Lou R

Hi Steve, The metal door/dash/tunnel trims in my car were scratched up/marred - not likely that a polishing would benefit them. They weren't terrible but not good enough when everything else in the interior was brand new. Before I bought new replacements I decided to try and improve them a bit. I did the best I could to remove small dents (using a small punch) and gave them a slight sanding and applied a chrome-like silver spray. They don't look entirely original but after looking at them I have to say I've grown to like the matte finish and am planning to keep them. I've attached a couple photos to show you how they came out. Also, I'm pretty certain they're aluminum - easy to bend and non-magnetic. Lou R IMG_20240403_185143584.pdf IMG_20240403_185757198.pdf

Thanks. I guess the best solution is to remove the short fuel pump extension on the SJ assembly and replace it with a longer hose via barb fittings on each end. At least that way I can push the "T" into the cavity beneath the tank so it, at least, looks like a somewhat professional job. Lou R

I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at the attached photos and advise if this is the correct routing of the cross-tank/fuel pump line for an S2 (Federal). I purchased this hose assembly from SJ a number of months ago and it isn't a very comfortable fit at all. I would have thought Lotus would have done something different but, of course, I may have installed it wrong so any clarification would be appreciated. The stainless steel line that exits the pump and crosses the chassis is fine - the problem is with the feed line to the pump and the corresponding tank lines - it's a sloppy fit ! I wish I'd have made my own line - I likely would have made it differently ! Thanks, Lou R

Mike, Thanks for your comments. I went out to the car the other day to wrap this up but after reviewing your comments vs. the diagram provided by JONWAT (copy attached) it only became more confusing. The diagram is for a Turbo Esprit but it doesn't seem likely to me that Lotus would have altered the plumbing between the S2 and the Turbo. Consequently, I routed the hoses as per this drawing. If I'm reading your comments correctly you advise routing the hose from the core to the chassis pipe, which, according to the diagram routes to the left side chassis pipe (looking forward from behind the car). And the hose from the water valve routes to the right side chassis pipe. If I route the hoses through the body as per your comments they will cross each other. Am I missing something ? I don't think this is a RHD vs. LHD issue. Thanks, Lou R Esprit Heater Plumbing.pdf

Steve, Sounds right and I would take note of NG5's comments on lubing the grommets. I didn't and the friction from the tubes would push the grommets in/out of the chassis as I was trying to fit them. Not a big deal but a bit of a pain. You can do it either way (grommets on pipes first or installed in chassis first) but NG5's way sounds a bit easier. Lou R

Hi Steve, I placed the chassis pipes in my car while the body was off - it was a very simple job to do at that point in time. It was much easier, for example, to install the grommets on each pipe while the body was off. Otherwise, it can get a bit difficult working in such cramp quarters. Regardless of when you place them in the chassis I doubt you'll have any issues with the shifter mechanism. Access is so much better when the body is off. Lou R

Jon, Steve, Thanks for the clarification. As you noted it looks like the drawing is for a later model but I should be able to work it out. The primary difference is the water valve - on my car it is attached to the top of the pedal box and the attaching bracket forces it to lay over on its side which means I'll have to use different hoses than what's shown on the drawing. Looks like the guy who worked on my car at the factory fell asleep at the switch. After a closer inspection it appears they drilled 4 holes to route the hoses to the heater pipes that traverse the chassis. Not very precise but at least they can't be seen unless the car is somewhat disassembled. Steve, After some searching I located a hole in the area you noted. I was able to push the 2 connectors with cables through and attach them as per your photo. I was afraid I was going to have to remove the heater/A/C unit (again). Luckily though I didn't so this all ended very well. Thanks, Lou R

Hi Everyone, Can someone please provide some clarification on how to connect the various hoses that run to/from the heater ? I've attached a photo which shows (2) access holes - presumably for the heater hoses from the chassis pipes ? I'm assuming the hole on the left (in the photo) is for the hose from the right side pipe (that runs through the chassis as you view it from behind the car) and the opposite side access hole (in the photo) is for the left side pipe that runs through the chassis (the return side ?). There is a 3rd access hole to the right of the 2 holes in the photo - it's out of sight. Not sure what that hole is for but am pretty curious. I'm further confused on how to connect the various hoses to the heater water valve and the 2 inlet/outlet ports on the heater matrix inside the heater box. No luck in finding any previous posts on this subject - those that I could find were very old and the photos were no longer viewable. All I was able to find was a reference that the 2 chassis pipes utilized formed 90 degree hoses (with the 90 degree bend at the chassis pipes) to get to the heater box. Can someone please clarify how to interconnect the hoses from the chassis to the water valve and the matrix ? Also, in the photo you can see how the heater blower motors are connected - the routing of the wires to the motors seems awkward. Is there a different way the factory routed these wires ? I realize they can't be seen when the cover is installed but I think I'm more curious than worried when I look at how I currently routed them. Thanks, Lou R Access Holes 1.pdf

