Buying advice and originality questions
36 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Hello all,
Since my first introduction a few weeks ago I have been scouring the classifieds, familiarising myself with the model and generally ignoring all household duties and tasks. I'm not a popular person in my house at present.
During my search, this car has popped up over an over and is also mentioned in a thread on here a couple of times -
http://www.classic-auctions.com/Auction ... 41135.aspx
It's a 1969 +2 with a few anomalies. From what I can see these are
1 - It has a later dash
2 - The front end may not be correct?
3 - It's been up for auction a couple of times by the current owner and up for sale on his own forecourt at Crossroads Garage.
4 - It used to be yellow
My questions are as follows
Re the dash. Is it possible that being registered in December 1968 that it might have had the later +2S dash fitted at the factory?
I know from experience of other classic car manufacturers that this sort of small production can result in cars leaving the factory with all sorts of oddities fitted to them.
I suspect in reality that it's been fitted as part of a part or full restoration and just not correct though.
The front end issues are the missing fog lights and the extra droop where the front of the arches seem to be close to the front of the tyre. As has been mentioned this can be seen on other cars in adverts I've seen so not so much of a concern?
I can see it's been up for auction at least twice and on the owners forecourt for a while and hasn't been sold. Not knowing how quick these shift normally I'm not sure if this is good or bad.
Does this mean people have looked at it and decided against it? Are there hidden horrors that I'm currently unaware of and only a viewing will confirm, probably, maybe.
Yellow now red? I'm really not that concerned provided it's been done right.
The colour change happened in 1983 so if there's any body issues I'd hope they'd have resurfaced by now.
I know in classic car circles originality can be key and some owners really take to this ethos but isn't just keeping them on the road and visible just as important? 99% of bystanders will see a classic Lotus, and a nice one at that, not the fact that the dash has 2 extra dials and there are no fog lights.
I suppose it's a case of each to their own.
I'd be happy to receive any guidance and all I'm really after is a usable +2 that can be driven frequently from the start and restored over time. I just need reliability initially.
Thanks, Mike.
Since my first introduction a few weeks ago I have been scouring the classifieds, familiarising myself with the model and generally ignoring all household duties and tasks. I'm not a popular person in my house at present.
During my search, this car has popped up over an over and is also mentioned in a thread on here a couple of times -
http://www.classic-auctions.com/Auction ... 41135.aspx
It's a 1969 +2 with a few anomalies. From what I can see these are
1 - It has a later dash
2 - The front end may not be correct?
3 - It's been up for auction a couple of times by the current owner and up for sale on his own forecourt at Crossroads Garage.
4 - It used to be yellow
My questions are as follows
Re the dash. Is it possible that being registered in December 1968 that it might have had the later +2S dash fitted at the factory?
I know from experience of other classic car manufacturers that this sort of small production can result in cars leaving the factory with all sorts of oddities fitted to them.
I suspect in reality that it's been fitted as part of a part or full restoration and just not correct though.
The front end issues are the missing fog lights and the extra droop where the front of the arches seem to be close to the front of the tyre. As has been mentioned this can be seen on other cars in adverts I've seen so not so much of a concern?
I can see it's been up for auction at least twice and on the owners forecourt for a while and hasn't been sold. Not knowing how quick these shift normally I'm not sure if this is good or bad.
Does this mean people have looked at it and decided against it? Are there hidden horrors that I'm currently unaware of and only a viewing will confirm, probably, maybe.
Yellow now red? I'm really not that concerned provided it's been done right.
The colour change happened in 1983 so if there's any body issues I'd hope they'd have resurfaced by now.
I know in classic car circles originality can be key and some owners really take to this ethos but isn't just keeping them on the road and visible just as important? 99% of bystanders will see a classic Lotus, and a nice one at that, not the fact that the dash has 2 extra dials and there are no fog lights.
I suppose it's a case of each to their own.
I'd be happy to receive any guidance and all I'm really after is a usable +2 that can be driven frequently from the start and restored over time. I just need reliability initially.
Thanks, Mike.
- Parptoot
- First Gear
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 02 May 2016
I'm no expert here, Mike. But a couple thoughts from my car's specs (February 1970 Plus 2S) . . .
Plus 2S was supposed to begin production early in 1969 so a December registration of a Plus 2S is definitely early enough to be suspicious.
However, the red car in question has remote boot release (no handle/button on outside of boot), longitudinal muffler/silencer with molded recess in boot floor for it (as opposed to transverse silencer), S model dash (you say). Sounds like an S model.
