I think this little car is cute. Kimini, Have you seen this? It's a mini on an 85 MR2 chassis. Not nearly as impressive as wat you are doing I might add. :-) :-)



You can read more (but still not enough - the bane of american car magazines) here.
http://kitcarmag.com/featuredvehicles/5642/

yep..interesting one Steve...good spot...

It mentions the MR2 frame...and chassis..????

Hmmm...mine was as a sheet steel spot welded unibody....how odd..

Must be easier if you find one with a frame....

Yup, those MR2 frames... Special ones built just for the the readers of Kit Car magazine who have only ever driven Cobras or 'Vettes and only understand the word 'Frame' rather than unibody.

-----Typical Kit Car Magazine reader conversation with his brother: "Uh, Billy Bob, uh, what's this heere word here in this heere Cobra Magazine?, it says unibody. Is that some type of porno word?" "Uh, I dunno Billy Joe, I only ever looked at a Cobra before.... How'd they fit a big-block Ford engine in that thang?!!!"

Yeah, so my Car made the Cover of September 99 issue of Kit Car, the USA publications still write fluff that tells me nothing that I as a builder want to know about the cars. All Peepee caca, no substance.

Steve, I know exactly what you men about US Kit car.....the UK Kit car is miles better...

Some of the problem here is the cars people launch as kits....they are entitled to do what they like of course, and good luck to them....but, some of them don't make any sense to me....

E.G. expensive (and uglier IMO) Corvette rebodies...
Mustang replica based on a Miata (MX5 UK)....why not restore a Mustang...or the Miata?.....or at least use the Miata parts for something lighter/sportier....

One feature showed a guy building a frame (for some other project).....weighed about 460 pounds I think...!!!!!!!

Anyway, just my thoughts.....

I tell ya Steve...were gonna clean-up here...

is unibody an american phrase for monocoque?

sorry for the stupidism....

Ned.

Yes more or less......

I specifically avoided the term monocoque though because it is more closely and accurately applied to racing car construction.

I heard modern car body shells described as multicoque....to describe the differing zones of passenger cell and crush zones....

All semantics really I guess......

Yes I have the original article. I talked to the builder, to find out if he was really going to sell composite bodies (no he wasn't.)

I was surprised they went with a steel body since the whole assembly ends up being quite heavy... what did they really gain other than looks? As I recall, the article quoted a weight quite different from what the builder told me. I do like the design approach though, it saves TONS of time - buy an MR-2, and the chassis is basically done. If only they'd have used a composite shell. I mean, why go to all the work if it's not going to be any faster than a stock MR-2. But that's just me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
I mean, why go to all the work if it's not going to be any faster than a stock MR-2. But that's just me.

---

Alan B:

quote:

---

I specifically avoided the term monocoque though because it is more closely and accurately applied to racing car construction.
I heard modern car body shells described as multicoque....

---