spiderman01980
|
| posted on 12/9/10 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
suzuki carry as a doner!!
when ever i sat behind a suzuki carry i`ve always thought it would make a good doner as the back axle is not that wide and wouldn`t need any mods, and
reading this page linky the common doner vehicles it has a suzuki listed and even a Mitsubishi L300,
as anyone looked at a suzuki and thought that?!
|
|
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 12/9/10 at 12:53 PM |
|
|
Could be ok
I considered the engine , when I was looking at changing my engine to a lightweight alloy car engine.
Not that powerful but may be ok on bike carbs etc.
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 12/9/10 at 02:09 PM |
|
|
I thought about a Daihatsu Hijet (pretty much the same van) before i started my build but thought it would be too narrow.
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 12/9/10 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
I have a Suzuki SJ413 rolling chassis with engine and trans here with V5 (sorned) if anyone would like it.
Looking for £150.
LG,
Steve
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 8/10/11 at 12:37 PM |
|
|
Noob questions -
Which particular Suzuki Carry model (4WD or 2WD; F6, F8, or F10, auto or manual tranny) would be the most suitable as a donor?
Also, if the Suzuki Carry is used as the donor, which specific locost configuration (the original book, Haynes, or any of the McSorley variants) would
be the most suitable? Especially considering that I would most likely have to add A/C, windshield, roof, and doors given the climate and security
conditions of Manila, Philippines.
TIA.
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
The front steer SuperCarry has a rear axle that is about 10cm narrower than an Escort Axle (original). It is almost 20cm narrower than a Sierra setup
(Haynes).
It would be an ideal donor for a Lotus 7 Series 1/2 replica.
Dont know if the current Carry (with the small nose) is a bit wider, but I guess in Manilla you better of with the Toyota Kijang or Isuzu Panter.
The Donkervoort D8 GT is the best looking closed seven but that is closer to the Haynes dimensions than the Caterham S3
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
@ettore,
Thanks for the info.
The Toyota Kijang is sold in Manila as the Toyota Innova while the Isuzu Panther is marketed as the Isuzu Crosswind. Both are basically AUV (Asian
Utility Van) models priced starting at about U$20,000 and are therefore considerably more than the second-hand Carrys being imported from Japan. Even
second-hand Innovas/Crosswinds are at least US$7,000, compared to the U$1,500 price of the cheapest Carrys.
I think the JDM (Japanese Domestic Model) Carrys pretty much adhere to kei dimensions and restrictions (max displacement of 660cc) but there are also
a good number with the bigger F8 and F10 engines. I am not sure where these come from. There are also a lot of the wider Wagon R Wide, or R Plus that
exceed the maximum kei width.
In terms of parts availability as well as pricing, the Suzuki Carry therefore is a very attractive option. After all, practically all JDM units
(including other brands and models) that are imported are brought in as chopped up junk parts. They are then reassembled and re-welded locally, with
the conversion from right-hand drive to left-hand drive done concurrently. Loose parts from cannibalized vehicles are also sold as surplus parts. E.g.
A pair of front seats (for the Honda Fit) go for about US$20. A windshield replacement is about the same price, US$20.
Among the lot, the Suzuki Carry is the one most often imported and is also priced the lowest. Hence my interest in procuring one to serve as a locost
donor. This is, of course, assuming, the overall vehicle is indeed suitable. Being a newbie, I do not have enough knowledge to ascertain this.
Hopefully, someone can chime in. In the meantime, I will be researching on the Donkervoort D8 GT and the Lotus 7 Series.
TIA again.
|
|
|
obr_technology
|
| posted on 9/10/11 at 05:27 PM |
|
|
Any idea how much Torque a little axle like that would take?
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 13/10/11 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
I was actually indicating on the Kijang that was sold as Unser in Manilla. Are these still expensive?
Anyway you could still use a Carry for your build, but I wouldn't base it on a Seven-type space frame.
Just get a ladder frame (like 70x40x3mm tubing) bolt on the front suspension, driveline and rear suspension(modified axle with 4 links and a panhard
rod).
Then build a bodystructure from smaller tubing and get some sheet metal.
have a peak in here: http://www.hotrodders.com/scratch-built/Cover
[Edited on 13/10/11 by ettore bugatti]
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 14/10/11 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
Hi ettore,
I think you are referring to the model sold as Revo. That has been replaced by the Innova. Second hand Revos go for around US$8,000 to over
US$10,000.
