coyoteboy
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
Transverse 4x4
I'd say this was a chassis Q. more than anything else, as the susp and donor are kind of sorted already, its just the packaging. I've
asked this over on PH but again gathering opinion. My original plans were to have a 4WD kit, baed on the car I know best and I know is relatively
bombproof and parts are cheap/easy to work with - the Celica GT4. I have a donor already, though it doesnt know about this yet so SHH 
The question is, are there any transverse 4x4's kits out there that I could use as a guide? If so, what are their downfalls?
The biggest problems I've seen so far are packaging the lump under the nose without looking like a pitbull and maintaining reasonable centre of
mass. The existing car is about a 60:40 split front/rear and I think I'd be wanting to go 60:40 rear/front but I just dont see it being possible
with 200kg of engine and box up front (engine sits 2/3 in front of the axle, 1/3 behind) despite having about 60kg of diff and driveshafts out
back.
What are peoples thoughts?? I know I cant be the only person to have thought of this. I know it goes against the grain of RWD is best (I prefer 4wd
for the stunning acceleration and surefootedness in corners, while maintaining fun if asked nicely). Has anyone seen one executed well? Is it
physically possible to lay out out that#s not a nose-heavy beast? Standard track and wheelbase would be maintained as they're not too shabby.
[Edited on 29/7/10 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
A Locost has the engine well behind the front axle line. No part of the engine is even remotely close to the front axle line.
Now consider a transverse engine. Much of the engine is actually in front of or over the front axle line.
From packaging point of view, it's a non starter.
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:15 PM |
|
|
Problem would be the engine in front of the axle line?
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
Andy D
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
Ive seen an RSS200 kit using Toyota Celica 4wd gear recently.. couldn't tell you who makes the kit, or if it was a one off.
|
|
|
Andy D
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
Possibly this one?
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
Can't really see how you'd avoid the front heavy issue if you want to use a transverse 4x4 setup in some sort of lightweight sports/kit
car. Better than the audi quattro layout though . Best drivetrain to use imho for a sporty car is Ford as you can have both the front and rear axles
wherever you want them in relation to th engine. I'm using the Ford bits in my 7 (see photo archive), cos you're right - 4WD rules!
The only sort of kit I can think of that might suit the transverse 4x4 setup would have to be some kind of rally car replica or something, cos that
would give you a 'normal' bonnet to hide the engine in. There was a front engined RS200 replica based on a Maestro (uurrghh!), for
example.
Oooh I know - what about a Celica rally car replica 
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
Yeah I know the locost isn't really a go-er here, I'm thinking a custom design but there are not too many places about where there's
the knowledge and experience of this group is exceeded. Yes there is one kit using the running gear but its a full bodied ugly swine and i'm
really wanting to go for a more exo looking design. I've swayed from this and I'm considering putting the MR2 tranny onto it and making it
Atom like instead but I still have an underlying desire to get it 4wd! No doubt I'll be converted to rwd in the end but I'd like to press
the concept to see how achievable it is.
I already have the celica rally replica, I'm bored of it an its 1350kg mass!
[Edited on 29/7/10 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 29/7/10 at 08:33 PM |
|
|
Or if you like death?...
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 06:59 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Or if you like death?...
Bloody hell. Can you imagine how quick this would be?
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 07:04 AM |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKcM8B2ToY
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 08:58 AM |
|
|
Yeah I'd spotted that on my searches, nuts creation! Not so sure its much of an ATV - can't see it getting very far offroad with those
tyres!
I had actually considered the scooby engine and runing gear but it's even heavier and more hard to pack than the 3S-GTE combo, due to its very
long box and the whle of the engine hanging out front of the axle. It does,however, make a very nice mid-engine RWD F1 style layout setup if you lock
the centre diff and remove the transfer case!
However as I say, they're heavy and as far as I've experienced and been made aware, their pistons are made by cadbury's and
they're not that easy to tune, resulting in not so good performance and either a mashed or piston-slapping engine by 100K miles.
[Edited on 30/7/10 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
Eternal
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 09:19 AM |
|
|
Found this one think its based of a haynes by looking at the front frame. Anyhow hope it helps.
4x4 haynes
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 09:32 AM |
|
|
Interesting. Page 1 at the moment - wonder if he's realised the Mondeo 4x4 drivetrain can't possibly fit in a standard 7 chassis. Reading
on...
EDIT: Ah I see it's going to be pretty heavily modified from the standard proportions. Will be interesting to see how it'll turn out.
[Edited on 30/7/10 by Liam]
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
The sierra 4x4 one above looks interesting (if a little agricultural!) - can't see any shots of how the engine is packaged yet.
