iank
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:22 AM |
|
|
Thinking further what would the locostbuilders hive mind suggest as the best possible donor, though it's bound to be a compromise.
Things to consider
- Should be cheap, reliable, simple, and widely available.
- Physically quite small (shopping hatchback?)
- Range of engines across a range of donors preferably lightweight and low (to keep the bonnet line low).
- No PAS or aircon unless they are easy to remove.
- Since we should be trying to use as much as possible of the donor (at least initially until the modifying bug hits) can the ECU be used without
immobiliser problems, could lights/instruments be reused sensibly?
- Anything else?
I'm thinking something like Saxo/106, Clio, Corsa, Lupo, Seicento.
I think the Fiesta is too big these days and the Ka doesn't have decent engines (though I could be wrong).
Maybe the 'next' project, since I refuse to conform 
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:26 AM |
|
|
IMHO ford focus surely? before you say its too big, MEV package it into a go-kartesque body so its not too big a deal!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
IMHO ford focus surely? before you say its too big, MEV package it into a go-kartesque body so its not too big a deal!
I do think it's too big (though all opinions are valid - there is no right answer).
What I'm thinking of something much shorter than a 7 (by about 3ft ish) and with a wide wheeltrack its handling is going to be a bit scary. One
reason for going short is to reduce overall weight (should be much less than 500kg).
What do you think puts it above the other options?
[Edited on 4/3/10 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:41 AM |
|
|
My considerations were that the focus is abundant, cheap, it has a record for being fairly well engineered and also has a history of being a kit
donor.
They are simple to work with and come fitted with a range of zetec engines which is a plus. There are sport/rally versions for easy kit upgrades
too.
Size is an issue, but I just cant help thinking that the MEV rocket deals with it well, and thats a small kit??
Craig
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
My considerations were that the focus is abundant, cheap, it has a record for being fairly well engineered and also has a history of being a kit
donor.
They are simple to work with and come fitted with a range of zetec engines which is a plus. There are sport/rally versions for easy kit upgrades
too.
Size is an issue, but I just cant help thinking that the MEV rocket deals with it well, and thats a small kit??
Same could be said of Fiesta's of a similar age.
I'm thinking a size closer to the MEV Atomic, but obviously the body line would be a fair bit higher - making that look good is the real
challenge in making anything you'd want to drive.
[Edited on 4/3/10 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
sucksqueezebangblow
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
quote:
Ok then, devils advocate again - how many people who insist a rwd car is 'better' have ever actually driven a rwd car with a seriously
high power to weight ratio before building a 'kit' to actually know? or is it because everyone says it is
I disagree with all the RWD advocates. FWD is better, but not with too much power.
Drive an early Alfasud - Not sure it ispossible to have more fun in a car!
Stu
There is no "agree" or "disagree" here, it is science and physics RWD outperforms FWD every time. How many FWD cars are there
in top level motorsport? none.
The only exception to this is on ice and snow and even then FWD is not the layout of choice, 4WD is.
We only get FWD cars because that is what manufacturers want to give us. And they are safer for the average dork who cant drive (understeer=lift off
to control, oversteer=gotta have driving skill).
Better to Burnout than to Fade Away JET METAL ~ AndySparrow © 
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
quote:
Ok then, devils advocate again - how many people who insist a rwd car is 'better' have ever actually driven a rwd car with a seriously
high power to weight ratio before building a 'kit' to actually know? or is it because everyone says it is
I disagree with all the RWD advocates. FWD is better, but not with too much power.
Drive an early Alfasud - Not sure it ispossible to have more fun in a car!
Stu
There is no "agree" or "disagree" here, it is science and physics RWD outperforms FWD every time. How many FWD cars are there
in top level motorsport? none.
...
Touring cars and rally cars are just two examples of successful FWD sports cars.
For the road it makes no difference at all if the cars are set up right (and a FWD shopping trolley out of the factory is about as well set up as a
Cortina was for performance) as neither FWD or RWD are close to their performance limits - except in the wet when FWD can be pushed harder without
going into a hedge backwards.