Yes, I did consider using a ladder frame but I really do have a preference for a quasi-space frame, actually more like a hybrid - a space frame-type
with a roll cage, given that local weather and security conditions dictate an enclosed cabin. The space frame approach also allows for a
well-delineated (and restrictive) modularity that wouldn't be available with a ladder frame. Still, I am curious as to your preference for the
ladder frame, at least, in the case of using a Carry as a donor car.
Part of the reason I am looking at using the Carry as a donor is not only to lower overall costs but to define a build process that can easily be
replicated by local backyard assemblers and hobbyists. Aside for the wide availability of surplus parts, we can also procure brand-new engines from
China. A duly Suzuki-licensed F8A engine goes for around US$800 - US$1,000, FOB China.
I belong to a local design group whose objective is to provide what we call "enabling mobility" for those who would otherwise not be able
to afford to buy a four-wheel vehicle. With the space frame approach, transport of components (6m metal tubes, windshields, tires, etc.) can be
undertaken with the ubiquitous motorcycle-based tricycles (kinda like the tuk-tuks of Bangkok). This will allow backyard assemblers and the mom and
pop fabricators, especially those without standard delivery vans, to engage in small-scale operations.
In addition, we want the resultant design to be as modular as possible, so that the fabricators can provide standardized parts and components
(windshields, bumpers, fenders, doors, light assemblies, etc.) The idea is that owners can replace the parts in a sort of plug and play manner (hence
the restrictive modularity discussed above).
Admittedly, my knowledge re building a locost-based car is quite limited at this point, although my architectural background helps to some extent,
especially in design and structure. But I have, in my spare time, been reading the threads in this forum (and other forums as well), and some books,
too (e.g. Gibbs', Adams' Chassis Engineering, etc.). And I am learning a lot from helpful members like you for which I am very
grateful.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 14/10/11 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
Im truly amazed seeing the high price for such a old and common car.
The most modular cars in the world are probably the VW Beetle, Citroen 2CV and a Jeep. Neither of them is using a spaceframe.
Dont get me wrong I love spaceframes, but from construction/ building point of view you may want something simplier.
The Locost chassis is not well suited for putting doors and a roof on. The sill would be hight, the door too low and half over the rear wheels and
finally it would be very small (meaning not wide) inside. You could alter the design to accomodate is, but you would then be better off from
scratch.
Should it be a 2seater car?
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 14/10/11 at 10:50 PM |
|
|
Cars are unfortunately still considered a luxury over here. The reason why used Carrys here are very cheap is that they are smuggled in as chopped up
parts from Japan where they are often bought in container lots considered as disposable junk. Before they became popular, an importer was offering
them for about US$700 fully converted from RHD to LHD and in running condition.
Yes, I am well aware of what could be the downside of using a locost chassis. But the high door sill can actually be an advantage as several parts of
MetroManila are prone to flash floods during the rainy season, which is almost half of the year. Also the increased in sill height is not that
significant, as was pointed in another thread somewhere in this forum.
As for the door being too low, I was thinking of using a higher roll cage to increase the height as a safety factor (increased visibility vis-a-vis
reckless public bus drivers). Of course, I will need to address the change in the center of gravity.
As for the door being half over the rear wheels, practically all the subcompacts here have that design - Suzuki Alto, Kia Picanto, Hyundai i10, Mazda
2, Chevrolet Spark, Chery QQ, Channa Benni, Geely Panda, etc. - so people are used to the smaller doors. It is also not like Filipinos are hugely
built. I think average height is about 5'6" or 5'7" for males.
As for the width, I am planning to build a chassis based on the McSorley 442e. If need be, I can make the necessary adjustments to get a measurement
that approximates those of the subcompacts I have previously mentioned.
Re it being a two seater - That is the question being debated by the design group. Some are for making it a four seater to make it more functional.
Others question the practicality. However based on our preliminary calculations, the locost dimensions, with modifications, can actually accommodate a
four-seater. But I am sure the purists here will surely shudder at that thought. I am aware, that for some, even adding just the roll cage and doors
already deviates from the locost ideology.
But that's one more reason why I am more inclined to go with a space-frame. By replacing just a few parts, you can alter the configuration to
produce the variant you want. Of course, the modularity subjects the design(s) to additional FEA testings. I am personally not qualified to do that
but we have some members who are.