Hi Alistair, My photos agree with the photo posted by Jonathan. Lou R Coil 2.pdf

Hi Steve, Thanks for clearing that up. Good advice on incorporating a relay into the wiring for the compressor. The only problem I have is finding a location to place the relay and tapping into the fuse box for the relay power. Sounds simple enough but I much prefer to avoid drilling any extra holes that weren't put there at the factory. I've already added extra relays for the fans (which had an impact on the A/C wiring requiring an additional pink wire to the extra relays and an extra diode) and plan to add an additional 4 relays for the windows and 3 more (I think) for the headlights. So far I've had to drill a number of non-factory holes to accommodate cooling fan relays and circuit breakers (in the boot for accessibility) and I'm certain that will increase as I look to complete the various other installations. I'll look tomorrow and see if I can find a convenient location for the new compressor relay. Thanks again for your help. Lou R

Good Afternoon All, I've run into some confusion on the Air Con wiring on my Federal 1979 S2. Specifically, I can't seem to figure out how to connect the Thermistor wiring to the wiring depicted on the Wiring Diagram. The Thermistor has 5 wires that are supposed to terminate with the various wires indicated on the Wiring Diagram. The (2) White/Black wires attached to the Thermistor and are designated to terminate with the White/Black wires on the wiring diagram (temp sensor) - no problem there. Similarly, the single Black wire can assumed to be a Ground wire so I can easily connect that to the Ground junction - again, no problem. The problem arises with the remaining (1) Red and (1) Green wires. One of these wires needs to connect to the Yellow/Green wire that lands at the Fuse Box and the other has to connect with the (2) Pink wires that connect to the Fan Relay and the Air Con Compressor. I've looked at the Thermistor wiring carefully and cannot determine how these wires interconnect with the wires as depicted on the Wiring Diagram. If there were wires attached to the Pot I could logically assume they would attach to the Pink wires (that run to the Fan Relay and Compressor) as shown on the Wiring Diagram - no such luck ! I believe the wires attached to the Thermistor are original. Can anyone provide some insight on this ? Thank you, Lou R

Thanks everyone for the advice - I'm glad I asked ! I'm still not clear on where to ground the fuel tanks - can an anyone offer some advice on how/where Lotus did this ? My review of the layout isn't clear on where to land the grounds. I don't have the engine earth strap yet from SJ but I should be able to attach it to the chassis (per Tim's advice) and land the opposite end on one of the the bell housing bolts. Lastly, I'll have to look at the seats at a later date to see if there is a logical location to land both ends of the strap - that may be a ways off yet. Thanks for the responses. Lou R

Hi All, I was reviewing SJ's parts list and came across a couple of items that have confused me. Specifically, the Engine Earth Strap (A026M0039Z) and the Fuel Tank/Seat Earth Straps (B079M4094F). Regarding the Engine Earth Strap it seems somewhat odd the engine has to be grounded since it would appear to already be grounded via the engine/transaxle. Is there a specific reason the engine is grounded and if so where are the ends of the strap terminated ? Basically the same issue with the Fuel Tank/Seat Earth Straps. I realize it's good practice to ground the tanks but the straps provided by SJ seem to be about 5-6" long - I don't see where they could be grounded to the chassis assuming the other end is attached to the tank mounting bolt. And why do the seats require grounding ? Any ideas ? Thanks, Lou R

Eric, I've never seen that drawing before where the services ports are actually shown. It looks like the ports are located just aft of the bulkhead plate (#40) but before the grommets (#50) which are installed on the body. This would seem to indicate the ports are actually underneath the right hand fuel tank ! If that's the case there is no way to access them (unless you try accessing them from the 2 large cutouts in the body below the tank). I've spoken to an A/C specialist regarding the high side service port and they advised it would be OK to install it on the output side of the Drier. It might be best to simply follow Lotus' diagram and install both ports at the Compressor (?). Looks like I'm getting wrapped up in the usual problem - too many "internet experts" offering advice which often is contradictory to others' advice ! Thanks for sharing the drawing. Lou R

