Donor car questions: Boot locked and correct specs etc.?

[Tintin]

Hi all,

I bought a second Plus2 missing some vital bits and with a severely bruised front end as a donor car - actually for a Zetec conversion and as a small remark to those who are so vitally against this kind of car: Both my cars were bought from PlusNull/F3 owners who ripped the engines out and wanted to get rid of the rest ASAP ....

But now on to the questions:

- The boot lock is engaged and - guess what - I pulled out the handle inside the door with no resistance at all. How do I open the boot now with minimal damage to the parts?

- I'm trying to find out the original specification of the second car (because I will probably use the VIN and V5 for the rebuild) and my guess it is a +2S based on the year in the V5 - 1969 - and the interior which has the single piece backrest for the back seats, narrow front seats, toggle switches and only four small gauges. It also has smaller fog lamp recesses than the 1973 S130 bodyshell next to it. However the wind screen seems to be bonded in and has the large shiny surround with the two corner pieces at the bottom and the joint in the top middle. Is that correct for a 1969 car? The car looks pretty unmolested to me (e.g. only one layer of paint) apart from the front damage (went into a wall...) and the fact that the engine and gearbox were taken out.

- As I will use a rather low state of tune of Zetec I'm actually thinking of keeping the original steel wheels if I can find a solution for the brakes and hubs together with the Spyder suspension. IMHO the nicest looking wheel for the +2 is the black steel version with rimbellisher combo. The wheels the second car has are silver with no embellishers and in need of a decent resto. Is there any physical difference apart from the paint colour between earlier and later steel wheels?

Best regards,



Tim

[Higs]

To open the boot you will either need to male a hole in the rear valance behind the number plate or take out the rear seat back, the rear parcel shelf and as much of the sound insulation to allow you to get a rod down onto the boot to hook the lever.

It sounds as if this car is a UK federal version that was produced in small number betweel the original +2 and the +2S. Old style dash and interior, new style body but without the cut outs for the fog lamps (i.e. new boot floor, boot locks, boot release cable, in line exhaust.

I have one the same.

Richard

[rocket]

Had the boot problem couple years ago..i knocked the pins out of the boot hinges and this lets you lift the boot and allows access to the operating lever...

Ian

[mikealdren]

Neat idea Ian.

Tintin,
there was quite a long thread on the differences between early and late cars last year (I think).
One obvious shell difference is that the early cars didn't have spot lights, +2S cars had lights set into holes in the bodywork with plastic fillers behind them and the 130S cars had moulded recesses for the lights.

If you have an early car, you should modify the rear suspension turret fibreglass as per the workshop manual.

I'm slowly doing a Zetec conversion and so are others here. There's lots of info available. Good luck!

Mike

[Tintin]

Neat idea Ian.

Yes, I second that! And thanks for all the other answers, helped a lot.

there was quite a long thread on the differences between early and late cars last year (I think).

I remember that one but the combination of early dash and interior and later windscreen was a bit strange. If there was some interim phase like Richard describes that would be a perfect explanation.

.... +2S cars had lights set into holes in the bodywork with plastic fillers behind them ....

That is the case for the "donor".

....and the 130S cars had moulded recesses for the lights.

Which is the case for the bare shell I have (Soda blasted and ready for repair of the crazes etc.)

If you have an early car, you should modify the rear suspension turret fibreglass as per the workshop manual.

Yes, I remember seeing these mods on the S130, now I'm curious what I'll find on the earlier one. I have a V5 and VIN for both but obviously I'm only doing one car and it would be stupid not to use the late shell as this one is undamaged. I might therefore use the late one as a replacement and rebuild the "donor", but I'll only do so if the earlier reg date has an influence on registering the car (emission deadlines might be a problem). In the end it will be a bitsa anyway, late shell, early interior, late dash (the one from the "new" car is FUBAR) plus the Spyderford gear - but a nice one....

I'm slowly doing a Zetec conversion and so are others here. There's lots of info available. Good luck!

I know...

There is one thing on the "usual" Spyder cars which I don't like at all and that is the Ford PCD wheels instead of the centre lock. I'm currently looking into a solution there. Spyder offers centre lock conversions now and the look quite well IMHO combined with their "Minilites" but maybe I'd like to stick to 13" steel wheels. I won't do any performance stuff to the Zetec anyway because it will be a big hassle already now to make that car road legal in Germany in the end....




Tim

[gerrym]

Tim, easiest way to use centre-lock wheels and hubs is just to stick with the original Lotus suspension.