At any rate, it is a conceptual approach that still needs to be proven. If we are successful, then hopefully we will see a lot of this type of car on
the streets.
If not, worst case, I still end up with a locost that I can modify to suit my preferences, including rebuilding the chassis entirely. Probably a bit
more expensive than I would like it to be, but with the experience of building and learning from it, it should be worth it. : )
|
|
|
Fatgadget
|
| posted on 15/10/11 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
Lookey here
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 15/10/11 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the info.
If I am not mistaken, the Carry models available here are mostly 7th and 8th gens (1979 - 1991).
From Wikipedia -
quote:
Seventh generation (ST30/40/90)
1981 ST90 Van
In March 1979, the new ST30 series arrived. The dimensions remained the same as before, as did the engine, although its was moved forward and now
resided underneath the front seat. For export markets, the ST90 version was equipped with the larger four-stroke F8A engine of 797 cc. In the fall of
1980, the domestic market Carry became available with the new 543 cc four-stroke F5A engine (ST40), although the torquey two-stroke engine remained
popular. By 1982, the Van part of the Carry range became separated in the Japanese domestic market and was now sold as the Suzuki Every. New for 1981
was a four-wheel drive version, originally only available as a pickup. This received the ST31/41 chassis code.
Eighth generation (1985–1991)
Post-1985 European market Suzuki Carrys still used the 797 cc four cylinder F8A familiar from the ST90 Carry, while Super Carrys were equipped with
the F10A 970 cc four. Power outputs were 37 and 45 PS respectively (27.5 and 33 kW), top speeds were 110 and 115 km/h. Heftier bumpers meant overall
length was up 10 cm, for a total of 3,295 mm.[12]
In particular F8A and F10A models are widely available.
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 15/10/11 at 06:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by architect
Cars are unfortunately still considered a luxury over here. The reason why used Carrys here are very cheap is that they are smuggled in as chopped up
parts from Japan where they are often bought in container lots considered as disposable junk. Before they became popular, an importer was offering
them for about US$700 fully converted from RHD to LHD and in running condition.
Are these Carrys rebuild with a new registration?
quote:
As for the door being half over the rear wheels, practically all the subcompacts here have that design - Suzuki Alto, Kia Picanto, Hyundai i10, Mazda
2, Chevrolet Spark, Chery QQ, Channa Benni, Geely Panda, etc. - so people are used to the smaller doors. It is also not like Filipinos are hugely
built. I think average height is about 5'6" or 5'7" for males.
True, but these have front doors as well and that is the one the driver use 
quote:
As for the width, I am planning to build a chassis based on the McSorley 442e. If need be, I can make the necessary adjustments to get a measurement
that approximates those of the subcompacts I have previously mentioned.
McSorley is 4" wider if my memory serve correctly to incorporate a wider axle like the Ford Sierra.
quote:
Re it being a two seater - That is the question being debated by the design group. Some are for making it a four seater to make it more functional.
Others question the practicality. However based on our preliminary calculations, the locost dimensions, with modifications, can actually accommodate a
four-seater. But I am sure the purists here will surely shudder at that thought. I am aware, that for some, even adding just the roll cage and doors
already deviates from the locost ideology.
It wont be a Locost, it will be a spaceframed familycar. Not dissimilar to an Austin 7 in proportions (and the circle is round again)
quote:
But that's one more reason why I am more inclined to go with a space-frame. By replacing just a few parts, you can alter the configuration to
produce the variant you want. Of course, the modularity subjects the design(s) to additional FEA testings. I am personally not qualified to do that
but we have some members who are.
Still a well designed ladderframe would be simplier to alter and will be probably as stiff as a spaceframe.
quote:
At any rate, it is a conceptual approach that still needs to be proven. If we are successful, then hopefully we will see a lot of this type of
car on the streets.
I got the feeling that you are better served with a concept similiar to the Citroen FAF.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 15/10/11 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
This thread covered most of it 9 years ago!
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 16/10/11 at 02:34 AM |
|
|
Hi ettore,
Re the Carrys' registration, there are two scenarios. Per my (incomplete) understanding, if the car is imported as a knock-down, then the
original registration in Japan is used as basis. The caveat is most are misdeclared, making them older than they really are, in order to save on
taxes. As for cars that are built from cannibalized parts, I am not sure what the base year will be.
Re doors - yes, that is why some of our group members are suggesting a five door (with a rear hatch) configuration.
