "problem" must lie with the inlet manifold arrangement. From Andrew's pictures and information above, it does look like the Caterham manifold lifts the carbs higher and possibly levels them front to back as well. I don't think it's a 7 degree manifold, although I will now go and check! I did consider these and thought I might be able to raise the carbs using one, but was unsure which way the 7 degrees went! But I think the engine in the Vauxhall leans towards the exhaust, so the 7 degrees would lower the carbs, as you suggest. I do have another manifold which appears to have had the carb flanges machined back at an angle, to raise the carbs, so I will give that a go. I might also try an ad on here to see if I can find a Caterham one, but I suspect it's a long shot. Other than that I think I will have to ditch the K&Ns and fit a modified Ramair, and hopefully that will get me away... Graham.

Paul - vertical lever mod sounds interesting. By vertical do you mean as in the conventional style, or lever vertical so that you pull back on it? If it's the latter did you pick up off the chassis at the base of the tunnel? Not much substance in the tunnel otherwise... Graham (PM sent regarding under-dash lever)

I need all the parts and have been waiting for levers to come in stock for ages. Redline did have the other bits a while back, but no levers. Out of curiosity I have been trying to find out what these levers originally came off - I'm sure Mr Chapman would have acquired them from a production vehicle back in the fifties, but will no doubt just be made for Caterham now. I don't believe it's Triumph or Mini. Fork-lift I haven't looked at, but wouldn't surprise me - I've also heard taxi and milk float! This set-up is also used in the Lotus 11, but that's probably not much help! Yes, the circlip listed does go in the groove on the barrel, but it's only to hold a cover over the assembly. This probably makes the barrel a "special" - maybe the original was shorter and without the groove? But if you don't have the cover you won't heed the extended barrel or the circlip. Btw I think the circlip is from a Ford pedal box shaft, but could be wrong... Graham.

Hi hobbsy, You've probably twigged this from the Tony Weale diagram above... The handbrake lever works "backwards" to what you would normally expect. The inner cable is fixed at the bracket welded to the chassis (extreme left of photo) and the cable outer is "pushed" by the lever. It does this via the "barrel" which pivots through the large hole in the lever, and has a slot to pass the inner cable through and a counterbore to act as abutment to the outer. The barrel can be seen behind the main pivot bolt (hex head) with circlip groove around lower end (the groove is to hold a cover over the assembly). The nyloc between the main pivot bolt and the inner cable bracket is securing the ratchet quadrant. This and the main pivot bolt are the two fixings to the chassis. I'm in the process of doing this myself - to return a racer to the road - but can't find a lever. If anyone has one gathering dust on a shelf I would be very interested..! Hope this helps. Graham.

Hi All, elie - it was my intention to lift the engine as high as possible under the nose. I was going to fabricate a thin stainless guard close to the belt to prevent contact between the belt and the nose. However, I can only lift the engine a few mm before the exhaust contacts the diagonal tube in the side of the chassis (standard Caterham race exhaust). Plenty of room under the top diagonal and the engine is already leaning towards the exhaust. Andrew - your carbs certainly look higher than mine, as the filters are over the chassis side! I assume the engine's on standard mounts and the filters are not modified? When viewed from the side are the filters parallel to the chassis tube and does the engine have the usual nose-down attitude? Tazio - no spacers on mine as it has the dry sump pump sandwiched between the RH mount and the block. The spacers take the place of the pump, I believe, when wet sumped. Although the manual does say there should be washers between the pump and the block, which mine has not got, but my pump has steel bushes fitted, which sit proud of the casting, holding the pump slightly away from the bosses on the block. Don't know if this is standard? Barry - I have been looking at a Ramair filter as an option, as they do a small one specifically to fit the hole in the Vauxhall bonnet, and it's available with a blank backplate. Is your Omex set-up on the original 45s manifold and is it a Caterham one? Regarding the oil cooling - I believe from various sources that these motors are prone to running their oil hot, and I guess the guy who raced it didn't want to take any chances! There's a cooler and filter on the pump feed into the engine and another of each on the scavenge line back to the tank. As far as I know it only did sprint races, but not sure which series. The engine's a 2.3 and it was running 8" and 9" slicks! Thanks again for all your input... Cheers, Graham.