OK, make the front coil-overs adjustable. With a few minor mods, the rear end will be OK for a low tune Zetec.

Regards
Gerry

[Tintin]

Tim, easiest way to use centre-lock wheels and hubs is just to stick with the original Lotus suspension.

OK, make the front coil-overs adjustable. With a few minor mods, the rear end will be OK for a low tune Zetec.

Well, the original intention was to build a Zetec with as little as self-fiddling as possible, using Spyder components for the whole chassis and a complete Ford drivetrain. Basically everthing south of the shell would be non-Lotus.

Now that I have a complete donor except for the engine I think it might be worth doing it a little differently: Is it possible to fit the std. Lotus suspension components (provided they are serviceable off course) to the Spyder-Zetec-chassis? Okay, it would mean a special CV conversion linking the Scorpio diff with the Lotus hubs but that would be an easy one. This would simplify the whole registration process a lot and I could later - if I like - still do an upgrade using the Spyder components and some fancy self-designed hubs combining Sierra wheel bearings with 13" centre lock wheels and better braking etc.


Tim

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Hi Tim,

I agree with all that Gerry has advised.
Don't fall into the trap in thinking that Spyder have "written the Gospel" on Zetec Elans.
They have gone "The Full Monty" with their conversion, using the whole Sierra etc. Powertrain.
All of us Elan owners should be grateful to them for making the original drive train Components redundant & subsequently available to us.
If you just want to fit a low powered Zetec into your +2 it's really quite simple.
The Zetec will bolt (practically) directly to the Elan G/Box.
You'll need a Clutch assembly & spigot Bearing to suit & a suitable pre-engage Starter Motor.
Parts for the Exhaust & Intake Systems are now readily available as are suitable ECU's.
I don't think that you are planning to do competitive driving in your Car so the rest of the Drive train should be well up to the job.
Remember that all of those parts were designed to work in heavier Ford Cars.
The Elan G/Box was & remained a "Benchmark" for many years IMHO & Elan drivers still love it.
Definitely do something with the front & rear Suspension, with new Dampers you know you can't go wrong, so go for adjustable Spring platforms so that you can play with the ride height & corner weights.
There is also a great (cheap) choice of Spring rates & lengths for those smaller Spring diameters.
A wide choice of bits to upgrade the back Axle is also widely available if you want to be safe.
i.e. LSD's Diff' output Shafts, Hub Shafts & CV Drive Shafts all off the Shelf.
I used TTR parts throughout here due to the massive increase in Torque from the 2 Liter Zetec
My Car has not yet done any Track Days etc., but has been hammered on many occasions & after 10 years of use has not shown any problems that could be put down to the increased Engine power.

Cheers
John

P.S. Do give a lot of thought to the Cooling System & try to retain the original Zetec system of connections & thermostat control.

[Tintin]

If you just want to fit a low powered Zetec into your +2 it's really quite simple.

Maybe it's easier if I start with what I have:

a) A Spyder Zetec space frame, their front and rear suspension, the prop shaft and a Scorpio LSD with a pretty longish ratio. No engine, gearbox, wheels, brakes and hubs yet, that is the next but one step.

b) a 1973 body shell with doors, bonnet, boot, lamp pods and windows. Structurally very good and unmolested, including all papers. Actually touching up the GRP and putting a decent paint job on is the next step regardless of what goes underneath....

c) a 1969 donor minus engine and carbs. The front suffered recently from a minor crash but this was enough to break the GRP at the usual place in the middle of the wheel arches. Obviously the front has been involved in some kind of crash as well which was badly repaired earlier in its live. The doors are probably from another car as they only have one layer of paint (this is where I based by early assumption on) whereas the rest has at least three. There are some really dodgy repairs. To be honest, this shell is really bad and needs far more TLC than the other one. However the car has also a full set of paperwork - the fact that the reg date is just before the July 1969 deadline for emissions here in Germany makes this one quite attractive. And the original 4speed gearbox is also there, just not attached to the car.

I have no idea how the underside looks like, I didn't have time to look at it. I bought this car mainly for the corner lights, the steering column and the interior which is very good except for the dashboard itself. I will find out in a few weeks how the suspension looks like - but I expect it to be tired at least.



From this starting point I see three possibilities leading to a nice albeit not very original +2. The general motto of this car - dictated by the "domestic government" ... - is "laid-back elegant tourer" for occasional trips, maybe bigger tours. If I wanted a track-day Elan it would be a +0.