As for the resultant vehicle not being a Locost - I guess if we define a locost being a low-cost Lotus 7 replica, then the utilitarian version that we
are envisioning clearly won't make the cut. But I think the resultant exhilarating spirit of driving it will be similar. Someone somewhere once
remarked that driving a slow car fast is infinitely more fun and enjoyable than driving a fast car fast. Having driven 911s, MR2s, and other fast
cars on the freeways, as well as old beat-up Willys-type jeeps on unpaved country roads, I have to say I enjoyed both experiences equally, with the
latter providing a different type of enjoyment, the kind you get when riding a colossal wooden roller coaster.
With the ladderframe, I do agree, in principle, it would be easier to alter. The problem here is we do not have access to a sheet bender. For that, we
will have to contract a chassis manufacturer. Unfortunately, we were less than impressed with the ones we have talked to. Bottom line, none of them
really understands the importance of making standardized products. Practically every chassis they make is a one-off in terms of dimensions. Even
within the local fabrication industry, there is no standard when it comes to short, medium, and long chassis. One fabricator's medium can be
longer than another's long. Given our design objectives of establishing standardized dimensions, we are thus more inclined towards the space
frame. In addition, given that we also want to lower the entry barriers for small-sized fabricators to enable them to produce the chassis, a space
frame design eliminates the need for an expensive metal bender.
Moreover from the design and production standpoints, with the space frame approach, we can easily make adjustments by replacing certain pieces as
opposed to being stuck with the larger components for the ladder frame. The space frame allows us more room to experiment, which is very critical in
the sense that we are a bit open-ended at this point when it comes to the final design. We are shooting for more utilitarian features now but
obviously are quite flexible if it does not work out. For all we know, we might end up with a personal commuter car that closely adheres to the
locost concept. We will know when we get there. : )
Thanks again for your input. They are much appreciated.
@Mark,
I guess 9 years is about the time-frame required for a substantial amount of Suzuki Carrys to become disposable items that are auctioned off in
container lots, and shipped to the Philippines to be sold as cheap utility vehicles. A brand new Suzuki Carry retails well over US$10,000, which
renders it economically unfeasible as a donor car. However there are a lot of used Carrys that can be bought for US$1500, US$1,000 if you are lucky.
And with so many surplus/spare parts around, they make for an attractive option as potential donor cars. : )
|
|
|
ettore bugatti
|
| posted on 16/10/11 at 05:12 PM |
|
|
I dont see the problem/ difference; instead of buying 25x25x1.5mm tubing, you buy something like 70x40x3mm tubing. The cutting may be more difficult,
but it is easier to weld. So you dont need to bend anything. You cut and weld to get the right angles.
Perhaps it is an idea to produce a simple ladderframe where the ulitarian body can be bolt on. For a sporty version you just remove the body and put a
lightweight Locost body constructed from a 25x25mm tubing. Not dissimiliar to a Locust in spirit, but hopefully better executed.
[Edited on 16/10/11 by ettore bugatti]
|
|
|
architect
|
| posted on 16/10/11 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
Now I get it. Yes, that is something we definitely can consider. I'll discuss it with the group and see what they have to say. Actually, our
first design iterations used ladder frames. I was the one who moved the design exercises to locost because of my personal interest in space frames as
well as in driving convertibles.
Admittedly convertibles are not a practical design for local use because half of the year it is raining and just about the rest of the year, it is hot
enough to necessitate the use of air-conditioning. In addition, security conditions in MetroManila require the locking of doors as well as tinted
windows. But the times weather permits, a drive out to to the countryside often makes for a kindred spirited kind of experience which I really
enjoy.
Still, since my group's objectives go beyond design itself and involve trying to establish standardized designs and dimensions, considerations
go beyond the sheer pleasure of driving. : (
But the way I see it, the whole process can be and is a learning experience. Regardless of the eventual direction of the group insofar as the design
is concerned, I would like to personally build my own locost. Being a newbie, I would like to learn as much as possible in the process and apply the
new knowledge in both the group's effort and in my own personal project. While both designs are being done in parallel, neither has a fixed
timetable as we all work on it on our free time. However, because of the constant interaction, the two processes invariably influence each other.
I hope I am providing a clearer picture now. I didn't want to bore the rest with trivial details, especially since this is a locost forum and I
honestly don't know if the group efforts' will end up with a locost or a locost derivative.
At any rate, thanks again for your input. The info you and the rest have been providing are very helpful and much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