Steve, Good point. In my case I've replaced everything except the Evaporator (which I had pressure tested). The Compressor, Condenser, Drier and the Expansion Valve (and all of the hoses) are all new so hopefully there won't be any problems as you've described. But I will ensure to be extra vigilant the first few times I run the A/C to ensure it is operating as it should. Then, of course, I will have to ensure I'm diligently following all maintenance as a precaution. Lou R

Eric, Thanks. I was under the impression from various sources that the service port for the high (pressure) side had to be mounted somewhere between the Drier and the Expansion Valve and the low (suction) side between the Evaporator and Compressor. I chose to mount the high (pressure) side at the output side of the Drier. This was the only logical place I could find where servicing the system would not be too difficult. The service port for the low (suction) side will be mounted at the Compressor. I wish I knew where Lotus originally mounted the service ports so I could copy their approach but no information from anyone so far. The fittings/service ports on my car were all missing when I got it so I'm left with having to piece it back together as best I can determine. FYI, I'm planning to use Goodyear Galaxy hose (Standard Barrier, not Reduced Barrier per Steve's advice). I'm hopeful it will be easy to work with but I'll have to wait and see how flexible it is when I finally get it. If it's anything like the Aeroquip hose I suspect it will be a difficult install. Hopefully not ! Each hose run has at least one 90 degree turn - hopefully the selection of the hose fittings I've got planned will assist in helping to minimize the bending of the hose necessary to match the correct routing. Thanks again. Lou R

Steve, With your Compressor mounted high I'd assume you will have a longer length of hose coming up from below the fuel tank. A longer hose length would seem to imply a wider arc and consequently less stress at the fittings at the Compressor outlets (?). If that's the case I would assume my hose arc will be much tighter than what you've experienced and therefore more stressful than yours on the fittings at the Compressor outlets. Hopefully when I look at the car tomorrow it will become clearer. Additionally, with the correct angle fittings, Standard Barrier Hose and an informed routing of the hose everything will come together and make sense. I'm thankful for the comments on the Reduced Barrier hose - I now believe I would have had a host of problems if I had opted to buy that hose. Thank you for the follow-up. Lou R

Steve, Great advice on the Reduced Barrier hose. I haven't bought any hose yet so I'll just reconfigure my parts list to swap out the Reduced Barrier for the Standard Barrier along with all the fittings to accommodate Standard Barrier. The whole system layout was worked up using Reduced Barrier hose except for the 10AN run from the Evaporator to the Compressor. Each section of hose (AN6, AN8 and AN10) all make a right angle turn at some point along their paths which could, as you say, result in a kink. I'll have another look at my car tomorrow to see if there will be any restrictions to routing the hose similar to how you did it at the Compressor. I can do it your way (barring any obstructions/interference) or look at using different angled fittings as I described in my original post. Doesn't seem to be any advantages or disadvantages from doing it either way. Your comment on the stress on the fitting due to the bend radius of the hose is noted (I'll pay particular attention to that as I, once again, lay out this system on paper). Thanks for the feedback - most helpful ! Atwell, I was planning to use Goodyear Galaxy 4826 Hose - rated for R12 and R134. All the remaining system components should be OK for the Esprit (they're a combination of NOS, new or new from a Lotus supplier). Thanks, Lou R

Steve(s), Thanks for the responses. Interesting, when I mocked up my A/C system on paper I also placed the service valves at the Drier and the Compressor - seemed the most accessible places for service. My primary concern is using 90 degree fitting (with a service port) on the suction side of the Compressor. I don't know how flexible the AN10 hose is so I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to bend the hose enough (in that small area) to meet up with a 90 degree fitting. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to make it work with Reduced Barrier AN10 hose so I have to use standard AN10 hose. My thought was to use a 180 degree fitting on the suction side of the Compressor (can't find one with a service valve), add a small section of hose, and then add a straight splice fitting with a service valve. That will work but I was hoping there would be another, less busy alternative. I tried to use a 135 degree fitting but they only come with valves on the left or right side (not on the top). If I have to route the hose behind the compressor the valve may interfere with the oil cooler hoses (left hand side) or the rear of the compressor (right hand side). Does anyone have any experience bending AN10 hose ? Bending the AN12 Aeroquip hose was akin to bending a steel bar ! If I could get away with 90 degree fittings with a service port I'd be all set. FYI, I was planning to use a 135 degree fitting on the pressure side - it just makes installation easier since the hose doesn't require as severe a bend. No issue with the Drier - looks to be adequate room to use a 90 degree fitting with a service valve and, besides, it's an AN6 hose so it should be relatively easy to bend to conform. So, if anyone has some thoughts on how flexible AN10 hose is I'd appreciate some advice. FYI, I'm planning to use standard Goodyear A/C hoses for the entire system - Aeroquip hose is way too expensive and you have to use their limited selection of fittings for the connection points. Thanks again. Lou R Lou R

