EFA Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Bilbo, Find an '89 chassis and look at the X bracing around the front suspension - in 1990 the chassis tubes got thinner! In '91'92 when the Bilstein chassis came out, Caterham removed the link under the bellhousing which removed much of the stiffness. In '94 it was added to my '93 chassis! Anyway, the suggestion of not buying a car from someone who has destroyed TWO near std VX engines says a lot for the mechanical sympathy the owner has shown for the rest of the car. Like when seeing manure in the road, I suggest steering clear...... Arnie Webb The Fat Bloke back @ 512k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Barbie Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Albeit Arnie has a stronger engine, I've seen the mechanical sympathy shown to K2RUM first hand on many occaisions and destroying engines seems a relatively infrequent occurence on that car. Christ only knows what our French friend has been up to; short of not bothering with oil levels and such like, he must be called Ricard L'Ince with a history like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I reply to every thread Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Maybe he bought his parts from ..........................Ooops I was nearly naughty there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred68 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Hi guys, Now I'm almost sure that he broke the motor one time only but the car for a 95 car looks almost like new. The owner is extremely careful with it. Basicaly he told me that he would put a dry sump on it if he would keep it because the sump that Caterham use on VX is only 4Liters and this is not much and that's probably why the motor broke ☹️. I think that the explanation isn't bad, is it? Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevefoster Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 When you say he broke it, can you clarify? The Caterham wet sump in my opinion is fine for road use if kept topped up properly maintained. With extreme track conditions i.e. slicks or maybe even 032R's you will get oil surge and tappet aeration. That's when you need the the dry sump. If prolonged aeration occurs then the tappets can be damaged and the bearings / crank of course. My racing pics, 7 DIY, race prep. Updated often here Photo's of the year here Hants (North) and Berkshire Area club site here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Arnie, Old chassis works better than the post 96 chassis on cars with heavier engines. Where do you get this crap from? 😬 Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Johnson Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I realise that I am joining the thread at a lateish time, but my VX HPC has an LSD, & has had from new, I am led to believe that mine was one of the first. From my experience on general roads there is not alot to chose between the VVC & my car (c190bhp) I loose out due to a bit of understeer (narrow track) but have more low end grunt. The log book says 750kg's, but I think it is lying ... anybody have any comments on that, I have not had my car weighed, but it does have all the extra's on. Is a caterham the only car where fully loaded on road spec is a bad thing??? Geoff J392PPD VX & Flares how untrendy can I be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wong1697456877 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 My car has little in the way of weight saving measures weighs 580kg with 1/2 a tank of petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Hi Arnie Thanks for the info I stand corrected. I had not realised on later cars that the under box bit was removed. Mind you its worn on the underside but I rather that bottomed than the bell housing! I wonder if this is why some later car's owners have suffered cracks in the ally bell housings. Oh mine at the last corner session weighed 738 kg with over 6 gallons in the tank and with me at 120 kg On the first Emerald RR day it was 640 kg on a full 11+ gallons fuel tank, but its lost a few pounds since then with the R500 style wheels etc. So currently my car dry of fuel and less Mr OTT tubby is 594 kg gosh only 1307 lbs that's 0.584 imp tons that's 340 BHP per ton...... it would be quick without me in it! I have always wonder how a Caterham is weighed for publicity purposes...... one gallon of fuel min amount of oil 🤔 Still all this lines up with the R400 same output less engine frame etc weight. Still AS EVER I am drifting off subject 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Alex, The '96 on chassis is not the most rigid try driving on a really uneven surfaec (like outside Redline Componets) and listen to them creak!. It is however (according to a very knowledagble source) the lightest and the most universal in terms of engibe fitment. its also the cheapest to manufacture. Take a god look at a 1989 chassis next time you get the chance and you will see many of the tubes are 1" where on later chassis such as yours and mine they are 3/4". The link under the bellhousing improves rigidity immensely. They took it out I believe because the K Series will not fit in chassis which have this tube as the gearbox is able to move rearward 50mm due to reduced bellhousing girth. Arnie Webb The Fat Bloke back @ 512k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I have a 1989 chassis in my French race series It was still in delivery for us until 1991to avoid people racing with different chassis in the same class. The 1989 chassis was for the X flow The next series was vauxhall engine with later chassis. The 1989 Chassis is well known as big tubes chassis, and the only engine possible is X-flow, it has great rigidity with the tube under the gearbox. To be honest, considering my driving skill, K series are faster and I don't speak about Vx, on circuit however. On the road, the problem is totally different : not to be afraid of the car My opinion is that later chassis are better, even if I am not ready to sale my old one for a new one, love,love, love ..... eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Hi Guys, Would a 1990 Chassis, pre VX ( July/August ) be a big tube chassis - how can I check please ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred68 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Hey Eric, What do you know about french cup chassis exactly ? would you always use a dry sump with a VX motor and cup chassis? Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Ant, Check the dia of the tubes which X left to right between the front corners of the chassis and the upright sq section tubes which support the lower front wishbone rear mounting. If these round tubes are 1" dia, it a big tube. Eric, the modern chassis handles better because fo the ovrall package (lighter engine, wide track etc) NOT because of the chassis. Race cars are better however as they lack the removable tubes. Call a doctor, quick.... Present activities are not a good sign...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Thanks Arnie Will check today when I pop in at Arch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 1989 CHASSIS used for french race are only for Ford (x-flow) class In fact most of race cars (x-flow class) were produced by Caterham from september to December 1990 in big tube specification. Earlier orders of course were 1989 chassis but also the later order were produced with the same chassis to avoid mixing to different cars in the same class. For the road cars, it was different 1988 /1989 big tubes? BUT END OF 1989 and 1990 as the honey comb side impact protection is introduced the chassis tube made smaller (less room due to the honey comb structure) So Antony, you will certainly have not a big tube, but the honey comb improves stiffness and security. 1990 : smaller tubes with honey-comb side protection and improved front suspension location with front half link added to top wishbone 1991 : revised geometry, spax says goodbye, welcome to bilstein different spring and anti roll bar Ford class never fitted with dry sump in France See information in my site : www.bonzai.fr Go to sprint Caterham Fred, Vauxhall serie in France Opel are 1991 chassis Dry sump and reenforced gearbox (steel parts as an upgrade) I think I know the owner of the Cat you plan to buy ( He owns an Elise too) I hope it will help eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 In fact 1990 chassis was created to fit the vauxhall engine. It is the reason why the tube under the gearbox was cancelled. The 1991 chassis is well adapted to the vauxhall and the new gearbox location, the 1990 chassis has to fixing for that purpose (one for the crossflow, the other for the vauxhall) eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevefoster Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Fred did you get a drive etc? Any news? My racing pics, 7 DIY, race prep. Updated often here Photo's of the year here Hants (North) and Berkshire Area club site here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now