RWD advantages are there - if it's mid engined, but don't pretend that all FWD cars are rubbish - most 7's have so little weight
over the back end that they struggle with grip in anything other than dry conditions - that's why the ugly FWD Firefox was taking class wins
from caterhams at seven sisters.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
My considerations were that the focus is abundant, cheap, it has a record for being fairly well engineered and also has a history of being a kit
donor.
they arn't that cheap yet - a scaby drivable one will still set you back more than 1K, more for the 1.8/2.0 that most people would want for a
kit (for me a cheap donor is less than £50)
and there arn't to many in the scrapyards yet either (last time I was in they had crashed 5 focus's but any number of rotten
escorts's / saxo's / 206's / polo's / golf's.....)
ps - don't get any ideas about using my tin-top (1.8 focus) as a donor when I bring it down to stoneleigh 
[Edited on 4/3/10 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 11:40 AM |
|
|
I've just done a few calcs assuming a 500kg finished car with a 2000mm wheelbase. If you put the fuel tank and the battery behind the rear axle
and you put the seats right in against the rear axle like a seven then you get a front weight distribution of 60% with a driver along and 55% with a
passenger. That's not too bad. Find some other way of moving weight to the rear and you could perhaps nudge 50/50, which BMW tell us is
ideal Perhaps its not such a bad idea. Wasn't the lotus elan FWD?
|
|
|
sucksqueezebangblow
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 11:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
quote:
Ok then, devils advocate again - how many people who insist a rwd car is 'better' have ever actually driven a rwd car with a seriously
high power to weight ratio before building a 'kit' to actually know? or is it because everyone says it is
I disagree with all the RWD advocates. FWD is better, but not with too much power.
Drive an early Alfasud - Not sure it ispossible to have more fun in a car!
Stu
There is no "agree" or "disagree" here, it is science and physics RWD outperforms FWD every time. How many FWD cars are there
in top level motorsport? none.
...
Touring cars and rally cars are just two examples of successful FWD sports cars.
Touring cars are only FWD because the manufacturers only make FWD cars so have no RWD cars to compete.
The only FWD rally cars are the junior cars, again they are FWD because the manufacturers only have FWD cars to base them on (and converting to 4WD
would dramatically increase the costs).
No driving enthusiast or race driver would choose FWD over RWD unless other considerations (cost, interior space, formula, ice and snow etc.) were the
deciding factors. Like for like the RWD would be chosen every time.
Better to Burnout than to Fade Away JET METAL ~ AndySparrow ©
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
Touring cars are only FWD because the manufacturers only make FWD cars so have no RWD cars to compete.
No so, the BMWs are RWD.
|
|
|
sucksqueezebangblow
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 12:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
Touring cars are only FWD because the manufacturers only make FWD cars so have no RWD cars to compete.
No so, the BMWs are RWD.
That is exactly my point, the other manufacturers would use RWD, if they produced them, but they don't so they have to use FWD.
Better to Burnout than to Fade Away JET METAL ~ AndySparrow ©
|
|
|
gottabedone
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
They may be fwd out of necessity but they do bloody well though! - especially when the Seat's were diesel as well.
Steve
[Edited on 4/3/10 by gottabedone]
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
That is exactly my point, the other manufacturers would use RWD, if they produced them, but they don't so they have to use FWD.
I'd be inclined to agree for track use, but for road use there are many more examples of superb handling FWD cars than RWD, though they
generally tend to be lower powered. Despite this they are usually quicker on anything other than a perfect road than their RWD counterparts as it is
easier to avoid ending up in a ditch!
Discuss.
Stu
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 4/3/10 at 09:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whitestu
for road use there are many more examples of superb handling FWD cars than RWD, though they generally tend to be lower powered. Despite this they are
usually quicker on anything other than a perfect road than their RWD counterparts as it is easier to avoid ending up in a ditch!
Discuss.
Jeremy Clarkson voted the Peugeot 106 GTi as the best handling car in the world in a test versus an elise and a Honda NSX amongst others.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 5/3/10 at 04:19 AM |
|
|
FWDs main plus points are (In my opinion) the more practical things like more interior space and making the cars cheaper. I don't think you can
really say there is a right or wrong set up as all have ups and downs.
