agent_zed

Ideally if you can take the spring off the shock you can then move the piston to the best position and set the rest up to match. I am no suspension expert so if i am talking rubbish please correct me but my thinking is... on the front of my car i have 3 inches of shock movement so i set it so i had 2 inches of travel upward and 1 inch droop when in a normal position. I am assuming the same 2:1 setup for the rear would be ok too. E.g if you have 6 inches of shock travel set it so you have 4 inches upward and 2 droop. Once you know how much travel you have you can temporarily hold the piston in the correct place. If you stick a wheel on and lower it so you have ~7inches from the floor to the side panel the wishbone should be in the correct lower position. remove the wheel without altering the height. Stick the shock in with the height set to minus 2 inches (this should leave 4 inches of upward travel still available) and then adjust the top mount to fit. If you can't remove the spring you'll have to know what the shock travel is and then minus 1/3rd of the length. You can just a piece of wood to this length to set the top mount. Once you set the car down on the spring it will obv sink down so you'll need to wind it up a bit to where the shock should sit, hopefully with a nice amount of space between the coils. You should now have the correct height so that the shock has enough movement to go up but also drop down when needed. Hopefully my thinking is not complete nonsense and someone else can either correct or confirm. hth

Well probably won't get much wetter than when i drive the 2b most of the time what with the weather like it is in this country Got soaked earlier this evening as having to fit a new rear spring on my peugeot 3008 which i've only had for a couple of months. Think the huge amount of potholes around probably caused that. Could have done without having to replace it in the rain and dark

cool thanks guys. Think i'll go for that one then as yes i will be shapening wood chisels and the like. Useful tip about draining. I assume i can run it without water if i am not using that wheel?

yeah i went for anti-bloom as i don't see the weather getting much better for a while so might have to spray in less than perfect conditions. So i definitely used activated etch primer but it wasn't the deadly kind. I think we are getting confused in terminology though as there is 2 pack expoxy primers which are nasty things with cyanide and 2 pack activated etch cellulose primers. ' https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/etch-primer 2 Pack Etch PrimersAs the name suggests 2 Pack Etch Primers (or 2 Part Etch Primers)are supplied in two parts - the Primer and an Activated thinners. It is the activated thinners that contains the acid and thus causes the reaction in the primer. 2 Pack Etch Primers should not be confused with Two Pack Epoxy Paints. Whilst the terminology of 2 part (or pack) means the same, the two products are as different as chalk and cheese. Two Pack Epoxy Paints are very hazardous and should only be handled in the proper environment, 2 Part Etch Primers are essentially no more dangerous than their single pack cousins. The disadvantage of 2 Pack Etch Primers is the fact that you have to mix the two parts together.' I used a cellulose etch primer on all my panels from the mild steel to the grp and after 10 years it's held up pretty well. It's the top coat that doesn't seem to hold up so well but not from flaking off but by having the weird reaction as mentioned above. This time around i will be using decent thinners so perhaps that has been my problem in the past and if i put a normal primer on perhaps that will stop any reaction with the etch primer if that is doing something. Getting a good finish out of the gun i've generally been ok at and only need a bit of polishing to get it nice enough for my needs. Oh and having to flat out all the flys I tend to stick a bit more thinners in for the last coat as i've seen people saying to do that and it seems to work for me. I might try using my gravity fed gun this time as it's smaller so perhaps i can use lower pressure on that. Otherwise it will be my bigger gun but that always seems to need a lot of psi or it just won't spray properly even though i think it is a 1.2 nozzle if i am remembering my numbers correctly.

Hi, Want to get a cheap and cheerful bench grinder. Have used my dad's for more years than i can remember and that was just a cheap jobbie so not going to spend a lot. I've seen a wet grinder https://www.screwfix.com/p/energer-enb520grb-150mm-bench-grinder-240v/91494which gets ok reviews and i just wondered whether it was worth having the wet part or not? I've only used the normal double ended dry wheel types so not sure of the advantage of wet grinding. Is this more for very fine finishes? I'll probably grind thinner materials in general, bits of pipe and 4/5mm steel etc and sharpen tools. otherwise will probably get a titan https://www.screwfix.com/p/titan-ttb521grb-200mm-bench-grinder-240v/85634 any thoughts? thanks

ah yes i'd seen this on my google travels. Perhaps that is a better location than slung underneith where i was thinking it would go. What do you do with your crankcase breather?

cool thanks. I happen to have some 22mm stainless pipe which i might use and weld up the ends, Mostly so it all looks the same alternatively i wondered about using some 2 inch stainless tube i have and making a 6inch container (just weld a cap top and bottom) which could have a flange on to bolt to the block as there are 2 bolt holes unused near the front of the engine (pinto). I'll see what fittings i've got kicking around that fit the pipes from servo etc thanks

cool. What did you use for the connections to the manifold? will 3.5/4mm holes for each be enough of a vacuum? can i add the crankcase vent into this? i still run with the ford stock setup with the valve thingy from the crankcase and then pipe into manifold.

