sebastiaan
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 07:16 PM |
|
|
Stiffening chassis?
Hi guys,
I've taken the engine (pinto) out of my MK this afternoon in anticipation of the winter upgrades. Now that the engine is out, I'd like to
take the opportunity to increase the chassis stiffness a bit. The Indy chassis doesn't have the "R" tubes at the top of the engine
bay nor the alternative "Y-braces" and this of course does not do the torsional stiffness any favours. Due to the design of my inlet &
exhaust manifolds, those braces would also not fit my car. Has anyone done something to increase the chassis stiffness of the Indy? I know the
"aussie mods" and have also seen Cymtrik's work on this but maybe there are other ideas out there...
Sebastiaan
|
|
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 07:51 PM |
|
|
I suggest you put up a photo of the car without the engine in it, it would make it easier for people to make suggestions as to where stiffening could
be added.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
What makes you think it needs stiffening ? MK have sold lot's of indy's and i cant think of any i have seen with the R tube or Y bars
Track or Road
Jacko
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 16/1/11 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
What makes you think it needs stiffening ? MK have sold lot's of indy's and i cant think of any i have seen with the R tube or Y bars Track
or Road
Jacko
That's exactly the point. The R-braces add a lot of stiffness to the chassis and have been omitted from the MK chassis in order to be able to fit
a lot if different engines easily. if you look at the top rails making up the engine bay, the whole thing is in essence not triangulated at all...
I'll see if I can dig up a picture.
*Edit* found something in the photo archive.
 
Early days
[Edited on 16/1/11 by sebastiaan]
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 16/1/11 at 11:29 AM |
|
|
This'd be the simplest way of adding the R-tube, but my exhaust interferec with it as it drops slightly below the level of the top chassis rail
between the engine and the side rail (Pinto with MK manifold)
 
Simple R-race added
Doubling up on the R-braces gives this, which also does not work at the inlet side because of the inlet manifold....
 
2x R-brace added
And this is me going wild...
 
Descriptiolots of bracing
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
Back to my first post
what makes you think you need them ? if no other Indy's have them
Have you read /seen any indys that have fallen apart etc ?
Maybe because the indy has steel bulk heads that add's strength ?
Ps i don't have anything to do with MK
Jacko
[Edited on 17/1/11 by jacko]
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 07:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
Back to my first post
what makes you think you need them ? if no other Indy's have them
Have you read /seen any indys that have fallen apart etc ?
Maybe because the indy has steel bulk heads that add's strength ?
Ps i don't have anything to do with MK
Jacko
i find i get significant scuttle shake from the front end over rough surfaces as the completely undamped spring of the front end wobbles about.
torsional stiffness isn't essential (and there have been many cars with floppy bodies produced over the years), but it certainly helps the
suspension do its job. adding the engine braces and probably a tube across the top of the footwells would add a lot of stiffness.
MKs aren't built as a serious racer and they suit their purpose for the majority. that doesn't mean it's wrong to want to improve
them though, nor that they can't be improved because they don't fall apart
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by indykid
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
Back to my first post
what makes you think you need them ? if no other Indy's have them
Have you read /seen any indys that have fallen apart etc ?
Maybe because the indy has steel bulk heads that add's strength ?
Ps i don't have anything to do with MK
Jacko
i find i get significant scuttle shake from the front end over rough surfaces as the completely undamped spring of the front end wobbles about.
torsional stiffness isn't essential (and there have been many cars with floppy bodies produced over the years), but it certainly helps the
suspension do its job. adding the engine braces and probably a tube across the top of the footwells would add a lot of stiffness.
MKs aren't built as a serious racer and they suit their purpose for the majority. that doesn't mean it's wrong to want to improve
them though, nor that they can't be improved because they don't fall apart
Fair point 
i will get my coat 
Graham
|
|
|
RichardK
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
I stuck an extra one in that doubles as a front engine mount too.
Although my scuttle doesn't tend to shake, just the rest of the car!
Cheers
Rich
Gallery updated 11/01/2011
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
Fit a bike engine as part of your upgrade and you get the additional bracing to aid installation.........
Phil
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
Yes but a bike engine doesn't have the TORQUE of a proper engine 
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 09:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
Fit a bike engine as part of your upgrade and you get the additional bracing to aid installation.........
Phil
Well, I almost asked for that one, didn't I?
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 09:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
Yes but a bike engine doesn't have the TORQUE of a proper engine
What you fail to remember, is that bike engines have a torque multiplier in the form of a primary reduction gear 
Phil
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sebastiaan
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
Fit a bike engine as part of your upgrade and you get the additional bracing to aid installation.........
Phil
Well, I almost asked for that one, didn't I?
LOL
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 17/1/11 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sebastiaan
And this is me going wild...
Descriptiolots of bracing
if you were going to do something like that (which is probably way ott) then what about something more like this on the sides:
 
Description
that way you save those two vertical bits you had comeing up from the engine mounts, but keep the extra stiffening at the mounts
(I'm no chassis design expert, but its what I'd do on any of the lattice structures I design at work)
if you want to see a chassis with lots of bracing have a look at a dax:
[Edited on 17/1/2011 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 28/3/11 at 10:47 PM |
|
|
Sebastiaan,
Missed this post before.
If you're still looking for a solution, have a look at the 'spiderweb brace' that Liam put over the top of his Honda engined 4x4
Locost. Very neat solution.
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 28/3/11 at 11:01 PM |
|
|
Are the latest MK's the same as the chassis picture posted, just a thought as i know the pictured chassis was made in 2001.
|
|
|
mad4x4
|
| posted on 29/3/11 at 01:36 AM |
|
|
If we were to brace a chassis like that - small question ? Where do you fit the engine? there making it strong and inflexible but we also need to
leave space for engines of differing sizes, the braces between the tunnel and the nose would foul my exhaust and my in lets on the zetec.....
Scot's do it better in Kilts.
MK INDY's Don't Self Centre Regardless of MK Setting !
|
|
|
snoopy
|
| posted on 29/3/11 at 07:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bob
Are the latest MK's the same as the chassis picture posted, just a thought as i know the pictured chassis was made in 2001.
latest mk chassis
 
chassis1
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 31/3/11 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
Snoopy, Yes exactly my point although that isnt an Indy its the newer version. Not sure if they are making the Indy chassis the same as mine as 10
years ago.
[Edited on 31/3/11 by bob]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 31/3/11 at 08:42 PM |
|
|
bare in mind though if you make the front super strong it might not collapse in a crash and instead make you passenger compartment into the crumple
zone...
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 31/3/11 at 08:59 PM |
|
|
There are some pics of a triangulated chassis in the following thread:
http://locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=132958
Although it's not complete at the time of the last photo...
|
|
|
snoopy
|
| posted on 31/3/11 at 11:12 PM |
|
|
well this is a westfield chassis which i would assume most of us would say was suitably built
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 1/4/11 at 06:27 AM |
|
|
I appreciate that the Westy chassis looka s lot like the MK (bar the short engine bay stiffeners and the rail across the scuttle area), but I'm
simply after ways to stiffen the whole thing up a bit to further improve things.
And, as a sidenote: my MK is perfectly adequate for the odd sunday drive I use it for. It even self-centres (a bit.... ;-))
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 1/4/11 at 06:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
Fit a bike engine as part of your upgrade and you get the additional bracing to aid installation.........
Phil
that is one stunning engine bay!
[Edited on 1/4/11 by HowardB]
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again  and goes zoom)
|
|
|