Hi Paul, Andrew, Thanks for your contributions. The trumpets on your car, Paul, do seem to be a bit higher over the chassis than on mine. Maybe because the TBs are sloping up a bit? I had a closer look at the installation today and it turns out the engine is already leaning over slightly towards the exhaust. The engine mounts appear correct and there are no spacers underneath, so I guess the engine is sitting where it's supposed to be? I'll post some pics below - please let me know if anything looks incorrect. Caterham don't appear to list the RH mount so don't know what this should look like, but the LH one looks correct. When I get a bit more time I will see how much I can get under the mounts before the exhaust hits the chassis side diagonal. The car is a '96 Vauxhall Challenge car originally supplied with all the usual race bits plus big brakes, full cage and honeycomb floor. It was registered in early '98 but I don't think it's been on the road since '99. Following a shunt it was rebuilt in 2004 into a brand new '94 spec Vauxhall Race CBU and hasn't done much since - in fact not turned a wheel in the last 10 years. It does have the Caterham dry sump set-up - with an extension on top of the belltank to increase oil capacity, two large oil coolers, two oil filters, two oil temperature gauges and a rear fog lamp on top of the dash as an oil pressure warning light!! Engine mounts above, looking from the front. Let me know if anything looks wrong.... Thanks again for your interest and info. I would be interested to see what the installation in your car looks like, Andrew, if you get the chance. Can never have too much info..! Cheers, Graham.

Hi Paul, Thanks for posting the photos. One of the options I am considering is modifying the filter backplate, as you have done, to get some alignment. Probably not practical with the K&Ns, but Ramair do a foam filter which fits the hole in the bonnet (the only ones who do, I think) and they can be had with a blank backplate. I'm trying to avoid cutting the hole in the bonnet, if I can. It may just be the photos, but your Caterham manifold seems to be steeper raked than mine? I also had a closer look at the other manifold I have and it appears that the carb flanges have been machined back at an angle, to point the carbs up a bit, so that might help. I had heard that the Caterham manifold was a bit restrictive, but 245bhp would probably indicate that you have that solved now! Is it a 2 litre? Cheers, Graham.

Hi, thanks for your responses... Paul, sounds like you've answered my question re the Caterham manifold - so the puzzle still remains! Are your Jenveys on the original Caterham manifold or a different one, or direct to head? If they're on a manifold then the set-up should be the same, as they are the same size as 45s carbs, I think. I have a set of direct to head TBs and the port face is square to the TBs, so they take up the angle of the port face on the head - i.e. they slope up at about 30 degrees, requiring a cut-out much higher in the bonnet. I had thought of re-cutting the filter backplates to offset them, but there is not much room inside to clear the ram pipes. Leaning the engine over might help to raise the front, whilst keeping the exhaust clear of the chassis, but doesn't seem very elegant somehow! Re-cutting the hole in the bonnet unfortunately doesn't work, as the filters are too low - below the chassis rail at the front! I will try to attach some pics.... The front ram pipe needs to lift about 25mm and the rear about 12mm to centralise the filters in the slot... Thanks again, Graham.

Hi, I am in the process of putting a Vauxhall 16V race car back on the road and would like to fit the original K&N air filters, but I'm struggling to get the filters to exit the slot in the bonnet. It's running Weber 48s on an SBD manifold, which leaves the carbs sloping down towards the front (as per the engine) and the front carb barely clearing the bottom of the bonnet slot. I have another unbranded manifold, but it's pretty much identical to the SBD one. I had intended to lift the front of the engine about 20mm, as there's no belt guard fitted, but it turns out the limit is the exhaust hitting the engine bay side diagonal tube, which will only allow the engine to be lifted a couple of mm. (It has the Caterham race headers fitted). The build manual states that filter alignment can be achieved by spacing the engine mounts a maximum of +/- 1/8", but also stresses the importance of using the Caterham inlet manifold. Am I correct therefore in assuming that the Caterham manifold has a steeper rake than the SBD one and is "twisted" to lift the front of the carbs back to horizontal with the engine in its usual nose-down attitude? Many thanks, Graham.