Was hoping someone would be able to help me out with the A/C on my Federal S2. When I got my car the A/C was inoperative and in many regards it was also incomplete. The hoses were cut and most of the A/C fittings were gone except for the Drier. I'm at a point in my restoration where I need to install the A/C before I go any further. I've got all new parts (compressor, condenser, drier, expansion valve) and I've pressure tested the Evaporator so it appears to be ready for re-installation. My problem is the various A/C fittings that attach the hoses to the various components. Since mine were all missing (except the Drier) I have no idea where Lotus originally installed the service valves needed when filling the system with refrigerant. I have a workable solution but it doesn't seem very elegant so I was hoping someone with an S2 with A/C could advise the points in the hoses where the service valves were installed. I know the suction side service valve is supposed to be installed somewhere in the hose that runs from the Evaporator to the Compressor and the high pressure side is supposed to be installed somewhere in the other hose (high pressure side) that runs from the Condensor to the Expansion Valve. There seems to be little space to install these where they would be easily accessible for service. Additionally, I'm having some problems in determining which fittings should attach to the hoses to the various components. Should I use 135 degree fittings at the compressor or 90 degree ? Did the condenser have a 180 degree fitting installed so the hose from the compressor would easily attach or did Lotus use some other arrangement ? I think I can make it work but I'd be very interested in learning how Lotus connected the A/C together (I think they used hydraulic fittings on Aeroquip hose) and where the service valves were located. Can anyone shed some light on this ? Photos would be most helpful. Thanks in advance. Lou R

Jonathan, I've had the same issues with shocks as many have also had. Apparently some of the Armstrongs are buildable while other are not. On a previous post I was directed to contact Harvey Bailey Engineering for a rebuild of my original front Armstrongs. Mine were not in the "rebuildable" category but the team at Harvey Bailey advised a different solution. The original front shocks were Armstrong 63-3305. Harvey Bailey advised that Armstrong 63-3314's have the exact same damping characteristics, size, etc. but had a shorter mounting tube at the bottom (apparently the only difference). 3314's are much more common than 3305's so they recommended using the 3314 (used on the G Esprit Turbos) but with the correct size mounting tube. They removed the shorter tube (from new-in-the-box 3314's) and mounted the correct size tube as the 3305 (for GBP 15 each). I just received them the other day and they appear exactly like the 3305's. I haven't mounted them yet (to replace the Spax) but I'm hopeful they will provide the original Armstrong ride. Of note, the 3314's they sold to me were red in color vs. the original Armstrong blue. I found traces of the Armstrong blue under the red. I'm sure you could strip and paint them the familiar Armstrong blue if you're so inclined. I'm going to leave mine red - it'll look different from the NOS Armstrong rear shocks but it's of no matter to me as long as they provide the original Armstrong ride. Give them a call - you may find they have an acceptable solution for you. Lou R http://harveybailey.co.uk

Steve, Just to confirm that Lotus used a different crank seal housing on manual vs. semi-auto tensioners. If you don't have the correct housing that is specifically for the manual tensioner it will never work. Lou R

I also measured 13/16". Lou R

Steve, I went the other way with my car (manual back to semi-auto tensioner). I put the manual tensioner parts in a box so they're sitting on a shelf. I'll measure the OD tomorrow and get back to you. Lou R

Steve, I never really liked the idea of running a plastic tube through the console and up into the gauge. There's some possibility of the tube breaking/leaking or the o-ring not doing its job, or a leaking ferrule resulting in a mess on new carpeting and the subsequent hassle of re-fitting everything to correct it. Even using a braided line leaves some risk. I just feel a whole lot better with an electric version. My car will be virtually new once it's finished - I'd hate to see carpeting ruined with oil. Might just as well change/upgrade it now before the car is back on the road. My car has not been running since I got it so I don't know the accuracy of the existing mechanical gauge - not much on the mechanical side that is more important than oil pressure so there's some concern with the OEM gauge. I really want an accurate pressure reading and the added cost of fitting a new electric Smiths gauge and a new Smiths sender seems like $100 well spent (cheap parts or reproductions never pay off). I believe the likelihood of failure of the existing mechanical set-up is not great but it's much less with the electrical set-up. That's my logic. Lou R