Slater
|
| posted on 26/2/14 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
original 1971 Lotus 7
Guys
I'm interested in this, might go a look soon, any comments advice on how I can check it's genuine?? or what else to check. The guy
bought it in bits 4 years ago and built it. Crossflow engine with imperial threads. Price is 3,800 UK pounds at current x-rate. Seems OK, yes???
Linker to ad
[Edited on 26-2-14 by Slater]
Why do they call Port Harcourt "The Garden City"?...... Becauase they can't spell Stramash.
|
|
|
|
|
cs3tcr
|
| posted on 26/2/14 at 02:33 PM |
|
|
First off, a 1971 Lotus 7 should be a Series 4, not a series 3. The nose on the car is definately Caterham, the front suspension isnt stock Lotus. I
would check the obvious makers plate, then check to see if the chassis is stamped at the pedal box (should have an Arch Motors number). Also, look at
the welds on the chassis, they should be nickel-bronze fillet weld (if you could call that a weld).
IMHO just looking at the pictures I would say its not a genuine Lotus, though it could be a Birkin.
Rod
|
|
|
benchmark51
|
| posted on 26/2/14 at 03:08 PM |
|
|
Cannot get the pictures up for some reason.
I worked on them at a Lotus dealership in the mid 70's
and well remember the chassis were brazed rather than welded also
they came apart now and then! Probably why it was changed to proper welds
The series 4 was the squarer looking fibreglass body, IMO not so nice as the
series 3.
Front wishbones were Triumph Herald.
I'm not at all nostalgic about them as they were quite a pain in the *** most
of the time. Still at the time thats all there was, now you have so many different
offerings on the scene and most are a hell of a lot better.
The exhilaration of driving an original series 3 or 4 is still here, it's just got better and quicker.
I'd be wary of what claims to be an original as they really bits and pieces of other cars any way.
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 26/2/14 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
I am no expert, but from the pics with the advert, I would say its not an original 7, more of a replica
The screen appears to be to raked
the dashboard is not a Lotus design, more of a locost
the scuttle appears to look as though its fiberglass, orginals were Alui
the front wings are way to high for a real lotus7
the rear arches are incorrect, wrong profile at the rear edge
rear bonnet catches are in the wrong place, should be about 3" nearer the front
no louvres on the bonnet
and that's just from the very poor quality photos in the add, compared to my Lotus 7 history book
Steve
Thats was probably spelt wrong, or had some grammer, that the "grammer police have to have a moan at
|
|
|
PSpirine
|
| posted on 26/2/14 at 06:30 PM |
|
|
Is it just me or are those clamshell wings in off-road mode?!
I'm planning on clamming my Westfield, but I was really hoping they wouldn't look so... anti-gravity.
*ETA: I know we love 7's etc. but I'm more interested in what the car next to it is!! 
[Edited on 26/2/14 by PSpirine]
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 27/2/14 at 03:29 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PSpirine
*ETA: I know we love 7's etc. but I'm more interested in what the car next to it is!!
[Edited on 26/2/14 by PSpirine]
I'm not sure of the exact model (910??) but I suspect that the car is a replica Porsche built in Bloemfontein. But I might well be wrong.
Remember seeing the body being tweaked by Brights Glass (who do some fantastic Glass Fiber work) in Cape Town some years back.
|
|
|
Slater
|
| posted on 27/2/14 at 05:44 AM |
|
|
OK chaps thanks for the input, it does indeed look like a true mix of sevens. From what the seller said it does have a chassis plate from 1971 with
engine no. matching the crossflow, but I am a bit worried about a 43 year old braized chassis. Think I'll look for something more up to date.
Why do they call Port Harcourt "The Garden City"?...... Becauase they can't spell Stramash.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 27/2/14 at 08:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
OK chaps thanks for the input, it does indeed look like a true mix of sevens. From what the seller said it does have a chassis plate from 1971 with
engine no. matching the crossflow, but I am a bit worried about a 43 year old braized chassis. Think I'll look for something more up to date.
Chassis from Arch Motors use bronze and are as strong a MIG welds in this application (the steel breaks before the joint same as fusion welds), the
brazing in most peoples minds (which many probably did at school) is brass which isn't nearly as strong.
