GRRR
|
| posted on 24/4/09 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
Kit Car Idea
Just toying with ideas, what do people think of a kit car concept based on taking an average cheap front wheel drive car, taking the FWD layout and
sticking it into a spaceframe chassis with a pretty convertible body on it? Kind of like a Quantum 2+2 but actually looks nice and like it came from
this decade 
There's so many track focused and exo cars it looks like there's a bit of a gap for something with some style and wider appeal.
You'd keep the MacPherson struts for cost reasons and keep it FWD, maybe a mk4 fiesta or a Saxo as a donor car. Maybe time to give the budget
end of the kit car market something a bit more unisex?
[Edited on 24/4/09 by GRRR]
|
|
|
|
|
piddy
|
| posted on 24/4/09 at 11:19 PM |
|
|
Sounds good.
I 'll be interested to see what you come up with.
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 24/4/09 at 11:20 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
clairetoo
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 05:58 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
Um.....mid/rear engined , and hardly `budget` 
Its cuz I is blond , innit
Claire xx
Will weld for food......
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 06:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by clairetoo
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
Um.....mid/rear engined , and hardly `budget`
... and not convertible 
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 06:59 AM |
|
|
Nice idea. I had this idea about 10 years ago. the problem I had was the height of the engine. If you want a seats on the floor sports car layout
you need a low engine so you can look over it. You also want a fairly short wheelbase if it is going to be a 2 seater and look OK. Finally, you want
fairly low mcpherson struts if you want a low bonnet line.
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 07:01 AM |
|
|
The packaging is all wrong to keep the bonnet line low like it is in a seven.
The strut tops are way too high.
That's why the only succesfull cars to use FWD donors use them in mid engined cars.
FWD kit cars include the Midas and Mini Marcos and also the Sylva Jester along with the Quantums.
Most of these tend to a high bonnet line and this influences the type of car which you can build to a huge extent.
Much as I am obviously a big fan of Sylvas, the Jester completely doesn't work. The Mini Marcos is now regarded as a classic, but it's
still not for me.
I would look to the Midas and Quantum for inspiration.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 07:22 AM |
|
|
To add to the problems already mentioned there is the distance that a FWD engine extends forwards from the front axle line.
Basically the idea, although attractive from the point of view of economics, ease of build etc, cannot produce anything other than a rather
unattractive sports car
John
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 07:50 AM |
|
|
Biota is the prettiest I've seen using this layout, and was a successful hillclimber in it's day, though they didn't sell many.
A-series mini engine/gearbox it smuggled in the bonnet bulge.
http://www.classic-kitcars.com/classic-kitcar-details.php?24
As said a tall twincam engine makes styling hard to get right.
Having said all that they, and for all the anti-FWD sentiment, they can embarrass much "better" cars on the track.
Onyx Firefox for example (possibly the ugliest of the breed) which is as cheap as chips and the 'concept' you're after.
http://www.davebence.co.uk/
Italo/FUORISERIE did some concept sketches around this layout which looked very good - if you can get find those and get some inspiration I think it
would work very well.
If you can sort out the styling, especially with the height of current transverse twincams you'll have a winner.
There is a solution to the engine height problem BTW but it moves away from your cheap single donor idea, and requires a reverse fabricating 
Big hint linky
Nissan Micra is also probably worth a look, very small engine+gearbox that fits nicely in a mini subframe (with some mods) and would fit in the
Biota.
[Edited on 25/4/09 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 07:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Biota is the prettiest I've seen using this layout, and was a successful hillclimber in it's day, though they didn't sell many.
A-series mini engine/gearbox it smuggled in the bonnet bulge.
Thing about the BLMC FWD cars is that the engines were on top of the gearbox. Modern FWD cars the engine is ahead of the gearbox, and
the majority of the gearbox itself is ahead of the axle line. Big difference when, from a styling POV, every millimetre counts
John
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 08:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Biota is the prettiest I've seen using this layout, and was a successful hillclimber in it's day, though they didn't sell many.
A-series mini engine/gearbox it smuggled in the bonnet bulge.
Thing about the BLMC FWD cars is that the engines were on top of the gearbox. Modern FWD cars the engine is ahead of the gearbox, and
the majority of the gearbox itself is ahead of the axle line. Big difference when, from a styling POV, every millimetre counts
John
Just updated my post - FUORISERIE (Italo from Complete Kitcar) did some sketches around the onyx and jester which look good to my eye. I think it can
be done, but I certainly agree most have failed horribly so far.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Phil.J
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
I'm afraid in my book the Biota was one of the ugliest car designs!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
Found Fuoiserie's Jester inspired design, still looking to see if I can find the Firefox ones which IIRC were prettier.