Hi, just working my way through a load of jobs on the 2b and trying to push on and get my bike carbs on there. I'm just finishing up the manifold and thinking about vacuum take offs. I definitely need them as i have servo and vac advance on the carb and ideally want to vent the crankcase back into the engine. So my plan is to make a simple vacuum chamber. I was going to use mig tips (6mm thread) and centre drill them out to 4mm. Will this be enough? The chamber will then have a take off for the servo and vac advance. The other thing i am not sure about it how to vent the crankcase back into the manifold. Can i vent into this chamber? or will that remove any vacuum created? Do i need a direct vent into one of the runners? I don't really want to run without a servo as i am used to the setup after 10years any advice appreciated.

I wonder if it is not the crankcase venting causing your smelliness (or only part of). I was over fueling quite a bit and would arrive at work with quite a smell on my coat etc. Because of the air currents and a side exhaust the exhaust fumes were come back into the cockpit area or at least enough to get my right shoulder area. I think my carb is a bit knackered and am looking to change to some bike carbs (currently sitting on the kitchen cupboard) but i was definitely over fueling, probably not helped by a bent valve on one cylinder. If it's a relatively recent overhaul i am assuming the valve stem seals were replaced? I'd check your fuel mixture and look for any blue smoke from the exhaust.

Looking at metal ride on cars for my kid. Will be a few years off building one but just amusing myself collecting ideas and stumbled aross this one https://www.amara.com/products/bentley-blower-model-car?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&amss=60u&pdg=pla-353762027949:kwd-353762027949:cmp-226784790:adg-17709113550:crv-98512513950:pos-1o2:pid-98812&gclid=CjwKCAiAk4XUBRB5EiwAHBLUMbCgHN5f274cWQfOYKfAjV5S2xW6OXgoj98csJGxcp-IWqFPeyUkmhoCDikQAvD_BwE Flipping ek at that price i could buy my kid a working car. My 2B cost less than that to put on the road! might not be quite the same quality but for £4940 less you could get this one from halfords http://www.halfords.com/kids-zone/ride-on-toys/ride-on-cars/metal-ride-on-racing-car?cm_mmc=Google+PLA-_-Ride+On+Toys-_-Ride+On+Cars-_-242898&istCompanyId=b8708c57-7a02-4cf6-b2c0-dc36b54a327e&istItemId=xxprttwaxx&istBid=xzwt&_$ja=tsid:94971|cid:868641111|agid:42483200543|tid:pla-403171365295|crid:203186066808|nw:g|rnd:2240798565829412470|dvc:c|adp:1o1|mt:|loc:9045585&gclid=CjwKCAiA8P_TBRA9EiwAJrpHMxw3fOpMiFkFw6FSJ5oa3oZQxG81-soKmd3ViaVMMxwcfjkJvIfhzxoCszAQAvD_BwE Of course it is probably because i am a bad parent that i don't buy my kid the £5000 toy car!!!

i hate to think what is now going to show up in 'suggested' items list. I had to show my GF this post so she didn't think i as actively searching for such like.

don't think i want to be tied into that deal.....

ah this one mentions a fail at sva for upper mount. But again that could be a single mount http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=13237&hl=%2Bupper+%2Bharness+%2Bmount&do=findComment&comment=112369probably where i was getting my thinking from though.

so MegaDodo mentions an iva pass but with the 2007 chassis which has the mounts through the tube not welded to it in this thread http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=32718&hl=%2Bseat+%2Bbelt+%2Bmount&do=findComment&comment=245817which may be where i had seen that but i think that was standard not a retro fit And this mentions a single top mount welded on http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=33071&hl=%2Bseat+%2Bbelt+%2Bmount&do=findComment&comment=248384which may be where i was putting 2+2 and getting 4.5 again this mentions being asked for a pull test by iva tester but i think re-reading it it may be a single mount again http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=27323&hl=%2Bseat+%2Bbelt+%2Bmount&do=findComment&comment=208528sadly cant see the pics anymore. I know the later chassis had the bolts through the bar, but thinking about it now perhaps that was because the bar was a round bar so couldn't have had the tubes welded to the back. So i think i was probably panicking you for nothing. Sorry Unless anyone else has further info hopefully it is just bad info on my part. ....just one more thought is that if the belt goes through the seat but is deflected in any way the seat becomes part of the structure and gets treated differently. I think you are probably ok as the holes look pretty big but just check when you sit in that the harnesses go over your shoulders and aren't against the seat.