The engine I'm looking at doesnt sit too far high of the front wheels (maybe 4" above if miltly modified so the intercooler wasn't
bolted on the top, clock the turbo down and maybe do a custom intake!) so it's not massively high, but it is certainly wide.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
It won't happen - at least the way you envision. To get what you want requires a transfer case that uses a forward and rear-facing driveshaft,
thereby disconnecting engine placement from the axles. The early Jeep comes to mind, as do various (mostly U.S.) 4x4 trucks.
This method also gives the design freedom to use either straight or IRS axles, but at the end of the day, how much more performance do you end up with
having added probably 500 lbs of addition stuff on the car, never mind the added complexity and maintanence issues. But hey, it's you're
dream, don't let anyone tell you not to build it, just go into it knowing what you'll end up with.
[Edited on 7/30/10 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
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
I know I can't knock the engine back behind the front axle, that's a given, but as it stands it sits fairly low between the front
uprights. The whole point was I'm not attempting it with other drivetrain parts, I wanted to stick to teh one donor that I know well and
therefore has to remain a transverse front-engined 4wd. There really isn't anything much else extra to it, it's just whether the front
lump pushes the nose too high or the C of G too far forwards. To go down the ford/4x4 box route requires huge amounts of additional mass and makes no
sense, hence it was the case that if I could drop the running gear in from an existing good handling but overweight car, maybe I could improve it. But
the % of weight at the front increases with a lighter chassis, so I think it's never going to happen. I keep mulling it over but it looks like a
dart in my head and in a crude knockup in solidworks, just too nose heavy.
[Edited on 30/7/10 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
The sierra 4x4 one above looks interesting (if a little agricultural!) - can't see any shots of how the engine is packaged yet.
That's mondeo 4x4 - a transverse setup similar to your celica. Unless you were calling my sierra based build agricultural  
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
Oops, I mean mondeo 
Sorry!
Mind you, I'm not a ford fan in any situation
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
To go down the ford/4x4 box route requires huge amounts of additional mass and makes no sense
The ford stuff is all the same bits - engine, gearbox and three diffs, just packaged differently. Doesn't really add extra mass, apart from a
little front propshaft (mostly cancelled out by a shorter rear propshaft). Flexibility and weight distribution is much better than a transverse layout
for a lightweight car (mine will be very close to 50:50). There's also the 2/3 torque bias to the rear wheras the celica is 50:50 front/rear if
i recall. Makes perfect sense .
Wanting to use well known and loved components is very understandable, but if you were being purely practical you might conclude there are better
options for the sort of vehicle you want to make.
I dont think it would be that bad - if you imagine something with a much shorter wheelbase than the celica with the fuel tank, battery, and most
importantly you practically over the rear axle, it could end up looking like something long in the bonnet and short in the rear, and probably
wouldn't have a horrible weight distribution. Certainly not worse than some really short lightweight middies, eg Stratos that have absolutely
everything crammed at one end.
Besides you're building something because you want to/can, not necessarily because it's supposed to be the optimum solution to any
particular problem. If that were the case I guess we'd all be building F1 car replicas?
[Edited on 30/7/10 by Liam]
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 30/7/10 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
Certainly have to conclude that there are better in terms of practicality if you look at it as "lots of parts that all fit", but at the
end of the day there's less sense in building a car from parts you don't know until they land, and there's nothing
"different" about taking the same route everyone else takes - a side I like about it
I know the GT4 engine and running gear backwards in my sleep, IF it's possible to use it sensibly without compromising the handling too much it
would be the most sensible and practical option for me. Especially as I can get a running setup for <1K and drop 300hp and 300lbft straight in
using previous experience. If I were going to dump the GT4 gear I'd probably go with something more akin to an F1 car - maybe find an EJ20 (god
help me) locked in FWD mode, for a mid RWD. Though finding the donor cheaply is very hard. Even a half-knackered EJ20 with ancils is >1K.
[Edited on 30/7/10 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 31/7/10 at 07:51 AM |
|
|
Regarding the Mondeo 4x4 build in the link above.
I'm not seeing it at all.
Still not seeing it working out.
Hopefully he'll sign up in here and explain all.
[Edited on 31/7/10 by zilspeed]
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 3/8/10 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
Well a Murtaya might be an option.Still requires a lot of modifications to get the toyota driveline to work. I dont think the bonnet will still look
cool after that either.
Or perhaps building something like a like Sylva Jester/ Onyx Bobcat
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 13/8/10 at 08:08 AM |
|
|
Think I've more or less decided this is a no-go TBH. If I could find a 3S compatible longitudinal 4x4 box I'd consider it but anything
else is a pain to achieve and probably not sane to attempt for a first design.
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 13/8/10 at 08:53 AM |
|
|
Adaptor plate? I've got a Honda V6 on my cossie 4x4 box
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 13/8/10 at 09:18 AM |
|
|
Sure that's a possibility, done it once before dropping a different engine into a rangerover and it was pretty painless, but the price of
getting one custom made - im not sure? I know there's unlikely to be one already in production.
|
|
|