The obvious mod/change is the front end. It has the later 130 front end with molded in driving light pockets. This was not introduced until the 130 model, much later than your car, so obviously the car has had accident damage and had a front clip stuck on. This is not necessarily bad (car also has a replacement chassis), but when you look at the pic, it appears the fiberglass grafting was done wrong. I offer a pic of my car for comparison. Not the best angle, but you can see there should be more room between front of tire and front edge of wheel opening.
Personally, this problem would be reason enough for me not to buy this car. Period.
But each to his own
Best of luck with the search!
Randy
Plus 2S was supposed to begin production early in 1969 so a December registration of a Plus 2S is definitely early enough to be suspicious.
However, the red car in question has remote boot release (no handle/button on outside of boot), longitudinal muffler/silencer with molded recess in boot floor for it (as opposed to transverse silencer), S model dash (you say). Sounds like an S model.
The obvious mod/change is the front end. It has the later 130 front end with molded in driving light pockets. This was not introduced until the 130 model, much later than your car, so obviously the car has had accident damage and had a front clip stuck on. This is not necessarily bad (car also has a replacement chassis), but when you look at the pic, it appears the fiberglass grafting was done wrong. I offer a pic of my car for comparison. Not the best angle, but you can see there should be more room between front of tire and front edge of wheel opening.
Personally, this problem would be reason enough for me not to buy this car. Period.
But each to his own
Best of luck with the search!
Randy
-
Sea Ranch - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Type 50 Unit No 1070 was invoiced by the factory on 28th Oct 1968. It was fitted with the rare H type engine, which developed 123bhp and was only fitted to 227 +2 Elans between June 1968 and March 1969.
WNP111G was first registered in Worcestershire on 8th Dec 1968.
The +2S was announced by Lotus at the October 1968 London Motor Show.
Type 50 Unit No 1554 was indicated by Lotus as the first production +2S in March 1969. However, it was invoiced on 9th November 1969! The next few unit numbers were invoiced in April or May 1969 and all had the M type engine, which was fitted with Stromberg carbs, for the +2S.
The late 1967, early 1968 Lotus production was in a state of flux as we view it in retrospect. The Elan SS had been introduced during this period; engine types were moved from LP prefixes to more specific market and power single digit prefixes. +2 production also had to reflect the changes forced upon Lotus by the demands of the safety lobby in the US, so it is likely that several cross-over features exist on +2 Elans produced during this time frame.
Tim
WNP111G was first registered in Worcestershire on 8th Dec 1968.
The +2S was announced by Lotus at the October 1968 London Motor Show.
Type 50 Unit No 1554 was indicated by Lotus as the first production +2S in March 1969. However, it was invoiced on 9th November 1969! The next few unit numbers were invoiced in April or May 1969 and all had the M type engine, which was fitted with Stromberg carbs, for the +2S.
The late 1967, early 1968 Lotus production was in a state of flux as we view it in retrospect. The Elan SS had been introduced during this period; engine types were moved from LP prefixes to more specific market and power single digit prefixes. +2 production also had to reflect the changes forced upon Lotus by the demands of the safety lobby in the US, so it is likely that several cross-over features exist on +2 Elans produced during this time frame.
Tim
Visit www.lotuselansprint.com
-
trw99 - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3262
- Joined: 31 Dec 2003
As far as the wheel arch is concerned it looks to me like it's misshapen. If you look at the curvature from the top forward to the lower lip it appears to have a straight section rather than maintaining the curved profile. The gap at the lowest point doesn't look too far off. If you compare the curve of Randy's arch with the red car you can see it's quite different so it looks like a poor moulding. Wether this could be rectified by re-profiling without messing up the flare I can't tell.
I suppose it could have been re-bodied at some point which would explain all the other body differences.
Robbie
I suppose it could have been re-bodied at some point which would explain all the other body differences.
Robbie
-
Robbie693 - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: 08 Oct 2003
I would have thought that if it was an early 'S' prototype (which would be interesting!) then it would have had a Norwich registration number, and not first registered in Worcester.
Unless there is some documentation to prove that it is some sort of prototype, I would suspect it was re-shelled, or two cars combined into one.
The fact that it's had a colour change doesn't help it's case either!
Mark
Unless there is some documentation to prove that it is some sort of prototype, I would suspect it was re-shelled, or two cars combined into one.
The fact that it's had a colour change doesn't help it's case either!
