squeezing in a V8 - advice needed!
AdamR - 20/12/04 at 11:58 AM
I'm using a T5 box with my RV8, along with an auto bellhousing and adapter plate to stick them together. I'm going for a +4 chassis, but
having modelled it in SolidWorks, there are obviously going to have to be a few more mods.
The above piccy is how things look sticking to the "sump should be no more than an inch below the bottom chassis rail" rule.
The two things that are worrying me most about this are that the bellhousing badly fouls the Q rail (see other pic below) and the gearbox looks way
too high up. My tranny tunnel would have to be as high as the rest of the chassis. And it looks like the prop would be too high up to meet the
diff.
Then there's the matter of how to fit the plenum and alternator under the bonnet, but I'll worry about that later!
Unfortunately a shortened/dry sump won't achieve much as the bellhousing is just as low. (I was surprised at this, and admittedly I've not
actually mated the bellhousing to the engine yet - they are in different locations a few hundred mile apart - but I'm pretty sure my CAD model is
accurate.)
To get the Q tube to clear the bellhousing I plan two mods: firstly, make the chassis an inch taller. (I know others have done this, but how is it
done without affecting the geometry for the front suspension mounting points?) and secondly, I'm considering cutting out the middle section of
the Q rail and replacing it with another rail laid across the top. Can any of the structural analysis experts tell me how this would affect strength
& rigidity?
As for the position of the gearbox, I'm really not sure. Anyone seen an RV8 and T5 in a seven? They are a popular combination, so I'd be
surprised if it's never been done.
Any comments/suggestions?
Btw, just to give credit where it's due, I used Blueshift's excellent SolidWorks +4 chassis model, which can be found
on this thread. The engine/ T5 box/bellhousing etc are mine
though, and I'm happy to share them if anyone is interested.
craig1410 - 20/12/04 at 01:13 PM
Hi,
Check out the pics on my website. I have been through this, albeit using the Rover LT77 gearbox, but this has similar issues. I am currently sorting
out the alternator and SU carb clearance issues (and distributor in fact)
I chose to drop the installation by a further 1" so that my sump is 2" below chassis rails. I will probably make a skid plate out of thick
aluminium (or duralumin or whatever it's called...) to protect the sump and bellhousing and add an extra 1/2" to 1" of ride height.
In retrospect I wish I had made my chassis 1" taller but it's not essential as I hope I will prove in the coming weeks and months. My
bodywork is from GTS Tuning and I will be adding a bunch of extra pictures to my website soon.
Note that I modified the "Q" tube by cutting out a section and moving it back a bit. I also tilted my "H" tubes either side of the
bellhousing to provide extra clearance while maintaining foot room.
HTH,
Craig.
ps. I'd be very interested in your Solidworks files if the offer is still open. In particular the engine would be great!
[Edited on 20/12/2004 by craig1410]
Bob C - 20/12/04 at 01:17 PM
Alternator - alternative mounting is hanging down on the right - then height problem becomes a width problem, I think I've got an old SDI bracket
if you're interested (or I might have used it already - I'll check when I go home) may not be suitable for the poly-V setup anyway. Re Q
rail, if you put a crank in it you should beef up the vertical dimension to 1.5" on the cranked part at least.
Bags of others must have "been there done that" already
cheers
Bob
James - 20/12/04 at 01:24 PM
Hi Adam,
How's the welding course? I'm probably coming back in January. Want to pick up my TIG again and hopefully do the C&G for ali and
stainless. Can't be much harder than steel! 
As to your chassis- nice pictures! Could you knock up a Pinto model so I can redo my chassis properly please?
Firstly, I'd highly recommend the chassis height increase- I wish I'd done this myself so help get the soddin Pinto in. MK do it too and it
looks fine. If you want to keep things slightly more elegent then don't continue the height all the way back- drop down an inch at the
'M'(?) tubes (wheel arches).
As for the suspension geometry- well don't worry about the FU1/2 tubes as these have only one bracket on so the angle they lie at isn't an
issue. When it comes to the LA/B/C thing then I would have thought just continuing the length of the verticals(ish) would be fine. Trigonometry (or
solidworks! ) will tell you how much more than an inch it needs to be. You could even cut the ends of the top tube of the 'L' assembly
square as opposed to the 50° angle. I think then that it would be no wider than on a 'short' chassis.
Don't think that is a very good way of explaining what I meant but hopefully yopu can decode it!