Not everyone's cup of tea, but 200% better than the Jester IMO and shows the kind of challenges the layout brings.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine005.jpg
Previous thread on this subject BTW
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=69554
[Edited on 25/4/09 by iank]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 10:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Found Fuoiserie's Jester inspired design, still looking to see if I can find the Firefox ones which IIRC were prettier.
Not everyone's cup of tea, but 200% better than the Jester IMO and shows the kind of challenges the layout brings.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine003.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine004.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/ferg/Immagine005.jpg
What those show is the need, when using a FWD donor vehicle, is the need to go up. To raise the body in order to distract attention from the amout of
car there needs to be ahead of the front axle.
One ends up with what would be better described as a buggy rather than a sports car, with consequent reduction in cornering speeds. But if that
isn't a problem, then why not?
John
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 11:07 AM |
|
|
One thing that would hugely increase the market for such a thing would be to make it, at least optionally, a 2+2. Loads of people with kids who would
like a fun kitcar - even with 2 people it's would give loads of room for camping kit/shopping.
Even harder to make it look good though I suspect.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
Thoughts on using a FWD drivetrain:
It's high at the front which forces a high bonnet line
It's difficult to change this
If you are going to make a body and chassis you may as well move it to the back and make a middy 2+2
But..
It is cheap and there are plenty of popular donor cars to choose from.
I wouldn't discount the Quantum styling. It is a bit 80's now but surely the styling is timeless enough for a small update to work well.
Just changing the pop up lights to fixed ones (Fiat coupe ones might fit the styling well) would give it a step forwards. A modern Fiesta donor would
probably fit. Remember that it sold well and was well regarded while more exotic looking machines didn't and weren't.
Beware of giving a car a too much of a "modern look". You will alienate a lot of people who aren't fussed by the latest styling
craze and it will date quickly, there is a reason why manufacturers update their models every few years. You don't want to go there, molds cost
a hell of lot and you need to sell a few just to break even.
Perhaps a good look at the Ferrari mondial is required, 2+2 and a transverse mid engine. But beware of the horrible mid engined Italian driving
position with an accelerator that requires a permanently bent sideways leg to reach.
|
|
|
GRRR
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
Cool, some good responses to this.
One point brought up was the problem of tall struts, so you end up with the solution of picking nice short struts off another car e.g. MR2 or X1/9
struts and modding uprights to accept them if possible, or developing a double wishbone setup. both take away from the brief of a simple budget
kit!
I like the 2+2 idea but it would be very hard to package that sort of layout and achieve a non ape-like driving position.
The benefit of the FWD kit, while driving the 'wrong' wheels means that hopefully the car will be easier to build as you don't have
issues like radiators at the front, engine at the back, and reversing gear linkages etc (Mid engine layout), propshafts and diffs to mount (RWD
layout) and loads more space inside to play with seating layout, stowed roofs and boot/space storage.
hmm a tricky one, will have to play with some designs.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
I worked on this idea for years. It's not so much that it is tricky to get an attractive design using a modern FWD donor, more like it's
impossible.
The best you could possible end up with would be a version of an existing FWD production car, and what would be the point of that.
Amongst the problems are the need to use Macpherson struts, not because the donor comes with them (as they all do) but because the mechanical part
(engine and gearbox) don't allow any other system to be used. There simply isn't room for a proper wishbone layout.
The use of the struts means that all the sprung weight of the car needs to be presented to the strut tops. This is possible with a pressed steel
monocoque car, with a space frame it just cannot be done without ending up with a car that will not have any market appeal at all (in other words,
both ugly and ridiculous).
John
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I worked on this idea for years. It's not so much that it is tricky to get an attractive design using a modern FWD donor, more like it's
impossible.
Are you suggesting there are no attractive FWD cars around?
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 25/4/09 at 09:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I worked on this idea for years. It's not so much that it is tricky to get an attractive design using a modern FWD donor, more like it's
impossible.
Are you suggesting there are no attractive FWD cars around?
I am suggesting that there are no attractive kit car space-framed FWD cars around (the subject of this thread), yes. Why, do you know of any?
