Introduction from a new member & his car

[alan.barker]

Craige,
sorry to have to say this but i have a 1972 Elan Sprint fhc and a 1973 +2s130/4 and both of the cars have different engine mounts each side!!!!!
They both also have Dellorto carbs!!!!! both have lotus chassis!!!! There you go!!!!!
Like i said i have a bad feeling i have just reopened an old issue
you pay your money and you take your choice
Alan B

[Craig Elliott]

Alan

OK I'll re-phrase my last post and say that according to the Lotus +2 parts manual they are the same on both sides - and I know from personal experience that I couldn't get the bonnet to close when I'd fitted the two different engine mountings as per the 2 seat elan when supplied them by mistake - and it does have a Lotus chassis.

Your car may well be different and if it all fits and works then fine, but I suspect many will need the mountings as specified in the parts manual.

C

[Orsom Weels]

Good evening gent's,

Some interesting comments about engine mounts there, I must confess I was under the impression there should be different mounts on the +2's & indeed that's the case with mine. I can't remember which one is where, it was 20 odd years ago when I was last messing arround with all this , but they are positioned to lift the carb side, ie which ever one sits the engine highest is on the right hand side. That was one of the first things I checked when I found the airbox was hitting something, which brings me conveniently to my previous post Having looked at the car today, it is, of course, not the top of the footwell that's the problem, there's plenty of clearance there, it's the inner wing to front lower corner of the airbox where the problem is. My memory is getting terible , I can only put this down to having only just returned from a very long weekend in France & must have still been under the influance of 'French living' & possibly even suffering a touch of boat lag However, the situation is still the same, if I get one to clear, the other catches
Thank's for all your input to date, it's good to have some alternative ideas, helps you to look at things from a different angle. I'm now thinking if I just lower the left hand side of the engine a tad it might just drop the cam cover without adversely affecting the position of the airbox , Mmmm

All the best for now, Tim

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Alan

I'm pretty certain that it's only the 2 seat Elan that should have different engine mounts on either side of the block. On the +2 they should be the same...

C

But if it resolves a problem such as described, why not?

Cheers
John

[alan.barker]

thanks Tim,
all 3 of the +2 elans i have had were fitted with different mounts each side. 1968 +2(weber),1970+2S(weber) and my 1973+2S130/4 (dellorto) exactly as you say. By the way in the Lotus elan +2 Service Parts List item 27 section "EA" the drawing of the mount is for a Cortina i think!! . It was cheaper for Lotus to use the exploded drawing of a Cortina engine than draw another one just for the Elan. Paul Matty mounts different each side EENM026B RHand EENMO026A LHand, SJSPORTSCARS mounts different each side A074E0549Z RHand and SJ026E0002 LHand
Alan B

[terryp]

When I changed mine , I ordered a pair from Susan Miller. Two the same arrived. When I spoke to her about it , she said that its only the Elan that has different mounts.
On taking the old ones off , I noticed that they were different. BUT the two that Susan had sent were of the smaller type i.e the engine would sit lower. Once installed there was plenty of room under the air box. But I did notice that on my bonnet was a stress crack , one of the very few on the car and had been made probably due to the engine being too high!
Put me down for a vote for +2 engine mounts being the same!

Terry

[Orsom Weels]

Hello all,
Well, this is interesting, I've looked at the mountings on the car, & dug out the old mountings which were with the car when purchased, (remember, the car came with no engine, but there was a pair of old mountings along with a brand new pair with all the parts that were included, most new stuff had receipts from Norfolk motor co) & I definately have two of each type, ie one new & one old of each. Obviously, I have no idea if the old ones were original, but it seems the p/o had bought replacements to match what was there. Now, having just looked through various parts price lists, it seems that most list different R/h & L/h mounts for Elans, (except for Stromberg) but two the same (Elan L/h type) for +2's so on that basis, my car is WRONG .
However, if I change the R/h mounting to a L/h type, this will lower the R/h side of the engine & with it, the carbs/airbox, which will maybe stop the cam cover touching the bonnet, but will mean the airbox will sit tight on the inner wing, I've only got about a 1/4 inch clearance as it is at the mo, so that isn't realy an option .
The cam cover only appears to touch on the left front corner so I think I'll try lowering the left side of the engine a tad & see what happens, I think that will cure my problem but it would be nice to know what the hells going on Why do some of us seem to have/need different mounts & some have the same both sides