Cheers,
James
[Edited on 20/12/04 by James]
Liam - 20/12/04 at 02:25 PM
Hello...
Nice Solidworksing by the way!
Well, firstly I reckon you can definately get away with 2 inches of sump sticking down, as others have mentioned.
I've raised my chassis an inch too. Good idea and the proportions still look fine. Much better IMHO than just rasing the bonnet.
Finally you could consider what I've done to my Q tube to get my engine as far back as possible. Probably better structurally than moving it
back or up.
Liam
Rescued attachment DSCF0002.JPG
Racer46 - 20/12/04 at 02:38 PM
Hi folks. I've been lurking for a while but this is my first post.
If you haven't started cutting steel yet, have you looked at Jim McSorley's other chassis?
It's a +442. 4"wider, 4"longer and 2"taller.
The only problem I see is that it narrows drasticly at the nose.
You should be able to correct this woth little effort.
Happy Holidays,
Pete
Mark Allanson - 20/12/04 at 06:10 PM
I have a Pinto in a book chassis and even with a 4 pot, the clearances are VERY small. Make as much room as you can, cos I will guarantee you will use
it.
I would (if starting again) make all the bottom rails from 1"x2" 3mm rhs. A small increase in weight, but a massive increase in strength.
The rhs on end, and compensating for the height but cutting the H tubes an inch shorter.
craig1410 - 20/12/04 at 07:28 PM
Hi,
That's a nice design Liam, here is my own solution:
Note the extra triangulation on the side linking with the two short "R" tubes. Also note the standard SD1 engine mounts locate into the
"cradle" in the middle.
Cheers,
Craig.
AdamR - 20/12/04 at 07:51 PM
Thanks for all the reponse guys.
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I am currently sorting out the alternator and SU carb clearance issues (and distributor in fact)
If you're having problems with SUs, I hate to think the problems the injection plenun will cause.
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
I chose to drop the installation by a further 1" so that my sump is 2" below chassis rails.... and add an extra 1/2" to 1" of ride
height.
This definitely appeals as it will help solve the bonnet clearance problem at the same time. But what are the compromises to handling etc?
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
ps. I'd be very interested in your Solidworks files if the offer is still open. In particular the engine would be great!
Yep, I'll post a link later, once I've found somewhere to put them on the web.
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
Alternator - alternative mounting is hanging down on the right - then height problem becomes a width problem, I think I've got an old SDI bracket
if you're interested (or I might have used it already - I'll check when I go home) may not be suitable for the poly-V setup anyway.
My alternator is so high because its a Range Rover engine - I was hoping I can swap the mounting bracket for one from an SD1, so if you have one you
dont need that would be great.
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Finally you could consider what I've done to my Q tube to get my engine as far back as possible. Probably better structurally than moving it back
or up.
Like the idea of that - certainly looks good n' strong.
quote:
Originally posted by James
How's the welding course?
All done now... just need to go and pick up my City & Guilds certificate. May go back in the new year also, as I fancy a crack at TIG.
quote:
Originally posted by James
As to your chassis- nice pictures! Could you knock up a Pinto model so I can redo my chassis properly please?
Not on your life. I reckon I'll have chassis constructed quicker than it took to measure everything and learn SolidWorks. A more sensible
option would be for you to change engines to a V8. You know it makes sense!
quote:
Originally posted by James
As for the suspension geometry- well don't worry about the FU1/2 tubes as these have only one bracket on so the angle they lie at isn't an
issue.
But wont the brackets on the FU tubes be out of position as a result of the change of angle? They have to line up perfectly with the brackets on LA/LB
dont they?
quote:
Originally posted by Racer46
If you haven't started cutting steel yet, have you looked at Jim McSorley's other chassis?
It's a +442. 4"wider, 4"longer and 2"taller.
The only problem I see is that it narrows drasticly at the nose.
You should be able to correct this woth little effort.
Would like a little more length (cough cough) but I dont like the look of the narrow nose.
[Edited on 20/12/04 by AdamR]
AdamR - 20/12/04 at 08:06 PM
For those who were after my V8 and T5 SolidWorks models, I've zipped 'em and they can be found at the link below:
http://7v8.net/picture_library/cad/v8_and_t5_model.zip
dblissett - 20/12/04 at 08:21 PM
has the mcsorley 442 changed because i am building one and i had to widden a standard nose to 26" to get it to fit right
ps the other bonus with a 442 is standard width seats can be used .
cheers dave
craig1410 - 20/12/04 at 09:01 PM
Adam,
I have a Rover SD1 alternator mount going spare but I'm not sure you will want it. I have it going spare because if I fit it then I would have to
remove the tube which goes across the front corner of the upper chassis rails at the front. It's either tube "S" or "T"
IIRC.
I solved this by buying a Rover P6 alternator bracket. This bolts on to the same fixings as the SD1 bracket but holds the alternator upright rather
than dangling below. This puts it very close to the bonnet but should be okay with a bit of fettling. I bought it for just £10.50 on ebay.
I also toyed with the idea of mounting the alternator down where the power steering pump came from but there wasn't enough room. In my opinion
the P6 mounting arrangement is the best option, especially if you have a taller chassis.
Cheers,
Craig.
ps. Thanks for the Solidworks files!
Bob C - 20/12/04 at 11:19 PM
Hi Adam,
I'm afraid I can't seem to lay my hands on the alternator bracket - I must have "tidied it up", looks like the only one I've
got is on an engine...
Apologies
Bob C
Bob C - 20/12/04 at 11:22 PM
I'll check in my shed in the light tomorrow, but I'm not very hopeful
Bob
Simon - 20/12/04 at 11:43 PM
Adam,
Stop f********g around with things like solidworks and just get on with it.
There are a few of us on here fitting V8's who have already discovered most of the pitfalls
See pic on how to sort clearance issues
ATB
Simon
Rescued attachment 2004_1019Image0032.JPG
phelpsa - 20/12/04 at 11:46 PM
Is that a hayabusa next to the car?
Adam
Simon - 21/12/04 at 12:50 AM
Adam
Yip
ATB
Simon
phelpsa - 21/12/04 at 01:05 AM
If I had one of those, the engine probably wouldn't be in it.
Adam
Racer46 - 21/12/04 at 01:52 PM
dblissett,
What I was refering to was that On a 442 chassis tubes F1 & F2 are only 6.1 inches apart where they join LD. On a "book" chassis they
are 8.6 inches apart. On a +4 chassis they are 12.6 inches apart. Yes on the 442 chassis assembly LA,B,C,D is 25.5 inches wide and would require a
26 inch nose.
James - 21/12/04 at 03:22 PM
Adam,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by James
As for the suspension geometry- well don't worry about the FU1/2 tubes as these have only one bracket on so the angle they lie at isn't an
issue.
-------------------------------------------------
But wont the brackets on the FU tubes be out of position as a result of the change of angle? They have to line up perfectly with the brackets on LA/LB
dont they?
Yes and no!
As long as the top wishbone bolt hole is inline with it's partner on LA/LB then it doesn't matter where the tube is. You can give it quite a
lot of movement aslong as those holes are inline.
Personally, I moved the bottom of my Fu1/2 inwards somewhat so there wasn't that clash between FU1/2 and the lower rear wishbone bolt.
Make yourself a jig like the one in my photo archive and you'll have no problems with the brackets.
Hope that helps,
James
P.S. Sodit, my archive is too messy- here's the photos:
Image deleted by owner
Image deleted by owner
[Edited on 21/12/04 by James]
James - 21/12/04 at 03:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by James
Adam,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by James
As for the suspension geometry- well don't worry about the FU1/2 tubes as these have only one bracket on so the angle they lie at isn't an
issue.
-------------------------------------------------
But wont the brackets on the FU tubes be out of position as a result of the change of angle? They have to line up perfectly with the brackets on LA/LB
dont they?
Yes and no!
As long as the top wishbone bolt hole is inline with it's partner on LA/LB then it doesn't matter where the tube is. You can give it quite a
lot of movement aslong as those holes are inline.
Personally, I moved the bottom of my Fu1/2 inwards somewhat so there wasn't that clash between FU1/2 and the lower rear wishbone bolt.
Make yourself a jig like the one in my photo archive and you'll have no problems with the brackets. Just set one of the brackets as your datum
point and take it from there.
Hope that helps,
James
P.S. Sodit, my archive is too messy- here's the photos:
Image deleted by owner
Image deleted by owner
[Edited on 21/12/04 by James]
ned - 21/12/04 at 03:26 PM
James,
What you describe means that although the pickup points may be relevant to one another you may have altered the track slightly or require different
length wishbones to get the book geometry/track. You may also in moving the pickup points start to change the roll centres of the front suspension.
Ned.
James - 21/12/04 at 03:29 PM
Don't think so mate.
Maybe I haven't explained it very well.
All I'm saying is you can change the vertical angle of FU1/2 (when looking down the length of the chassis). As long as the wishbone bolt hole is
in the same place- it doesn't matter.
Hope that's clearer.
James
ned - 21/12/04 at 03:42 PM
Here's a fiagram of what I mean then..
You change the roll centres regardless when you widen a locost chassis as the centre crossover points of the lines traced back from the wishbones when
drawing out the roll centres will have moved. Assuming you are keeping the wishbone locations (top and bottom respectively) in proportion to the book
locations in the taller chassis ie as per your jig, then you are in effect moving the lower wishbone in (as the steeper angle of the vertical tube in
the front bulkhead dictates this) unless yo uare going to alter then length of the top wishbone slightly via the camber adjustment in the ball joints
thread. You are also reducing slightly the front track from the moving in of the bottom pickup point.
hope that all makes sense. I'm not saying it will make the handling and better or worse, but it will affect the geometry slightly. that said,
probably not enough that you'd notice, just making my point.
[Edited on 21/12/04 by ned]
ned - 21/12/04 at 03:43 PM
oops, forgot the attachment:
ps the heightening of the chassis is exagerated I know, but shows the subtle change in the cars geometry..
[Edited on 21/12/04 by ned]
Rescued attachment inch_taller_chassis.gif
James - 21/12/04 at 04:44 PM
I'll admit I don't really know what roll-centre actually means. (Got a decent link?). Guessing it's not as simple as the axis about
which the chassis rotates to follow a droop on one side.(?)
Having read your post several times I'm still not sure I agree!
I'm saying keep 'L' and it's two brackets the same.
Also, keep the rear lower bracket the same.
Just move FU1/2 by rotating it about the axis of it's wishbone bolt hole.
Are you saying the suspension geometry will change if FU1/2 is attached to a different part of the chassis, even if the wishbone bolt hole is in
exactly the same place?
James
.... who's glad he kept his front suspension 'book'....
[Edited on 21/12/04 by James]
krlthms - 21/12/04 at 06:40 PM
Quote:
"My tranny tunnel would have to be as high as the rest of the chassis. And it looks like the prop would be too high up to meet the diff."
Hello,
Mainly thinking of your second problem.
Have you thought of tilting the engine/gearbox fore to aft so that the prop end of the geabox points down a little bit, so that it permits coupling
to the diff.
If you do, yoou would probably need to fit a dry sump, to assure adequate lubrication of all the cylinders.
The other thing I noticed in your drawing is the gearbox side of the bell housing extends significantly lower than the engine side; why is that, and
could it not be machined off, or cut and welded?
Cheers
KT
MikeRJ - 21/12/04 at 07:25 PM
James, I have a +4" wide +1" high chassis and went through this a while back.
By making the upper and lower parts of the chassis both 4" wider with no other changes, then all angles stay the same, although the roll center
will have changed anyway.
By making the chassis 1" taller, you essentialy change the angle of the tubes the the suspension mounts to. In order to get the correct camber,
the top wishbone now needs to be a little longer. Again this will also change roll center. This is exactly what Ned shows in his drawing.
The good news is the difference is pretty tiny, certainly well within the adjustment available on the Transit rod end. I haven't bothered to
work out just how far this moves the roll center, probably a worthwhile exercise for a rainy day.
quote:
Originally posted by James
I'll admit I don't really know what roll-centre actually means. (Got a decent link?). Guessing it's not as simple as the axis about
which the chassis rotates to follow a droop on one side.(?)
Pretty much, it's the axis about which the car rolls when cornering, i.e. outside suspension in bump, inside in droop. Trouble is, it
dosen't usualy stay put anyway, but tends to move around as the suspension moves, which makes analysing it a little tricky.
Have you got a copy of Alan Staniforths book (Competition Car Suspension)?
[Edited on 21/12/04 by MikeRJ]
Simon - 21/12/04 at 07:54 PM
Adam,
Can't see why. Best place for it if you ask me.
Bike weighs (with me) about 300kgs and has 101ft lb torque. Car will weigh about 600kgs and will have 200ft lb. Therefore I have a bike that is very
tractable from about 30mph to 200mph in top, and a car that (with this gearing) will likewise be tractable from about 25mph to 120 (136 with new diff
I have) in top.
Neither require changing down to overtake (which should help with fuel economy for car), though it is nice to know that the bike'll do 86mph in
first gear if I want it.
ATB
Simon
krlthms - 21/12/04 at 09:40 PM
Liam,
Is your footwell wide enough for pedals, feet etc?
Cheers
KT
ned - 21/12/04 at 10:22 PM
James,
When I lend you my copy of PPC I'll dig out the staniforth book aswell so you can have some nice bed time reading over christmas
Ned.
Liam - 21/12/04 at 11:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by krlthms
Liam,
Is your footwell wide enough for pedals, feet etc?
Cheers
KT
Just about! The bottom rail runs back straight like that cos I gotta accommodate the front prop. But the footwell panelling will bulge out to give
enough room for my 6'+ size 12 feet buddies to be able to drive. It's fine for me cos I'm short and only size 8 feet. When I drive
the pedals will be further back in the footwell where it's wider. The two rails above the footwell are what my adjustable pedal box is gonna
slide on.
My pedal spacing will be about the same as a Lotus elise - not very much - to allow me to hop accross the pedals easily for left foot braking and heel
and toeing and all that. Here's some elise pedals...
Liam
Rescued attachment elisepedals1.jpg
Liam - 21/12/04 at 11:33 PM
My feet are only size eights and i can bridge the brake and throttle easily. Beautiful to drive. Just far enough apart is all you need, any further
hinders the sporty driving experience IMHO.
Rescued attachment 2002_0506_142406AA.JPG
krlthms - 21/12/04 at 11:42 PM
Liam,
Thanks, it makes sense now. I actually was wondering about the parallel rails, now I know.
Incidently, when they say Elise is "pure", they are not joking; exposed glue, bare steering column, pretty industrial environment. I have
seen locosts that are much better finished.
Cheers
KT
phelpsa - 22/12/04 at 12:06 AM
[remembering the old times]
We sold the Elise to build a Locost
The Elise was a great car, but with the motorbuild 160bhp kit and a pretty much straight through exhaust it was amazing.
A 110db metalic orange elise was pretty eye catching, and everywhere you went people stared.
[/remembering the old times]
Anyway, back on subject.
My pedal box has about an inch between the (2) pedals, I am 14 and have size 10 feet, which leads me to wonder 'have I put them too close
tegether?'
Adam
krlthms - 22/12/04 at 04:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
[remembering the old times]
We sold the Elise to build a Locost
The Elise was a great car, but with the motorbuild 160bhp kit and a pretty much straight through exhaust it was amazing.
A 110db metalic orange elise was pretty eye catching, and everywhere you went people stared.
[/remembering the old times]
Anyway, back on subject.
My pedal box has about an inch between the (2) pedals, I am 14 and have size 10 feet, which leads me to wonder 'have I put them too close
tegether?'
Adam
Depends if you like to drive barefoot (I am only half joking)
Otherwise, as George Bush the father would say: not prudent at this juncture!
KT
ned - 22/12/04 at 10:12 AM
Adam,
Happy birthday for whenever it was, last time you posted your age you were still 13! 
Ned.
phelpsa - 22/12/04 at 10:52 AM
Well, i'm more 14 than 13 (a month or there abouts) I think I meant to put 13, but I can't be sure
James - 22/12/04 at 01:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
By making the chassis 1" taller, you essentialy change the angle of the tubes the the suspension mounts to
Sorry but I don't agree there. If you look at an MK Indy- the chassis is 1" taller but the brackets are in the same place as a book
chassis.
Clearly, you have to keep the LA/LB tubes at the same angle- because there are two brackets. MK have done this by extending LA/LB veritcally*
by 1".
This then leaves you two choices for FU1/2. You can either keep the tube at the same angle and extend it 1"** (but weld it to a slighly different
place on the 'J'&'F' rails.
Or, you can twist FU1/2 about the axis of the wishbone bolt (ie. keeping the wishbone bolt in the same place in space relative to the other bolts) so
that one end will be welded to it's original place and one will be somewhere else.
The wishbone bolts are all staying in exactly the same relative places.
Best Regards,
James
* The tube is bent at the top.
** When I say 1" I means slightly more than that to compensate for it not running vertically.
James - 22/12/04 at 01:05 PM
Think of it this way:
If I cut the top layer of rails off my chassis I can add 1"* of tube to all the tubes that support the top layer and then weld the top layer of
chassis back on.
You can't tell me that the relative positions of the chassis brackets have moved!!!
Cheers,
James
*Slightly more for the angled tubes
[Edited on 22/12/04 by James]
andyace - 22/12/04 at 01:43 PM
I sort of agree with James however I would guess that if you extend the supports at the same angle the distance between the top rails (left and right)
on the car will increase slightly giving you a slightlly wider top but should not effect the position of the brackets.
Neds picture is sort of correct in that it shows the horizontal bars remaining at the same width which does mean the angle changes.
So in order to keep the angle, the width of the bottom can increase by 1 inch and the top width will increase by 1 inch + a little bit.
I will draw a picture if it isnt clear!
[Edited on 22/12/04 by andyace]
[Edited on 22/12/04 by andyace]
andyace - 22/12/04 at 01:46 PM
James, Did you need to make any adjustments to get your Pinto in, I am currently stripping my donor Sierra 2.0 SOHC (+Carbs). I guess the main areas
of concern are the height. Did you have to modify the std transmission tunnel (I have type 9 gbox).
andkilde - 22/12/04 at 03:05 PM
quote:
I'll admit I don't really know what roll-centre actually means. (Got a decent link?). Guessing it's not as simple as the axis
about which the chassis rotates to follow a droop on one side.(?)
Actually James, you're spot on with your description.
The Roll Axis is a line passing through the front and rear roll centres -- the car, theoretically, will rotate about this axis as it rolls in a
turn.
Someone posted a link to an RC car site last year (which I can't find at the moment) which had excellent decriptions of Roll Centres, Scrub, KPI
and a load of other relevant info. If I turn it up I'll send it along.
Cheers, Ted
AdamR - 22/12/04 at 11:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by krlthms
Hello,
Mainly thinking of your second problem.
Have you thought of tilting the engine/gearbox fore to aft so that the prop end of the geabox points down a little bit, so that it permits coupling
to the diff.
If you do, yoou would probably need to fit a dry sump, to assure adequate lubrication of all the cylinders.
Your idea sounds a bit drastic! I wonder if anyone has has done this before though? It's got me wondering how many degrees tilt on the engine it
would take to have to worry about oil circulation problems. Anyway, hopefully this will not be necessary with the other mods.
quote:
The other thing I noticed in your drawing is the gearbox side of the bell housing extends significantly lower than the engine side; why is that, and
could it not be machined off, or cut and welded?
Cheers
KT
Yeah, the RV8 (or my RV8 at least) only mates onto the bellhousing for the top half of it's circumference. The bottom half is blanked off with a
plate. If I took any material off the bottom of the bellhousing it would expose the flywheel and gain me at least in inch or ground clearence (if I
chopped the sump to match), but presumably wouldnt go down too well with Mr SVA!
AdamR - 22/12/04 at 11:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by James
Think of it this way:
If I cut the top layer of rails off my chassis I can add 1"* of tube to all the tubes that support the top layer and then weld the top layer of
chassis back on.
You can't tell me that the relative positions of the chassis brackets have moved!!!
Cheers,
James
*Slightly more for the angled tubes
I agree with James on this one. The FU tubes do not join to the F and J rails right at their outer edges. At the bottom they can overlap onto the E
tube, and at the top they can overlap onto the join with S or T. Therefore you can move/change the angle of the FUs without widening the chassis and
without moving the bracket.
If the brackets are in exactly the same place, how does adding an inch in height to the chassis change the roll centre?
Ned: if I'm completely off here, then I may also want to borrow that book when James has finished with it!
Cheers,
Adam
Mark Allanson - 22/12/04 at 11:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by andyace
James, Did you need to make any adjustments to get your Pinto in, I am currently stripping my donor Sierra 2.0 SOHC (+Carbs). I guess the main areas
of concern are the height. Did you have to modify the std transmission tunnel (I have type 9 gbox).
I built my chassis before I found my donor BIG mistake. My biggest problems were the starter fouling the LH engine bearer and the end of the type 9
coinciding with the tranny tunnel uprights. I would move these 2"further back and save yourself a LOAD of grief
Rescued attachment TunnelClearances.JPG
Rorty - 23/12/04 at 04:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by krlthms
Have you thought of tilting the engine/gearbox fore to aft so that the prop end of the geabox points down a little bit, so that it permits coupling
to the diff.
If you do, yoou would probably need to fit a dry sump, to assure adequate lubrication of all the cylinders.
In the original car, the RV8 does angle downwards by 7 degrees. You can buy a "7 degree plate" for them to level four-barrel carbs on the
manifold.
Chopping the sump and increasing the capacity is quite a simple job.
This one's been chopped by 45mm, yet the oil capacity has been increased by one litre.
Rescued attachment chopped_sump.jpg