Just going back to the idea of putting the engine and box out of a 911 or Beetle into the front of the car, would it not give you problems when it
came to sorting out the stearing?
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 5/3/10 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted on Wikipedia
The choice of front wheel drive is unusual for a sports car, but according to Lotus sales literature, "for a given vehicle weight, power and
tyre size, a front wheel drive car was always faster over a given section of road. There were definite advantages in traction and controllability, and
drawbacks such as torque steer, bump steer and steering kickback were not insurmountable."[3] This was the only front wheel drive vehicle made
by Lotus. Every model made since the M100 Elan, such as the Lotus Elise, has been rear wheel drive.
The M100 Elan's cornering performance was undeniable (on release the Elan was described by Autocar magazine as "the quickest point to
point car available". Press reaction was not uniformly positive, as some reviewers found the handling too secure and predictable compared to a
rear wheel drive car. However, the Elan's rigid chassis minimised roll through the corners and has led to its description as 'the finest
front wheel drive [car] bar none'
So what we want is a donor to make a modern day one of these.
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 20/5/10 at 10:38 PM |
|
|
A little bump.
I dont think a FWD should have a 50/50 weight distribution. 60/40 will be good enough. You need the extra weight at the front for traction.
Don't forget the Quantums and the Midas Bronze/ Gold. Both brands produce very competent kitcars with all year useabilty too.
Onyx wasn't too bad either with the Firefly and Firecat.
The problem is that there are a lot of OEM small coupes (Tigra, Puma, 206CC), which would be secondhand cheaper then a kit.
On the other end of the scale are the GTI versions of the small hatch which perform very similiar to a base model wich kitcar chassis + body.
So a FWD kit should be:
A) very stylish 2+2 coupe (a la Quantum 2+2)
B) an ultralight trackday rocket (Onyx Firefox)
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 21/5/10 at 06:40 AM |
|
|
The other big difficulty with making decent handling fwd cars is the moment of inertia. Because of the need for interior space the engines tend to be
ahead of the fron axle line, so while you can achieve 60:40 weight distribution, its still all out in the ends where you dont want it!
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 21/5/10 at 08:37 AM |
|
|
I get the feeling that it would be easier to set up good handling in a rwd car, thus the weekend mechanic (us) can do it.
With weight distribution being at either end, what about a dry sump and tilting the engine slightly? It might add to the height but I'm thinking
of moving some of the weight behind the front wheels.
Also if you're throwing said engine in the back surely you could put other parts in the front? Radiator, battery, fuel tank (possibly?) and so
on.
I think the main problem in no-one doing the kits though is that yeah you can buy a Puma or a Tigra etc for the same kind of price..
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/5/10 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
My view (FWIW) is that people don't sell them because the 'RWD is best' camp form the major market for kits these days so it's
not commercially viable anymore. Even lotus couldn't break that mindset with the Elan which by any stretch handles extremely well.
Whether RWD is better is debatable, as said ^^ all layouts are a compromise and it really does depend on what you are doing with the car.
For example the firefox was beating big money 7's in the sprints at seven sisters while it was being developed. All it had was a bog standard
'as it was fitted in the Rover 200' 1600 K series under the bonnet.
Why? Well I suspect the weight advantage over a front engined RWD and having the weight over the driven wheels giving better grip meant it was simply
more suitable for that particular discipline.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 21/5/10 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
My next kit, which is a locost, because that's what its going to be, will have FWD, and RWD, in fact AWD.
Longitudinal front mounted engine with a transfer box to split the drive.. much the same as any 4x4 Dax actually but in more mud plugging vein...
LG,
Steve
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 21/5/10 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluemoon
RWD because contact patch at front steers, rears take the power. On a FWD the front wheels take the power and steer, rears just follow. Go figure
what will lose traction first..
Dan
I used to have a nice brown coloured two tone Montego Turbo that had power and would steer, all over the road even if you didn't want to! Then
that engine landed in my Striker and I can tell you it was 1000% better!
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
