Lotus Elan and Lotus Elan Plus 2 Forums

JimE wrote:This is how it should look. .

Really ?
I'm only a mere Elan driver, rather than a +2 driver, but looks way too high to me.
Shouldn't the top of the tyre be just in line with the bottom edge of the wheel arch ?
i.e. no big air gap at the top.

A "mere Elan driver"

No need for false modesty please

The pictures that Jim posted look to be in period, probably new cars with new springs and bushes that need a few thousand miles of bedding in. They are not Spyder converted cars, so therefore Jim is correct in that's how they are supposed to look.

My opinion is that if you look at most 1960's cars they will seem to have ridiculous inboard mounted wheels, skinny tyres with huge sidewalls and massive gaps. It's surprising how little there is to offend the eye when you look at a +2 or Elan these days.

reb53 wrote:

JimE wrote:This is how it should look. .

Really ?
I'm only a mere Elan driver, rather than a +2 driver, but looks way too high to me.
Shouldn't the top of the tyre be just in line with the bottom edge of the wheel arch ?
i.e. no big air gap at the top.

My Plus Two is built on a LR chassis with standard NOS Armstrong shockers and what you see is how it left the factory. I can't comment on Spyder conversions although looking at photographs of them they appear to look the same.

Maybe right maybe wrong, but it doesn?t give the impression of a ground hugging high performance sport car to me.
Ron.

I know what you're saying Ron. I've had the car since the 1970s and only recently it's struck me how high the wheel arches are on the Plus Two. And especially when you compare with it's peers the Elan and in particular the Europa where on my Special the rear wheels are almost touching the wheel arches leaving no room for the suspension to be out of line. But have no fear, my Plus Two handles beautifully and dare I say it even better than my Sprint. I think the wider track and softer springs account for that.

This may be getting a little off topic but, I think the ride height was raised slightly with the introduction of the S130. If memory serves...

Robbie

Yes a 0.4 inch longer spring and thus 0.4 inch higher front ride height was an option for some markets according to the my Plus 2 manual. I believe this was to meet minimum headlight heights introduced by the US in the early 70's.

The Plus 2 front springs are very highly stressed and generally loose height fairly rapidly so that this plus the optional longer spring length is what makes the true correct right height is hard to determine even from original publicity photos..

regards
Rohan

I knew I'd read it somewhere... Probably from yourself Rohan!

I didn't realise it was only for certain markets though. There is one Lotus brochure from the period which features an S130 in white/silver that looks like it's on stilts...

Cheers

Robbie

Can we conclude that Spyder Zetec converted cars do not ride too high if set up correctly?

Ground clearance is another issue, which happily I have dealt with on my car.

Alan,

I agree indeed.

Rob

Alan, Could I ask how much you paid for the manifold? That could be my solution. How can I get hold of the design or will Paul Dunnel know what I am talking about?. Rob

Spyder fan wrote:Yes I have a new manifold that was based upon John Pellys design (Grumpy Bodger), its made by Paul Dunnel engines.

The manifold takes the same route as the standard twincam manifold exiting above and behind the removable crossmember. Because the lowest point is no longer between the front wheels, there is far less chance of grounding when going over a bump.

As soon as I am less busy with work and home renovations I will be experimenting with going down a further inch at the front, but at the moment I'm pleased with how the car looks.

2016-07-07 12.24.34.jpg

The problem with shortening springs is that there's no going back, and over time they will compress and you will need new springs again, also I can't think of a method to calculate how much to remove, I don't think it's as simple as 1/2 inch off equals 1/2 inch lower..... might be that simple, I don't know reallly.

Rob,
I have sent you a pm.

Alan

After researching the prices of adjustable spring seat shocks I ordered Gaz units from Dampertech. Their price was the best by far. I notice that they are not listed on this part of their site but they do sell them! Dave was the man I dealt with and he seemed very good but the delivery time was long due to people ordering for the racing season apparently.
http://www.dampertech.co.uk/index.php/c ... ategories=

Davidb wrote:After researching the prices of adjustable spring seat shocks I ordered Gaz units from Dampertech.

Thanks, their local to my brother and I've past their many times. I wasn't aware of their existence let alone they offer Elan setup. Useful to know for when I get to new shocks....

Couldn't resist posting this picture showing the ride height on my +2 after a good few thousand mile shakedown post resto with new Spyder chassis, new shocks, old springs. I have no idea what the springs are from, but they suit the car perfectly and were provided by Spax many years ago. Seem to be higher poundage but less coils allowing more adjustment of the ride height with moveable platforms on the shocks. I tried TT shocks & springs some time later and they where great to begin with, but seem too weak & sagged after a few thousand miles. Ditched them and went back to my old springs on new shocks. No problem with catching the wheel arches even at full dip or lock, but they seem to provide the balance of ride height and filling the arches. Spyder wanted to fit ridiculously low profile tyres on the 14" alloys, but I don't like the rubber band look.

Happy days - it looks rather more 'patinated' now!

For comparison I show an pre-resto pic with original alloys and correct tyres.

Jeremy