From peoples comments it sounds like a crashed lotus might have donated it's chassis plate so I doubt that car is an Arch chassis - so is
probably fusion welded and rather newer.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 1/3/14 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
It may be a early watson chassis
The lotus dealers back in the day were selling locally made sevens made in in a factory opened by hazel chapman
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1998/44.html
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=4&f=30&t=871489&mid=0&i=140&nmt=Birkin+S3+Kitcar+Build%2E%2E%2E%2E&mid=0
[Edited on 1-3-14 by mangogrooveworkshop]
|
|
|
benchmark51
|
| posted on 1/3/14 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
I tend to think that the 7 has been a car devised and built by Colin Chapman apparently in a shed in his back garden.
He built more than one and I doubt if any of them were exactly same. Only he would know what was truly original and
even then he might have trouble in remembering what came first. It wasn't just a car but more of an idea and a style
that he created and that for me is what is original. Caterhams and Westfields are fine cars but they are factory made and
for me just don't have that original home made quality. Each 7 is an original in it's own right, all a bit different from the
next.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 2/3/14 at 06:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ivan
quote:
Originally posted by PSpirine
*ETA: I know we love 7's etc. but I'm more interested in what the car next to it is!!
[Edited on 26/2/14 by PSpirine]
I'm not sure of the exact model (910??) but I suspect that the car is a replica Porsche built in Bloemfontein. But I might well be wrong.
Remember seeing the body being tweaked by Brights Glass (who do some fantastic Glass Fiber work) in Cape Town some years back.
Looks like a Mercedes Le Man car C9 and not the 917/956/962 Porsche Le Mans cars. Interesting if it is road registered.
Found this article so I think it is this car
http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/Man-builds-Mercedes-C9-in-shed-2013-06-25
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 2/3/14 at 08:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by benchmark51
I tend to think that the 7 has been a car devised and built by Colin Chapman apparently in a shed in his back garden.
He built more than one and I doubt if any of them were exactly same. Only he would know what was truly original and
even then he might have trouble in remembering what came first. It wasn't just a car but more of an idea and a style
that he created and that for me is what is original. Caterhams and Westfields are fine cars but they are factory made and
for me just don't have that original home made quality. Each 7 is an original in it's own right, all a bit different from the
next.
I think you're getting unjustifiably dewy-eyed about it.
The Seven was not built in 'a shed in Colin Chapman's back garden'.
The Seven came out-of-sequence in the Lotus mark numbers, remember, alongside the Type 14. By the time the earliest (Series 1) Sevens were built, they
were operating from the Hornsey factory, which was a facility that many modern kit-car manufacturers would envy, with its own purpose-built showroom
(albeit located on land alongside Stan Chapman's pub and incorporating part of a former stable block for the pub). Lotus was also, by this
stage, competing internationally, including serious efforts at Le Mans with the Eleven, designing Formula 1 cars (the Vanwall) and manufacturing
very expensive and sophisticated GT cars in the form of the Elite (launched at the same time as the Seven).
By the time the Series 3 came along (the car that most people would recognise as a Seven today), Lotus were operating from their current site at
Hethel, were onto their third Formula 1 World Championship and were churning out expensive Elans, +2's and Europas in their hundreds... and
Chapman would have been no more personally acquainted with each Seven being built than he would with the contents of the Queen's knicker
drawer.
He would however, have been familiar with their specification: from the earliest, Chapman was keen to standardize his cars and had (for
example) declined to even offer alternative engine installations as early as the Mark VIII. The specification of Lotus-built Sevens actually varies a
lot less than those of Caterhams and Westfields - there were fewer engine options and no suspension/chassis options (which is one of the areas where
the car in the OP fell over - the front suspension lacks the ARB as part of the upper wishbone that characterised the Lotus front suspension).
The Seven was a fairly cynical attempt by Colin Chapman to part cash from enthusiasts who in the 'old days' might have bought a Mk. VI but
could not afford his more sophisticated Eleven and Elite cars. If you want to worship any Lotus as the progenitor of the cheap, basic
'Clubmans' sports car, then it would be the Mark VI, which was a completely different design.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 2/3/14 at 09:10 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
Looks like a Mercedes Le Man car C9 and not the 917/956/962 Porsche Le Mans cars. Interesting if it is road registered.
Found this article so I think it is this car
http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/Man-builds-Mercedes-C9-in-shed-2013-06-25
Bejesus! 370bhp (allegedly), and have you seen the pics of the chassis in the last couple of photos?!
The builder was obviously not a man for whom the words 'torsional stiffness' held any meaning!
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 2/3/14 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
loving the rear suspension as well....very high tech.
|
|
|
