bpgoa
|
| posted on 27/9/06 at 09:21 PM |
|
|
what to build, and what works with what
Has anyone built a McSorley +442 with a R1 engine and either IRS or Rorty De Dion?
I've previously built a Westfield wide bodied IRS with Vauxhall engine but considered that to be a large Meccano build.
I fancy attempting the above but don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
Some questions that I have are...
Is this a sensible configuration for fast road / play track set-up?
If I choose De Dion (probable from what I have read on this site), how and where will the diff mount on the chassis? Will it use standard length
Sierra driveshafts?
Do I have to modify the rear of the chassis to accommodate the De Dion and if so how?
Is there any gain or loss to using Rose joints on the De Dion ends of the trailing arms?
Is there a better way to build this combo - I read about the GTS plans but they don't include the plans for the wishbones which I want to make
myself - are there other plans that I’ve missed?
How do I mount the engine? Cradle? Are there some bars in the engine bay I should leave out until the cradle is fitted?
What other issues am I likely to encounter on the chassis build?
Sorry about all the questions.
|
|
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 07:41 AM |
|
|
Hi, if you are using an R1 engine why are you going with a +442, this lump will fit quite happily in a standard size chassis. If you think it might be
a tight fit why not just go for the +4 instead?
You will need to fabricate a pair of diff mounts from some sheet steel and weld them to uprights e/f at the back of the transmission tunnel where it
forms the rear bulkhead, GTS can supply these if it easier. Don't know if the chassis needs modifying for the de-dion.
Rose joints on the end of the trailing arms will cost more but will allow for any adjustments you might want to make, most people don't bother
though.
Give GTS a call, i know others have made their own wishbones for the GTS chassis.
You will need a cradle to fit the R1 engine but there are loads of companies that can supply these.
Cheers.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 08:55 AM |
|
|
If you are using a sierra rear axle then you might as well have the wide chassis, either a +4 or a +442. The wider engine bay will help you line up
the engine better as a narrow engine bay forces the engine to sit at a small angle to the propshaft.
Most bike engines are mounted using a cradle that bolts into the top mounting holes. The R1 has two lower mounts which are usually mounted with a
long threaded bar with a nut on each end.
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 11:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bpgoa
Has anyone built a McSorley +442 with a R1 engine and either IRS or Rorty De Dion?
quote:
Building one at present
Is this a sensible configuration for fast road / play track set-up?
quote:
Its what i'm aiming at (not sure whether that means it's sensible though  )
If I choose De Dion (probable from what I have read on this site), how and where will the diff mount on the chassis? Will it use standard length
Sierra driveshafts?
quote:
If you go 442 or +4 the standard width axle is ideal, the diff mounts to the rear bulkhead using simple diff plates (easily made or cheap to buy)
without mods, although I've added some extra strengthening.
Do I have to modify the rear of the chassis to accommodate the De Dion and if so how?
quote:
I've modified mine slightly but its a minor change and I'm not sure that it is required
Is there any gain or loss to using Rose joints on the De Dion ends of the trailing arms?
quote:
I'm using rosejoints/bushes to allow for some adustment options
Hope that helps
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
| posted on 28/9/06 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
missing bits
Thanks for the replies; I was scared I may have offended someone with the Meccano/Westfield statement.
Scotty…. The reason I was looking at a +442 chassis was more due to the Sierra driveshafts than anything else. If possible, I don’t want to shorten
them (can anyone verify if the Rorty De Dion dimensions uses standard Sierra driveshafts or otherwise). I called Darren at GTS (very helpful) and he
said that that was where he made his living (fair enough). No living in the chassis, barley a living in the rest of the bits.,
Smart… I’m not an expert, but it seems that squarer chassis handle better… therefore wider is better… (am I on the right track here??)
Alex.. Firstly… thanks for the direct answers… secondly.. I want a sensible combination of parts and a completely bonkers car… hopefully that’s
what I have set out to do (no pretence) … Q’S…
Does/will your car use standard Sierra driveshafts?
How/why have you modified your chassis?
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 29/9/06 at 05:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bpgoa
Does/will your car use standard Sierra driveshafts?
How/why have you modified your chassis?
Yes standard sierra driveshafts
Chassis is modified from McSorley plans for strength (you will find plenty details on the various recommendations via the search) all round, also
specifically where the diff mounts.