Cheers for now, Tim

[Craig Elliott]

Well, it seems the only consistency is inconsistency! In the Lotus parts manual for the + 2 it suggests that it needs 2 * 026 E 6011 and even SJ sportscars seem inconsistent as they only list one type of mounting for the +2 and 2 different ones for the 2 seat elan (this is on their current on-line catalogue)... and last time I fitted some on my car I definately had to swap the RH one that I'd been sent because the bonnet wouldn't shut without hitting the front of the cam cover...

As others have said it doesn't really matter - fit what works.

C

[JJDraper]

I just checked my picture library.. Old v new engine mounts, which should be fitted in fail safe mode, i.e so that if the rubber fails, the engine drops so that the bottom of the 'U' rests on the bit that bolts to the chassis (sorry, steel sub frame). Note the old one has sagged in use.

Hope this helps..

Jeremy

[alan.barker]

Tim said "Why do some of us seem to have/need different mounts & some have the same both sides"
I think i have the reply because they are LOTUS
Even Sue Miller does not agree with Paul Matty and Sjsportscars
Maybe we should ask the "Guru Miles Wilkins" who would surely clear up the problem once and for all
Alan B

[Craig Elliott]

..and even SJ sprtscars don't agree with themselves (see above)!

C

[alan.barker]

Craige you're right, because i took my info from sjsportscars brochure and it is different to the website
A real bag of worms
Alan B

[JJDraper]

Apologies to you Tim but this engine mount issue has hijacked your thread a bit!

A bit of maths here, there are two parts; the correct mount and the erroneous mount that is used in the Elan, call them part ?A? and part ?B?, which look quite similar. The correct fitment is two part 'A's, but it is possible to fit the wrong part, 'B' and an 'A' on either side - with marginal problems - sometimes you notice, sometimes you don't i.e with natural variation in the build tolerances of the car. It is also possible to fit them upside down. This gives a total of 16 chances of getting it wrong, without actually making the car fail - but it will not be right. This is why there is so much variation in the observed situation. Having the wrong parts can cause odd symptoms, like the rocker box touching the bonnet or the engine being canted over too much or not enough, or even being too low and causing driveline vibration. This is all without the actual parts failing! The picture in the parts book is no help, as previously mentioned, but it is clear from the text that both mounts are the same in all models of +2. As Craig said, if it works for you, fine.

Someone who usually works on Elans would assume (!) that the engine mount arrangement was the same in a +2, hence even they get confused. Most specialists predominantly work on Elans, so when a punter in a +2 turns up with a dodgy engine mount, they fit (or supply) the wrong bit and send the punter on his way. I guess this has been going on since +2s appeared.

Jeremy

[ardee_selby]

Tim,

A silly question perhaps, but the photo appears to show bonnet sitting a bit lower on one side. Could bonnet fit/adjustment be contributing to camcover to bonnet interference?

Cheers - Richard

[rgh0]

My understanding of the original setup

Weber Elans - high lift mount on right side - standard mount left side
Stromberg Elans - standard mount both sides
Weber and Stromberg Plus 2 - standard mount both sides

A source of constant confusion !!!. It is due to the footwell on the Elan being higher than on a Plus 2 and the bonnet / hood line also higher around the front of the engine so a need and more room to lift the right front of the engine a little for clearance of the Webers and airbox

The Plus 2 is tight on bonnet/ hood clearance with the standard setup especially with the big valve cam cover with its square corners. By playing with adding or removing spacers / shims under the gear box mount and with slotting the engine mount bolts you should be able to get OK clearances even if other things have moved around a bit over the years - such as the body being low on the chassis or the bonnet / hood low in its mount on the body

cheers
Rohan