ChrisC

So I think Johns question about the lambda sensor is valid. The sensor on a standard 150 is attached to the cat, so a de-cat will either mean your moving the sensor from the cat to de-cat, or using a different sensor. That said lambda sensor faults are very easy to spot once the car is warm and has been running for 60 seconds. Also warranty should be considered. I don't remember any significant noise change when I put the de-cat pipe on my 150, a little harsher sound maybe but nothing significant. Although I do remember taking the cat with me on my first de-cat track day just in case I needed it for noise test purpose, like you said simple 10 min change. I was using the CC de-cat pipe, I assume you are to. Indiction noise through the TB's is normal and the 150 makes a loverly sound when pushed. Any chance you could post a video of the difference? The only think I could think of is maybe the cat is broken up inside, causing more restriction than normal, you could just look down the inside and see the honeycombed to prove that wrong.

Indirectly, sold my 150 to finance a kit build 360R. Got to say it’s not all good, there are elements of my 150 I miss, so I would test drive before you commit.

When my car was prepared by CC for IVA last year the flash switch was removed from the dash, tie wrapped up and a bung fitted. Apparently a flash function is not required for IVA so I assume it’s also not required for MOT.

Don't throw away your imperial spanners just yet, you still have imperial bolts on a metric Caterham. i.e A frame to Dedion tube.

Best thing I purchased for my build was mobile axle stands. I built in a single garage and you could move it from side to side and back and forward as you worked on a specific corner of the car. I went for big casters, because small casters where not in stock when I ordered my axle stands, this proved a massive plus because it made it easier to move on my garage floor (it’s not smooth) and the legs of the engine hoist went under the legs of the axle stands, meaning we could move both the engine and chassis during install. Got mine from here http://www.cjautosheywood.co.uk/mobax.shtml. I have standard with nylon wheels. The bar across the axle stands is a pain if you hit it with your shines, but is wider than the car so when you push the chassis to one side of the garage you can’t damage the chassis.

Mine would pull 5th from 1200 rpm. Fantastic engine, and lovely noise.

Yep, just search 1.04v and you will get all the info you need to get it sweet. Peter you forgot the Syncronometer ;-)

Is your 420R under warranty? I agree the cap should be replaced and will cure the leak, but not sure it could cause the problems you describe? It’s unusual to leak from the clutch mc cap, the brake mc, that’s a different story.

Hope it’s just a bleed, the CRB or braided hose replacement are engine out jobs :-(. Bleeding is a bit of a pain with access, I have a cut down offset ring spanner for that job (8mm I think), not something I would have in my track day tool box.

Bump

If you want a standard roll bar, I have one in the for sale section.

I have a 360R and its exactly the same. The reason appears to be the reliance on Manifold Air Pressure, over Throttle Position for the fueling at idle. I have made slight improvements on mine, switched to the latest design plastic intake, replaced the rubber blanking bungs to much firmer silicon items, and got the throttle butterfly fully closed at idle (there is a small bypass that allows the car idle smoothly). But its not perfect, say its was 70% after Post Build Check, its now 90%. The only way to cure it is to get the map changed to use Throttle Position over MAP, which can be done by Track and Road, but this makes the map specific to the TPS fitted, because the 360R uses a TPS that has no adjustment, hence the reason the original tune is used by Caterham.

Do you have standard brakes, or the 4 pot uprated? Given its been throught IVA and PBC, I guess no one is expecting a bleed problenm. If you have standard 2 pot AP radial calipers at the front, CC may have changed the brake pedal to a high effort pedal during the IVA test. Did you present the car at the IVA? If that's the case then it could just be adjustment of the clevis and the master cylinder. Mine had loads of slack, and no return spring to hold it up. Update, Just looked at your blog, 4 pots and you presented, so no change to the brake pedal :(. Worth checking for slack on the clevis, but not holding my breath.

What gearbox is fitted, Mazda 5 speed, Ford Type 9 5 speed or Caterham 6 speed. The switch is the same for Ford 5 and Caterham 6, but different for Mazda 5.

Can’t help, but not sure how much adjustment the lambda sensor can make. Best give it a test. Don’t forget the lambda adjustment does not take place until the coolant is 60C.

How could I forget, yours was the only "early" 150 design I have ever seen, with the air bled screws under the fuel rail. Mechanical is my guess, but each time you stopped and started again you will have reset the lambda sensor warm up sequence. It's possible the lambda sensor has gone, they are not known for their reliability.

Just found a picture of your car and rough location, your not that far from me and it looks (from the exhaust exit) like a Sigma, so willing to help diagnose the problem. PM me if you want my help.

Hi Jason Is it a Sigma 150? (if not you can disregard all that I have posted below) The 150 should not have an air hose connected to the inlet - this was removed over the many version release by CC. The final version had the MAP sensor open to the atmosphere, however a little hose on it to stop a direct hit from water killing the sensor isn't a bad shout. The Sigma 150 TPS doesn't have a reset via the ECU, it can only be set manually with access to the MBE Easymap software. Even setting it with a multimeter does not guarantee that is the reading the ECU is seeing. The Sigma 150 is very sensitive to this setting and a good ITB balance. Check the mechanical stuff first, cable, butterflys etc. then find someone with access to the diagnostic leads you need to see what the ECU is doing. Sensors do fail on Sigmas and the results can be strange. again this is all 150 Sigma related, just in case its a K. Chris.

I think its 1504696 - but have a good look on the part you take out. Trust Ford what £205, makes CC look like a bargin.

A 2015 F56/F55 Mini Cooper is 100% using the TPMS system, not FTMS. I don't know the spec of your car, have you got either of the Connected (iDrive like) displays? If you have you can see the tyre pressures under Vehicle Information, Vehicle Status. Just to test the TPMS is working - take 5 psi out of a rear tyre and take it for a slow drive until the tyre pressures are displayed. This should show you the TPMS is working and if it identifies the correct wheel. If it thinks the wheel is still in the old location, reinflate, reset the TPMS, and try the test again. Plenty of F56 owners rotate the wheels, it seems to be more popular in the US. None are reporting problems on the MiniF56.Com forum.

I think it time to talk to them.

Have you got a signal on both CAN hi and CAN lo? Does your scope CAN decode? I can’t help thinking if Easymap can view live data (and record it)your ECU and map should be fine.

Charles, as you talk about Easymap, I guess you have that up and working, every thing you see in live data (that’s working or has been implemented by Caterham) is available on the bus. If your not seeing anything in the datalogger but easymap is working it must be the connection or the setup of the datalogger.

I just used the Caterham parts the last time I did it https://caterhamparts.co.uk/hoses/1134-brake-hose-3-way-to-rh-rear-caliper.html?search_query=race+brake&results=465 But one of the fittings had a strange none metric / none imperial AF, I now own one witworth spanner just to complete the job.

If its out now, get it done. I would change a trimming belt if the opportunity arises, providing its had a reasonable service live. In your example 8 years is beyond Caterhams recommendation but below Fords, so the choice is obvious. I suspect when the engine had upgrades it was changed then, but if you don't have evidence of that then a better safe that sorry approach is all that can be recommended.