- Going on with a full spec Spyder Zetec with Sierra running gear. A torquey 2-litre would be nice but it might be difficult with getting it registered. Even a 1.6-litre might give some trouble.

- Zetec plus Sierra drivetrain with Spyder frame and Lotus suspension. Apart from the engine it would be much closer to original spec and therefore there would be less items for the TUeV inspectors to worry about - very nice thought.

- Third option is very unlikely: The running gear of the donor can be completely rescued resulting in a Zetec with an original rest. A 1.6-litre would even make the TUeV guys happy as they are slightly less powerful and therefore the worrywarts have a little less to whine about....

A fourth option is obviously getting a Twink but these two ruins have been robbed of them - maybe for a reason.

Remember that all of those parts were designed to work in heavier Ford Cars.

Yes, that is true. I want a five-speeder and was just comparing the Elan box with the Type 9 my mate wants to put into his Transit. MT75 or Type 9, my gut feeling is that both will be rather bored in this kind of car. Okay, I already have a prop shaft for the MT75....

Definitely do something with the front & rear Suspension, with new Dampers you know you can't go wrong, so go for adjustable Spring platforms so that you can play with the ride height & corner weights.

I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of the Chapman struts as implemented in the Elan with their rather strange load paths and would prefer the Spyder setup in the end (although I have some doubts about the kinematics of that thing to be fair.....). I am a big fan though of the appearance of the car with 13" steel wheels but obviously combining both would mean doing some one-off stuff for hubs and brakes. I have a pretty good idea what to do and am pretty confident that I could come up with something in the long run with the emphasis on long. However this would basically mean doing the job twice: First bringing the original gear up to spec (and a bit further) and then doing a "best of both worlds" conversion. The good thing is: If the car run's nicely with original brakes and wheels I just have a few Spyder uprights and wishbones to spare....

So: BIG QUESTION (for those who read this far.... ) Can the original Lotus suspension be put on a Spyder Zetec frame?

I know the best guys to ask are probably Spyder but they play dead currently.....


Tim

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

So: BIG QUESTION (for those who read this far.... ) Can the original Lotus suspension be put on a Spyder Zetec frame?

I know the best guys to ask are probably Spyder but they play dead currently.....

On the Front, yes definitely.

On the back almost certainly, can you post a Photo maybe?
I suspect that the lower Wishbone pick up points won't have changed & the top Spring/Damper Strut Mount should still be present.

There have been several Spyder Frame derivatives especially those Frames made to accommodate the Zetec, MT75 G/box & Sierra Diff' have evolved.

The Spyder Frame Number is stamped into a Steel Tag that's welded to the top of the front cross Member (Vacuum Tank).
Armed with that Info' give Spyder a Phone call; e-mails are usually unfruitful.

I think you will need some specially made CV drive shafts to suit both the Sierra/Scorpio Diff' & the Lotus Struts (not a common combination).

Good luck
John

P.S:-"Parts falling of these Vehicles are of the
finest British craftsmanship"
On "Top Gear", whilst driving an M100 Elan that kept falling apart, Richard Hammond remarked that Lotus do that in a continuing effort to "add lightness"

[Tintin]

On the back almost certainly, can you post a Photo maybe?

I don't have a photo of that corner at hand but my spaceframe looks exactly the same as the one in this build report, no. 17 and 18: http://www.spydercars.co.uk/new_project ... rt_3-3.htm

I think I need to check whether I can change the Zetec-Sierra suspension setup for the Spyder RSC which uses the Elan running gear except for the Chapman struts: http://www.spydercars.co.uk/pg5_spy_el_+2_r_s_c.htm

I suspect that the lower Wishbone pick up points won't have changed & the top Spring/Damper Strut Mount should still be present.?

Looks very much like this is the case....

Armed with that Info' give Spyder a Phone call; e-mails are usually unfruitful.

Yes, I think I'll do this.

I think you will need some specially made CV drive shafts to suit both the Sierra/Scorpio Diff' & the Lotus Struts (not a common combination).

I know a few companies who can do this pretty close to here, that will not be an issue. I've designed (well, make that "specified") CV drive shafts for FSAE cars and dyno applications using all sorts of running gear next to it so that doesn't scare me at all. In the end it's just defining the two correct joint types and the length.



Tim

P.S.: Yes, TG has its moments....

[Tintin]

Armed with that Info' give Spyder a Phone call; e-mails are usually unfruitful.

Not this time, i got an answer from them in record time, very nice! And a very pleasant one as well: All I need in addition to what I have are their RSC uprights and the rear upper wishbones - and those said drive shafts.