I wasn't overly happy just welding diff plates straight on to the rear bulkhead chassis rails and leaving it at that, so I increased the
diagonals (union jack style) to provide extra support to the centre of the bulkhead and some additional strengthening to the diff plates
themselves.
Other problems associated with the McSorley 442 plans...only the front wishbone mountings spring to mind, if you check "Omega 24 v6" photo
archive he has some nice pics that show exactly the problem (which is easily sorted)
Apart from that the plans are good and I also think that the 442 style keeps the looks of the original better than the +4 (IMHO   ) it also takes
standard width nosecones.
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 29/9/06 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
Fair enough matey although i am using standard width sierra shafts on a standard width chassis, just using wider rear wings is all.
some people including me think that it makes the car look more aggresive and hardcore. Dude!
Cheers
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 30/9/06 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scotty g
i am using standard width sierra shafts on a standard width chassis, just using wider rear wings is all.
some people including me think that it makes the car look more aggresive and hardcore. Dude!
Cheers
LOL...but yeh, got to agree with that, I like the extra wide rear wing look.
I wanted (needed ) some extra width/length/height hence 442
Alex
|
|
|
locostv8
|
| posted on 30/9/06 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
You can also use wider rear wings to cover the 315s.
http://wrangler.rutgers.edu/gallery2/v/7slotgrille/hssss/
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
| posted on 1/10/06 at 09:29 AM |
|
|
finale....
So… I can build the standard Chassis… (cos I’m not that tall or wide).. fit an R1 engine in that…. All be it on an incline… use the Mc Sorley plans
(are his standard book build plans correct?)… use the Rorty de dion plans with standard diff driveshafts etc with wider rear arches…(to make it look
mean)…
What do I then have to do to the front? Or does it stay normal… and how does that affect the handling (roll centers and all that)
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 1/10/06 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bpgoa
So… I can build the standard Chassis… (cos I’m not that tall or wide).. fit an R1 engine in that…. All be it on an incline… use the Mc Sorley plans
(are his standard book build plans correct?)… use the Rorty de dion plans with standard diff driveshafts etc with wider rear arches…(to make it look
mean)…
What do I then have to do to the front? Or does it stay normal… and how does that affect the handling (roll centers and all that)
Standard chassis using McSorley plans (which by all accounts are more accurate than book) everything else should work as stated.
The front wishbones will need to be wider than book or else it will be 4" short on front track as conmpared to rear track.
No prob if you are making your own bones anyway, just add 2" per side to the dimensions, sorted 
Cheers
Alex
PS
I'm not that tall or wide either (honest ) I just like the look and wanted some extra room!
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
| posted on 1/10/06 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
wishbones
won't adding 2 inches each side change the spring rate?.. do i need to move the shock point? and because it'll change the angle of the
shock, wont it make the shock non linear in response - falling spring rate.. has someone checked this out?? is it not enough to care about...or am i
a confused old bloke that should stick to MTB suspension!
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 1/10/06 at 11:07 PM |
|
|
The standard set up creates/has a falling spring rate anyway, so changing the points won't make much difference in this aspect. Moving the lower
shock mount outwards (due to a wider track or different design arms) will make things worse, ie a faster falling rate, but as to how noticable this
is????
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
 posted on 4/10/06 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
Front Wishbones
are there any plans for extended front wishbones:?
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 4/10/06 at 07:43 PM |
|
|
There may be, but all you need to do is make you jig 2" taller or wider depending upon your view. Ie keep the pick up points at each end the
same, and just put an extra 2" of tube between them. Also, are you aware of the need to use a "correct" design for the top bones to
give the required castor?
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
 posted on 4/10/06 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
lord....
are you saying the second edition book design is wrong? again planning on using the mcSorley book plans... what do i have to do? does anyone have a
definative plan set?
|
|
|
ecosse
|
| posted on 4/10/06 at 08:15 PM |
|
|
Book is wrong for the top bone, do search for "castor" and you will find loads of info on it.
As for plans follow DIY's method and just make the jig 2" longer
I also moved the top shock mount out on to the vertical face of the top chassis rail (rather than underneath as per book), which helps with the shock
angle to the bottom bone.
Cheers
Alex
|
|
|
bpgoa
|
| posted on 5/10/06 at 05:49 PM |
|
|
Thanks..
Ok .. Thanks I think i know where to start now, but not finish.
Any issues with the SVA with the outboard mount?
And is anyone out there near to Hertford?
|
|
|
