Spyder v. Original chassis

[pimkeirle]

My 1973 +2s 130/5 has just failed the MoT because of a crack and corrosion in the o/s front chassis leg. It can be repaired this time, but I think given the car's age, this will probably be a reccurrent theme to future MoTs, so it is time to bite the bullet and shell out for a replacement chassis. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of a Spyder space-frame chassis compared to a copy of the original. I am not interest in the various suspension mods that a Spyder chassis allows, but I believe there are certain other advantages, such as being able to change prop shaft U/Js without removing engine and 'box. Also and equally importantly, does anyone know if the fitment of a non original type chassis will adversely affect values?

[Sea Ranch]

Such an innocent question . . .

Bracing for the barrage of opposing views . . .

Personally, I don't see the "advantages" of improving what period magazine reviews called one of the best road cars available. And not sure the prop shaft u-joint needs to be replaced between engine overhauls.

Probably comes down to how interested the owner is in maintaining stock condition of the car.

Regards,

Randy

[elanfan1]

I think it is generally accepted that the Spyder chassis is technically superior though the original ain't too shabby. I believe it is also generally accepted that if you want to maximise your value you retain its originality with an original style chassis.

[TroonSprint]

Does having a Spyder chassis affect resale values???? I doubt it. It's not like it's a new, untried modification. I can't make up your mind for you, but I can say that my Elan Sprint has a Spyder chassis and it is a super bit of kit. Beautifully made, light and very rigid. And, should you need to, you can remove the sump with the engine in place. Mind you, how often do you want to do that!

Your choice. Both types are excellent.

Mike

[Spyder fan]

Spyder will make you a folded metal chassis that looks just like the original but with a removable crossmember so you can get at the sump and proper end plates on the uprights to remove the rust trap as well as 26R style bracing to reduce the cracking problem.

Best of both worlds

[alan.barker]

all +2 Elans already have a removable cross member from new
Alan

[Grizzly]

If it is the original chassis why not get Spyder to recon it for you? I think its the Purist in me coming out but i like to be able to say Numbers matching (Numbers matching elans must be getting a bit rare nowadays as the ones i've looked at recently for sale all seem to have new chassis) but thats just me.

The Trigger approach ............https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

[bengalcharlie]

all comes down to personal preference as is with anything in life. some of us like red heads, others like blonds... if you get my drift.
I would not be too considered about "values" either. it is not like we are talking about 250 type Ferraris???
Loti are basket cases at the best of times and were often assembled what was available at the time.
Personally if I would have to replace my chassis I would go what was available in my area and cost. All equations being equal I probably would go for a spyder tubular chassis, just because it is stronger. Do you need it on a standard car? Probably not unless you build a car with a very heavily modified or modern engine.
cheers robin

[bill308]

Mush of the strength and stiffness of an Elan chassis is due to the marrying of the chassis with the body. The rear legs of an Elan chassis are stiffened transversely by a fiberglass bulkhead, tying the shock towers together. A cross brace can be added to increase stiffness and help support the differential casting.

A Spyder frame may be stiffer, but I have not seen any test data or an analysis that shows this. If it is 10% stiffer in bending or torsion, is that significant?

I think the important thing is that the suspension geometry be accurate and undistorted and the frame be resistant to rust and fatigue. Access for maintenance purposes can also be important. If one plans to sell the vehicle in the future, what would be the impact of an original style, Spyder, or 26R type frame?

Bill

[cal44]

It has been my experience that original is always best for resale. A rust free stock +2 can be lifted in the center with all four wheels off the ground........using a floor jack and a 2x2 Douglas Fir block of wood. I don't suggest it but I seen it done with ease. Amazing cars.

[reb53]

If you have the space just do what I've done.

The Sprint has a nice, strong, sensible Spyder chassis, whilst the old, rusty, distorted, welded, original is stored under a tarp under a tree.

If a future buyer wants "an original chassis" he is welcome to take it away.......

Ralph.

[jimj]

I doubt anyone can tell the difference when driving and I doubt you`ll be needing to change your UJs so if you fitted an original type chassis you would have no regrets. On the other hand, especially as values rise, when you come to sell your car it`s possible that a potential buyer just might be deterred by something expensive to reverse, if they were seeking originality.
You certainly couldn`t get FIVA papers, or shouldn`t be able to, with a Spyder chassis, if you wanted to. As ever, it`s your choice and whichever you choose, you`ll think it`s the best choice.....and you`ll be right.
Jim

[reb53]

I'm not familiar with the Plus 2 but I certainly had no problem getting the drive shaft out of my Sprint, twice, with the original chassis.
Only did it twice because I didn't rebalance it the first time.....

[elan66]

To be honest you will probably end up changing or o/hauling so much if you do a chassis change you wont be worrying about the UJs for a while(ask anyone who has done it ) .If you have a matching numbers car (that Chris was talking about)and is original with good history and is used for normal road work i would probably opt for the Lotus original style chassis.I have a non matching number car(plus 2)that came with a Spyder chassis/711 engine and i aim to build a fun lightweight spec car,that will retain the main DNA of the car(probably still be more original than most 26rs)and for the use i want i feel the Spyder chassis is a much better choice.I have just taken the chassis back to bare metal to paint with epoxy and i am impressed with the quality and feel it would be easier to repair or modify.At the end of the day i am not worried about values,the total worth to me is the smile it puts on my face,and as such i am rebuilding it purely for me.At the end of the day some people will love it and others will cry heresy but ACBC loved to mod his cars in the early days,so he did set a precedent
At the end of the day follow your gut feeling and good luck
regards
Paul

[pimkeirle]

My 1973 +2s 130/5 has just failed the MoT because of a crack and corrosion in the o/s front chassis leg. It can be repaired this time, but I think given the car's age, this will probably be a reccurrent theme to future MoTs, so it is time to bite the bullet and shell out for a replacement chassis. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of a Spyder space-frame chassis compared to a copy of the original. I am not interest in the various suspension mods that a Spyder chassis allows, but I believe there are certain other advantages, such as being able to change prop shaft U/Js without removing engine and 'box. Also and equally importantly, does anyone know if the fitment of a non original type chassis will adversely affect values?

Many thanks to all who have so kindly responded to my query, I feel in a much better position to make an informed choice now.

Mike