John
|
|
|
seansverige
|
| posted on 29/4/09 at 06:43 PM |
|
|
Can't believe no-one's yet mentioned Honda: mainly FWD but also low bonnet line and wishbone suspension at front, seems to tick all the
boxes. I think the current Civic has gone to struts but previous generations were wishbone, as are some of the other models in the current range.
Good looking front drive cars can be done but the high bonnet and scuttle make it more of a challenge. The Audi TT uses the same elements as the Golf
& Beetle: not likely to be confused with each other.
Know what the Quantum looks like but not familiar with structural details and how much of donor car (Fiesta?) was used? I'll defer to Mr
Henderson re: spaceframes with strut sus, but why not retain the existing structure from the forwards or more - what was Quantum's solution?
I would also observe that whilst the firefox and Jester, etc ARE tall, they're also short - exacerbating the matter: a coupe / 2+2 will by
definition be longer and look lower.
Final point is that even if all those hurdles are cleared, if designing a pretty convertible was as easy as everyone seems to think it is, surely
there'd be more around?...
|
|
|
Chris71
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 11:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GRRR
Just toying with ideas, what do people think of a kit car concept based on taking an average cheap front wheel drive car, taking the FWD layout and
sticking it into a spaceframe chassis with a pretty convertible body on it? Kind of like a Quantum 2+2 but actually looks nice and like it came from
this decade
A touch harsh on the Quantum I think - it may be a tad conservative and a little dated, but it was probably one of the most complete and resolved kit
cars to hit the market. They sold them by the bucket load in the mid '90s.
And a few years later I bought one.
(bias ...what bias?!)
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
I am suggesting that there are no attractive kit car space-framed FWD cars around (the subject of this thread), yes. Why, do you know of any?
John
I'm simply suggesting that if a production manufacturer can make a FWD car attractive, then it should not be impossible to make a kit that looks
attractive. Very high performance, sweet handling FWD cars are available, so I don't think the engine location is going to have such a major
influence on cornering speeds as you suggest.
You certainly don't have to use McPherson struts for starters, there are several production FWD cars that use double wishbones (almost all the
older Hondas for instance) or even more complex multi-link systems.
How about the Pembleton, Blackjack Avion etc? They aren't ugly, though certainly they have classic styling. The Murtaya is 4WD, though could
use a FWD transmission, the styling may not be everyones cup of tea, but I don't think it's ugly.
Minari Road Sport? A bit MX5-like, but still quite an attractive car.
|
|
|
seansverige
|
| posted on 2/5/09 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
Apologies in advance for the long post - this thread has got me thinking and it's stirred up a little dust
I've been an intermittent observer of the kit car scene over more years than I care to remember, and the prospect of being situated in single
location long enough means I might finally be able to take the plunge. As I get back into the scene I'm generally pretty disappointed to find
how little things have changed in 10(ish) years. Admittedly I might feel different if I were a fan of exo (surely just skeletal?) but I'm not,
and a BEC might be fun for about 30mins and annoying thereafter. The GTM Libra / Spyder still looks great, but where's it's successor? The
Epona is looking good but I can't think of any other good looking kitcars inbetween: am I forgetting anything?
I've been doing some research on the 2+2 and it's forced me to re-evaluate. At the time I recall dismissing it out of hand - not least of
all because the nose treatment called to mind the original Lotus Elan: a comparison it could never hope to live up to and worse, the apex seems a
little high making it look like it's trousers are pulled up too high. I think it's significant that none of this seems to have been a
barrier to success. The styling itself, though lacking that vital spark, is well executed technically - the surfaces are consistent, the transitions
crisp, the shutlines are clean and look tight & consistent. That it's bland is by definition is unlikely to offend anyone - and this belies
it's other strengths.
As far as I can determine, the 2+2 seems to be a 'transplant' kit: unbolt bits from donor A and attach to kit B - which I think the
industry should be doing more of and would find a wider audience - and apparently makes maximum use, value and convenience of the single donor. Does
it have to be a spaceframe? The 2+2 isn't, it's reinforced grp structure sounds intriguing and surely any potential longevity issues would
be known by now so I assume it works well enough. Does anyone know how the 2+2 bonnet / scuttle height compares with the Fiesta? Did it retain the
Fiesta's dash-to-axle ratio - this is the proportion you'd most want to change.
