kart

As above, you don't need to drill out inner panels unless you're going for perfection. In fact if you're going down the Rawlnut route as per the below, then they need a bigger (10mm?) hole anyway and are more tolerant of wonkiness.

I'm still looking...

Cheers I hadn't spotted that

Set of four required, provided they're straight and air-tight not so worried about the cosmetics. Anyone got any hanging around having downsized?

I don't suppose these wheels are still for sale?

I seem to remember Caterham quoting 138bhp for the original 1.6SS then downgrading it to 133bhp when the catalyst was fitted.

Cheers for the background, seems like a missed opportunity on the part of CC.

Cheers, I haven't come across Workshop Notices before, seems they're not too easy to come by...?

Many thanks, that's the conclusion I'd come to, but good to have it confirmed. Nice blog by the way, and Merry Christmas to you all

Thanks I've read that but it doesn't say anything about the role of the mysterious top-hat spacer?.....

Thanks for getting back to me, the thing is I also have two of these https://caterhamparts.co.uk/vertical-links/448-front-upright-spacer-wide-track.html which I've used for the function you describe

Having received the wide-track conversion kit from Caterham, with the standard instructions (namely none), one side has gone together quite smoothly. However I have a quandary my kit contains two of these tophat spacers https://caterhamparts.co.uk/fixings/7164-tophat-wishbone.html but they don't seem to be mentioned in any of the assembly guides I can find. Conversely the assembly guide mentions a "special turned down nyloc nut", for holding the bottom of the front upright, which I don't seem to have in my kit, and can't find on the Caterham parts site. I feel the two things might be related but does anyone have any insight? Thanks in advance. Alec

Yeah I believe the Mitchell Cotts version of the MT75 (MTC75?) is a bespoke casing, that has no bell-housing and has the same mounting points as the T9.

Don't know much about that box, I'll do some digging....

Pretty sure that box only has two gears, one forwards one reverse - though not sure what unit it's based on. Also helps that he definitely knows his onions ;-)

Cheers I feared that might be the case.

Cheers that's not a bad shout.

I've started to try some autotests in my seven and find selecting reverse on the Type 9 five speed gearbox to be difficult at the best of times, let alone when under pressure. I think it's a combination of first and reverse being essentially collocated, and the fact that there's no synchromesh on reverse. As such I was pondering ways of improving it whilst still retaining the full complement of forward ratios. One idea I've come up with is replacing it with a Mitchell and Cotts MT75 based box, which I believe would bolt directly to the T9 bell-housing, the advantage being it has reverse on the opposite side of the gate and it has synchromesh on it too! However it's unclear whether it would be a straight swap, would it fit in the transmission tunnel, would the gear-lever need repositioning? Furthermore they seem to be pretty rare too and, before anyone mentions it, I appreciate the ratios are probably even worse than the T9 ones. Is the Mazda box any better in terms of reverse, what mods would be needed to make it fit? Car has an S3 imperial chassis and a K-series engine. All advice gratefully received.

Thanks for the feedback Jim, sounds like we're thinking along similar lines, just didn't really know what it should look like. Afraid I'm not sure what's been done, which is part of the problem; it's been down to Arch, so I have to a assume a proper job's been done. Just a bit vexing as it wasn't what I was expecting.

Evening, just wondering if anyone has experience of having a long-front chassis section fitted to their car, whilst retaining one of the side-skins. Obviously the aluminium panel gets distressed when it's peeled back and refitted, just wondering if this level of distortion is normal - see photos at this link: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wYXkTpvdcjLg79um2 Cheers.

Probably not quite what you're after but this is how mine used to look (albeit with the adapter cable from Elise Parts, so it requires some contorting to fit in a Seven): http://goo.gl/photos/1rPXBZh73qBKvW2r8

Be careful, I'm pretty sure a purely hydraulic parking brake isn't MOT compatible. To quote from the MOT manual: The actual document can be found here http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s03000101.htm Good luck.

Had the same problem myself with the immobiliser activating upon cranking. Spoke to Brise and they said they've seen this issue a couple of times now but they don't have an explanation. Anyway they exchanged the problematc (Hitachi?) unit for a Nippon-Denso based one (which I believe used to be supplied by Caterham as their "race starter") and all is well with the world. For the record my car is a 2006 S3 Roadsport running a 1.6K, I wonder if it's something to do with EU3 cars?

Just had a recurrence of this issue myself so contacted Think for a replacement seal. After a rambling description of the part I managed to convey what I was after and lo and behold the next day one arrived, and the charge sir, there is none - now that's what I call service From what I can tell the Product Code is 569A for future reference.