I think this is the way I'm going provided the stuff underneath the donor is useable.



Tim, happy

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Armed with that Info' give Spyder a Phone call; e-mails are usually unfruitful.

Not this time, i got an answer from them in record time, very nice! And a very pleasant one as well: All I need in addition to what I have are their RSC uprights and the rear upper wishbones - and those said drive shafts.

I think this is the way I'm going provided the stuff underneath the donor is useable.



Tim, happy

Tim,

I don't want to dampen your elation & I appreciate that you've found an agreeable solution.
However------considering the German T?V complications the Spyder RSC is a big move away from the original suspension set up & an expensive investment.
Have you had a proper look at the RSC Suspension Geometry?
The reason I ask is that when I bought my Spyder Frame they had a "special deal" on everything.
I wanted their tubular Wishbones (for obvious reasons) & I bought their RSC, Drive shafts & a whole load of other bits.
It was only when I fitted the RSC to the Frame that I decided I didn't like the "look" of it.
There is a massive length difference between the upper & lower Wishbones, which I thought may cause large Camber changes.
No I didn't do a Geometry check on the Drawing Board, just gut feeling; so off it came & reconditioned Struts with adjustable Spring Seats went on to my Elan.
I also threw out the CV/Rotoflex drive Shafts, I couldn't understand the retention of the one Rotoflex as supposed "cushioning"
The fabricated Shafts with Welds here & there were also not up to the standards I'd set myself.
CV Shafts were not available at the time so TTR U/J Shafts went in (superbly made, I might add)
I appreciate the "Sticktion" arguments aimed at Struts but consider it to be a bit hypothetical considering the wide use of Struts on the majority of modern Cars.
The "Chapman Struts" used on the Mk14 Elite were worked even harder as a "location" component & those cars were a dream to drive!
Putting theory to one side, I'm very happy with the way my Elan drives on its present Suspension.
More to the point you can easily retain the Knock-ons at the Back & if you retain the original +2 front Uprights (& why not) also at the Front.

Cheers
John

[Tintin]

I don't want to dampen your elation & I appreciate that you've found an agreeable solution.
However------considering the German T?V complications the Spyder RSC is a big move away from the original suspension set up & an expensive investment.

Yes, that is true and one point to be considered.

Have you had a proper look at the RSC Suspension Geometry?

Yes, I have - and that is why I said that I have some doubts about their kinematics earlier in this thread.

There is a massive length difference between the upper & lower Wishbones, which I thought may cause large Camber changes.

That is exactly the point I'm a bit afraid of as well. The camber change is quite big but I'll probably spend a few hours doing a simplified simulation to see how bad it really is.

What I don't like about the Chapman struts is the fact that they are actually loaded heavily in bending under cornering and braking and the load path is a bit strange to me. When I design stuff I try to keep the connections very direct and create very little bending moments - and the struts are a -errr- slightly different there IMHO. And the connection between the rear turrets also looks a bit wrong to me, not rigid enough. On the other hand - this is obviously my spoiled motor sport engineer approach and in the end the car will be a mild GT and no wild racer.

No I didn't do a Geometry check on the Drawing Board, just gut feeling; so off it came & reconditioned Struts with adjustable Spring Seats went on to my Elan.

I might do the same in the end - this really depends on how good the original stuff looks underneath the donor.

My plan is:

- keep the Zetec frame
- use the front suspension and brakes from the donor which means reconditioning quite a few bits'n'pieces
- have a very close look at the Chapman struts and the decide between exchanging the uprights on my Zetec rear suspension against the RSC items or running reconditioned originals. I might actually use the original ones first and replace them later if I feel the need to do so (although this would mean wasting the reconditioning effort if I don't sell them on afterwards but hey, I've lost money on far worse occasions than that)

Regarding the T?Vability I think that I could find a legal and bullet-proof way to get the Spyder parts officially on the road here even in Germany but that is probably time consuming and potentially expensive. So having the struts as an alternative is quite nice.

I appreciate the "Sticktion" arguments aimed at Struts but consider it to be a bit hypothetical considering the wide use of Struts on the majority of modern Cars.

I'm not aware of any Chapman struts at the moment but McPhersons are a bit different if you look at how they are impemented - they are quite a bit shorter and the bending levers are better placed with bigger wheels. Furthermore McPhersons are common in low- to middle-class cars. A proper double-wishbone setup is better, no doubt about that. The question is whether the short upper wishbone of the Spyder RSC is a proper setup.....



Tim