I don't know how I relate to the 'average' kitcar builder (should such a mythical creature exist) so I can only speak to what
I'm looking for. I realise I may be in the wrong forum, but that sad truth is that I'm sh!te at actually making things - my welding is
terrible and even if I measure 5 times I still cut wrong(ce); but taking things apart and re-assembling them in a new configuration is no problem. I
know one end of the spanner from the other - biggest job thus far was an engine replacement (fire) +loom, + full hydraulics (it was a Citroen)
+bodywork, etc. To me the idea of a kit that uses a single donor and transplants the oily bits (I know I'm oversimplifying here) is not only
less intimidating - it's appealing. Maybe that makes me a lightweight, but isn't it guesstimated that 80% of kits are never finished - any
measures that help improve that figure must be a good thing.
That the 2+2 is still going clearly demonstrates that the market for such vehicles continues to exist, and the more I think about this the more sense
it makes and I wonder why Quantum itself hasn't developed a successor. I know the H4 was meant to be but evidently it failed - is this simply
down to the styling? The 2+2 may be bland and the H4 is awkward, maybe even ugly. As regards the Coupe and Saloon - did this demonstrate that whilst
there is a market for a semi-practical sports car as well as crazy fast rollerskates, an enclosed body just isn't 'special'
enough?
Again as an observer, the fact that in 2009 there are kits still sold whose basis is a vehicle that is - BEST case - 20 years old (itself a warmed
over version of a design that actually debuted in 1973) is something that, to put it politely, does nothing for the industry's credibility. And
it's more than a credibility issue - surely Mk.2 Fiesta's (esp. XR2s) have crossed the line from being cheap to source to being difficult?
Whilst true revolutions are rare, opting out of 20+ years of engineering evolution is not likely to improve the finished product. I'm not saying
that old is bad and newer by definition is better but let's be real - we're talking about a decades old shopping trolley: what's
wrong with using something newer, just as cheap and - yes - better?
When I start to think about potential donors the mind boggles: Fiestas, 206, 207, Corsa, Saxo, Focus, Clio, Punto, Golf, the aforementioned Civic, the
list goes on; and it's not just fwd supermini's - there are plentiful donors of every configuration: for the 'wrong' wheel
drive crew, why aren't there more E36 or even E46 3-series based kits - am I missing something here? I don't doubt that developing a new
kit requires significant investment, but surely a BMW based kit would in part trade on the reputation of the donor? And whilst I wouldn't
nominate a Punto convertible as a donor, from the kit car manfacturers perspective using it's glasshouse and roof assembly would save
development effort and money. Digressing briefly - the requirement to dispose of a vehicle at the end of it's life and the concomitant focus on
design for disassembly must be a good thing for the kit car industry in the longer term?
Couple of weeks ago had a spin in a new Corsa on a rough country road I know well and was gobsmacked at it's ride and handling - and as far as I
know it's not the class leader in either regard. Both the current and previous generation Clios have a reputation for going well. Few weeks ago
my brother picked up an Cat. D '07 Astra (wing, bumper, headlight), low miles at auction for £2800 for the mother-in-law - so how much for a
5(ish) year old Clio / Fiesta / Focus / Golf? When Mike Brewer built the MEV Rocket in Auto Express he said that Focus donor cost £800 - before he
sold anything on: imagine a contemporary, Focus-based 2+2, which used everything but the panels?
The biggest flaw I can see is that - making a sweeping generalisation here - at one end of the kitcar spectrum you have the bolt on rebody kit (e.g.
Veranti), which has minimum engineering content and maximum styling content and at the other you have something like the Locost itself, built from the
ground up with maximum engineering content and minimum styling. As a single donor transplant, the 2+2 or similar sits towards the rebody end of the
spectrum, so quality exterior design input is vital to success.
And as a kit manufacturer, which model would I develop? An 'exo' style car with relatively easy to develop space frame with low styling
content and no doors, windows, shutlines etc. to contend with - or a 'proper' car with functioning doors, interior etc. which will be more
costly to develop but could easily fail if the styling isn't up to scratch. The former would seem better bet - especially as the market seems
yet to tire of 'exos' so unfortunately I don't have much hope of seeing a successor to the 2+2 anytime soon.
|
|
|
Krismc
|
| posted on 3/5/09 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
I wouldnt reccomend the use of a new civic!!
I have the new type r and the top of engine is very very high in the chassis- you wouldnt be able to see over it.
Built, Ivaed, Drove and now Sold - 2011 MNR VORTX RT+ 2000cc Zetec on R1 Throttle boddies.
|
|
|