Mark
-
Elanintheforest - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: 04 Oct 2005
>>>>>>
However, the red car in question has remote boot release (no handle/button on outside of boot), longitudinal muffler/silencer with molded recess in boot floor for it (as opposed to transverse silencer), S model dash (you say). Sounds like an S mod
>>>>
these things have nothing to do with a car being an S or not, zero.
All Plus Twos after a certain point have these features. I am not sure when the changeover happened but all Federal cars, S or not have these
As far as anomolies, there are some. The dash and the gauges and if there are fuses behind he fuse panel are all late S features. The recesses for fog lights with no lights is odd.
Perhaps a nose job?
ID plate is a repop.
However, the red car in question has remote boot release (no handle/button on outside of boot), longitudinal muffler/silencer with molded recess in boot floor for it (as opposed to transverse silencer), S model dash (you say). Sounds like an S mod
>>>>
these things have nothing to do with a car being an S or not, zero.
All Plus Twos after a certain point have these features. I am not sure when the changeover happened but all Federal cars, S or not have these
As far as anomolies, there are some. The dash and the gauges and if there are fuses behind he fuse panel are all late S features. The recesses for fog lights with no lights is odd.
Perhaps a nose job?
ID plate is a repop.
- gus
- Fourth Gear
- Posts: 721
- Joined: 05 May 2011
Mike,
My car, 50/1072 was made in 1968 and is not an "S' so the two cars should be almost identical.It also has a remote boot release and longitudinal muffler. I would suspect that the fog light mouldings and front wheel clearance indicate a body repair. The dash is from a later car and the ID plate appears to be a reproduction.
Norm
My car, 50/1072 was made in 1968 and is not an "S' so the two cars should be almost identical.It also has a remote boot release and longitudinal muffler. I would suspect that the fog light mouldings and front wheel clearance indicate a body repair. The dash is from a later car and the ID plate appears to be a reproduction.
Norm
- normanjsmith
- First Gear
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Back in the room.
Thank you all for the replies, Very helpful.
There's a number of possible issues, mainly the suspected body/crash repair to the front end.
There's a post on the other thread where this text appears showing this picture of another car -
"Although, with the image Vince highlighted I think it looks like it?s taken just slightly forward of adjacent to the car, making the wheel seem more forward in the arch than normal like"
Not such an odd thing or just a few bad, incorrect repairs that are showing up in Google images?
I think what I'm getting at is, Is this a show stopper for most and can it be repaired?
I suppose anything can be repaired but at what cost and why bother if another can be found for less.
I do like a bit of a project, I've done it over and over with cars but if the other items that cause some concern are all added in, does it make it a bit of a dog?
Thank you all for the replies, Very helpful.
There's a number of possible issues, mainly the suspected body/crash repair to the front end.
There's a post on the other thread where this text appears showing this picture of another car -
"Although, with the image Vince highlighted I think it looks like it?s taken just slightly forward of adjacent to the car, making the wheel seem more forward in the arch than normal like"
Not such an odd thing or just a few bad, incorrect repairs that are showing up in Google images?
I think what I'm getting at is, Is this a show stopper for most and can it be repaired?
I suppose anything can be repaired but at what cost and why bother if another can be found for less.
I do like a bit of a project, I've done it over and over with cars but if the other items that cause some concern are all added in, does it make it a bit of a dog?
- Parptoot
- First Gear
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 02 May 2016
It does look odd! This press photo doesn't look the same, although the front arch doesn't follow the wheel line.
Incidentally the Federal bodyshell (remote boot opener, straight exhaust, flush internal door handles) started at 0929, a fair bit before this car. But that doesn't explain the molded in spot light recesses and certatinly doesn't explain the central fuse box dash, which didn't come in until 1972.
Mark
Incidentally the Federal bodyshell (remote boot opener, straight exhaust, flush internal door handles) started at 0929, a fair bit before this car. But that doesn't explain the molded in spot light recesses and certatinly doesn't explain the central fuse box dash, which didn't come in until 1972.
Mark
-
Elanintheforest - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: 04 Oct 2005
ah...but that press photo is a bit strange is it not?.....
it has the very early door handles but the later chrome windscreen surround.....
lol
it has the very early door handles but the later chrome windscreen surround.....
lol
-
theelanman - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 1434
- Joined: 17 Sep 2003
AdrianSi wrote:Is this the red one? Was discussed the other week.... Looks like a 'bitsa' car.
That's the one I think. The 'Bitsa' term was used within the thread.
Later dash, later, possibly badly added, front end with light recesses, colour change and ummm, what else was it?
- Parptoot
- First Gear
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 02 May 2016
36 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Total Online:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests