StuartBJ
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:15 PM |
|
|
Well the hoist had no problem lifting it to full height on the 250Kg setting. Hard to define the weight but must be about 200Kg.
I have a Megasquirt unit for the engine MS extra with 2x v6 coil packs (ford).
The fueling is via the original merc pump (complete with swirl pot) but I havn`t run any lines yet and I`m waiting for a follow up pallet of parts to
turn up.... including the fuel tank.
I have ditched the original TB`s which were stepper motors (drive by wire) for some shiny red ali 80mm cable operated ones.
I will try and detail the install at each step with pics. I`m sure lots of people will be intrested in the Megasquirt.
|
|
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
Sounds like fun... looking forward to it!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
and how will you be fuelling it?
From a tanker! 
Nice job!
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
Wheels and Tyres
Hmm..... fair comment
But another good story....
I have a set of NEW Merc ML alloys 9.5 inches wide (Rear) for £160 (via ebay) from a specialist alloy shop in essex that couldn`t sell them 
The mecredes alloys fit Granada hubs (5x112)......
What size tyres do you think are best for these rims 18" x 9.5" ....255? 245? 265? 275?
[Edited on 9/8/10 by StuartBJ]
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
That's a big motor...!
Out of interest...who rates the chasis at 500bhp (any torsional or stress testing results)?
...and what mods have been made over the standard (MK Indy based) chasis?
AGM had the original chassis and wishbones stress tested on a jig and then a report was produced (which makes a good read). The conclusion and
suggestions were then developed in to the chassis you see in the pictures and the new chassis was re tested.
If you look at the the AGM pics it shows a few good pictures of the chassis for you to compare but basically there is extra strengthening and cross
members etc + recomended panelling and widening to increase rigidity.
That's very encouraging to hear - often these things are claimed with little in the way of real evidence.
Looking forward to your progress, should be a beast and half!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by hughpinder
Wow - Impressive ... Can we have a sweepstake on how long the rear tyres last?
Regards
Hugh
About 100m
miles or meters?
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 01:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
I`m waiting for a follow up pallet of parts to turn up.... including the fuel tank.
I've seen your fuel tank. 
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
Well the hoist had no problem lifting it to full height on the 250Kg setting. Hard to define the weight but must be about 200Kg.
Probably a little bit north of 200kg but the LSx engines are around that with the ancilliaries. However using the T5 will save a useful amount of
weight compared say the T56 usually fitted to the LSx engines. I know because I've lifted one and it's big and heavy.
I also ditched the DBW (on a LS1 not a V12) and went for a cable throttle. They are good for emmisions plus economy at light throttle and can be
integrated into traction control but often loose the pure response of a cable throttle.
[Edited on 9-8-10 by bimbleuk]
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
Ha ha....I hope not
Here is the actual fuel tank
 
Description
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
^^^^^^ 
Is that for range or simply to get some traction weight over the rear wheels...?
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
Ha ha....I hope not
Here is the actual fuel tank
Description
No, that's just the swirl pot, this is the fuel tank
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
^^^^^^
Is that for range or simply to get some traction weight over the rear wheels...?
I suspect it was built to fit but it does have the added benefit of both as Alan used an LS1 in the demo car and that can`t be exactly.....froogle lol
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
Soa genuine 180 mph!? Thought real men turbo those engines
on a serious note, would it not be worth running a dta type ecu?
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 03:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
Soa genuine 180 mph!? Thought real men turbo those engines
on a serious note, would it not be worth running a dta type ecu?
I don`t really know enough about them to be honest.... I counted my lucky stars when I found someone that could supply an ECU that would be wasted
spark on a 12 pot. If it works I will be happy
[Edited on 9/8/10 by StuartBJ]
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 03:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
quote:
Originally posted by nick205
^^^^^^
Is that for range or simply to get some traction weight over the rear wheels...?
I suspect it was built to fit but it does have the added benefit of both as Alan used an LS1 in the demo car and that can`t be exactly.....froogle lol
As an LM prototype car, i would surmise that it was sized for 10 laps (or so) of Le mans!
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
A chassis isn't "designed" for horsepower... the chassis only knows about torque, more specifically, the maximum amount transferable
to the ground, probably be a lot less than what the engine can develop. So, it really comes down to what tires the designer worked off of. Hopefully
he designed it for worst-case, racing slicks, and not all-season tires!
[Edited on 8/9/10 by kb58]
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 05:19 PM |
|
|
Wow.
Just wow.
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 9/8/10 at 06:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
A chassis isn't "designed" for horsepower... the chassis only knows about torque, more specifically, the maximum amount transferable
to the ground, probably be a lot less than what the engine can develop. So, it really comes down to what tires the designer worked off of. Hopefully
he designed it for worst-case, racing slicks, and not all-season tires!
[Edited on 8/9/10 by kb58]
But if you said to Joe Public that the chassis was designed for 600lb/ft of torque, they wouldnt understand.
Horsepower in this case is a reference method methinks.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 11/8/10 at 11:00 AM |
|
|
Yes, I agree.
We all know that its actually torque that is the important factor but we all still "speak" in terms of BHP (or KW) when it really should
be lb`s.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 11/8/10 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MakeEverything
...But if you said to Joe Public that the chassis was designed for 600lb/ft of torque, they wouldnt understand.
Horsepower in this case is a reference method methinks.
Agreed, but since we aren't Joe Public here, I'm curious what torque the designer built the chassis for. If he says "500 hp",
I'd be concerned!
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
StuartBJ
|
| posted on 11/8/10 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
You`ve hit the nail on the head... It is aimed at Joe public looking at starting a new kit aswell as the more "experienced" enthusiast...
Even today I saw "a which chassis" question posted.
I agree that its not technically right..... but it gets the point across to the masses.
|
|
|
The Black Flash
|
| posted on 11/8/10 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuartBJ
Well the hoist had no problem lifting it to full height on the 250Kg setting. Hard to define the weight but must be about 200Kg.
I wouldn't go by what the hoist managed. I used mine to lift my lathe on the 250Kg setting, only to find out later that the lathe was actually
around 900Kg
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 13/8/10 at 03:11 PM |
|
|
I'm a little concerned by the absence of any tubes to stop the engine bay lozenging. They are missing on the MK too but it's very hard to
get this vital chassis strength back.
I know it's hard to fit them in the engine bay with a big engine so the alternative is a 'Y' brace.
This is all outlined in Cymtrics' mods and documentation which you'd do well to investigate.
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
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 13/8/10 at 10:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
quote:
Originally posted by MakeEverything
...But if you said to Joe Public that the chassis was designed for 600lb/ft of torque, they wouldnt understand.
Horsepower in this case is a reference method methinks.
Agreed, but since we aren't Joe Public here, I'm curious what torque the designer built the chassis for. If he says "500 hp",
I'd be concerned!
The chassis only sees the reaction force from the tyres. Torque at the flywheel means just as little as bhp when it comes to chassis design once you
factor in diff's and tyre diameters.
[Edited on 13-8-10 by phelpsa]
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 14/8/10 at 12:37 AM |
|
|
Which is why I wrote:
quote:
... the chassis only knows about torque, more specifically, the maximum amount transferable to the ground, probably be a lot less than what the engine
can develop. So, it really comes down to what tires the designer worked off of. Hopefully he designed it for worst-case, racing slicks, and not
all-season tires!
I don't agree that it's all about tires, though. The chassis does see engine-reaction torque along its length, which does indeed twist it.
Yes, it'll be less than the maximum torque that the engine produces, due to the tires "bleeding off" torque above some amount.
Ironically, mid-engine cars have far less of a problem in this regard, and transverse mid-engine cars have no chassis twist at all!
[Edited on 8/14/10 by kb58]
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