I'll do a bit of a trawl of Rhocar and see if i can dig up where i saw it mentioned. Don't want to give you bad info or a panic but if it is a problem at least it's easier to sort now than for a retest. @Brumster that's good to know if the zero is the same and passed. From the various posts over the years it does often seem that one test station is more or less strict on certain aspects. I had to show i had put anti-crush tubes into the tubes that hold the rear shock at the top where other people werent even questioned. Different tester different day seems to be a common thing.

well if you have to change the manifold to be able to fit a cat into the system you could alter the manifold so you don't have to add an extra joint into the steering. Less joints in the steering the better if you can. Just spotted a potential fail point though looking at your pics. Although my seat belt upper mounts are the same as you have i think they have been failure points for some people in recent times (i passed SVA in 2007). I Think they want the bolt to pass through the bar in a welded in tube rather than the tubed welded on the rear. I could well be wrong so hopefully others can confirm or reject my thinking.

Well if you needed more room down the side you could make a manifold similar to mine http://www.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=38045&page=3as it only has a single pipe exiting the side leaving space to add in a cat. Not sure whether you've had to put an extra bearing in for the steering shaft or not but one advantage to building your own is i made mine so it cleared the steering shaft without having to add in an extra joint, just the standard rh shaft. Or you might be able to move the collector on the one you have. i have no idea whether it would affect performance, although you will prob lose ~10bhp by sticking a cat on so probably not so much of an issue in the long run. Alternatively get on and get it IVA'd!!! how much do you have left to do?

I did similar to Maca. I think the lift the dot fasteners were the most expensive part. The material was about £5-6 a metre from ebay just black faux leather. Has held up for the last 3 or 4 years.

so given that since 1992 there has been a requirement for a CAT then why not just leave as is. It's gettting less and less likely that anyone is going to use a pre-92 engine. That is 26 years ago. Sure my engine is from 91 but i built in 2002. If i built now unless i was really keen to have a pre-cat engine it would cost more to find a decent old engine than use a modern one. Finding a full donor to get age related would be quite expensive too. I say leave it as is and it will sort itself out. The only change that could make sense is if the engine is upgraded at a later date the emmisions would have to meet the standards of the age of the engine. That would stop me for example sticking in a brand new zetec without a cat which i currently can do without a problem right now.

It's a marlin sportster isn't it? don't they have louvres all up the side panel? could you 'cup' the air filter to pull air through the louvres rather than from within the engine bay? Just a thin ally sheet air box with closed cell strip to seal against the side panel when you put it in place. Can't quite see if you can get a cm or so around the back of the filter so you wouldn't lose too much surface area of the filter. By the look of it you could open up the cup quite wide to get as much area as you can against the louvres.

but at what tax rate? will it be the new system even though it could be an age related plate?

From what i read above, and i Might not have this right so correct me if i am reading this wrong... Current situatuion is If you are making a car and want it registered with an age-related plate (e.g. 2001) you use parts from a car that is that age, same as always. This is no different to if i drive a car of the same age. It's mot is tested to 2002 standards. What this is saying (from what i understand) is that although you have a 2001 plate car we are going to test you for a 2018 car. So we won't be giving you the benefit of a 2018 plate but we'll give you the hassle of having to meet it's standards. Additional concerns, apart from additional cost, is taxation. What will it be taxed as? If it uses the new system you might get away with it being cheaper to tax. But what if you spend a load of money getting to the 2018 standard but you are still taxed on the old rules. Given that DVLA aren't exactly consistent with kitcars, i can imagine a fair few problems at the MOT station with the automated system.

Don't know about others but my doors/sidescreens don't have anything holding the bottom edge. Never had a problem and i've been through a fair few heavy downpours and standing water without water coming up from the bottom (or any edge for that matter). I made my doors though and i shaped the steel frame to match the body. When i put the vinyl on i added an extra lip of vinyl that tucks in behind the windscreen pillar so it is also sealed there. I never have a problem with it pulling outward as the airflow always pushes the doors into the car. I don't have a hood on so i don't know if that would affect anything. hth

as above not sure it is actually required but for my 2b i made a simple stainless tray. It is about 1.5inch high and has 2 J shaped bolts (some bent bolt bar) that hooks into holes in the side so i can bolt a flat bar (covered in rubber so it can't arc if misplaced) across the top to hold the battery in. hth