Pseicho
|
| posted on 1/6/06 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
Ned, you're definately right. The reason I'm aiming for so much power is because when I'm going to build a car, I want to do it
right. I don't want to have to build a second car once I'm used to the first one.
I did have a supersport bike so I know what a high power to weight ratio feels like 
By the way, when I said the Ford V6 needs tuning, I had the original in mind like it's fit in the mondeo (with 170 hp). If it makes 200 hp when
you remove the cats then that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 3/6/06 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
just the cams would need to be made backwards 
I told you there was a blindingly simple reason i'd missed
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 4/6/06 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
why not just turn them round, redrill the pulleys and change the firing order then?!
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/6/06 at 06:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by atomic
Forget the B16/B18 Honda engines unless you plan to also use the gearbox and diff from the donor as they spin in the opposite direction to most other
engines.
I'm not even sure if there are any other gearboxes that fit? In any case, it would be a bit pointless changing the gearbox if you are building a
mid engined setup.
Personaly I think the B16/B18 would really suit a lightweight car. Stuffed in the front of a Civic they feel quite lethargic at low RPM, even though
the torque figures aren't that bad for the capacity. Biggest problem with them is that they demand stupid money.
[Edited on 4/6/06 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
Surely the best way to mount an engine in a mid/rear car is logitudinally? Just a thought.
Most of the more serious Elise conversions use either the Honda K20A, Audi 20V turbo or a few now have the Duractec 2.0L fitted. Still a few Hi Po K
series being done but they generally require more maintenance. Budget for those range from £7-10K so not exactly cheap.
Iron/Steel blocks are not necessarily a lot heavier than alloy. For example a K series would weigh 80+kgs compared to 90kg for a 4AGE in similar
stripped spec. The 4AGE is smaller though.
If you wanted 200bhp then yep a 4AGE can do this but it wont be cheap. The 1.8 2ZZ-GE would be there as it starts with 189BHP and finally cams are
available. However the Honda K20A will always be that bit more powerful and more widely used.
The Honda is worth considering as with a new ECU and decent induction/exaust they put out an easy 230BHP and 300BHP again an easy figure acheived with
an Eaton M62 supercharger on it. The downside is the rather tall and bulky head due to the VTEC mechanism, not brilliant for CoG and polar moment at
the back.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 12:40 PM |
|
|
As I said earlier, what exactly is wrong with the SAAB 9000 2.3 16v?
225hp as std, remap and an intercooler plus possibly a bigger turbo will yield 350hp...........................
You can buy an entire, late (post 1994) SAAB 9000 Griffin with manual gearbox for £500 no problem, and the engines are totally bullet proof, 200,000+
miles is std procedure.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
Donners90
|
 posted on 6/6/06 at 03:03 PM |
|
|
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AUDI-TT-S3-ENGINE-GEARBOX-1-8-TURBO-GOLF-V6_W0QQitemZ4644737486QQcategoryZ10372QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 06:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
Surely the best way to mount an engine in a mid/rear car is logitudinally? Just a thought.
Why is that?
I know many supercars have longitudinaly mounted engines, but they are usualy monster V8s/V12's which would be too wide to mount transversely
after you bolt a gearbox to the end.
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
Mounting the engine logitudinally gives better weight distribution and lower centre of gravity.
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. Look at the weight distribution of an Elise approx
60/40 (rear/front). the mass over the rear axle also acts like a pendulum and makes them spin like a top when the rear end breaks loose. The mk2 MR2
turbo was revised at the back due to the tendency of owners going backwards through hedges!
Oh and I've owned both of the above and experienced both spinning on track days
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 04:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
...
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. ...
The rest of your post makes sense, but this is just wrong.
If you actually look the engine and gearbox are on the cabin side, the driveshafts are behind the engine. The engine isn't on top of the
gearbox its by the side (unless you are using a mini engine) So the elise/MR2 etc are quite legitemately mid-engined.
|
|
|
Pseicho
|
| posted on 8/6/06 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
...
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. ...
The rest of your post makes sense, but this is just wrong.
If you actually look the engine and gearbox are on the cabin side, the driveshafts are behind the engine. The engine isn't on top of the
gearbox its by the side (unless you are using a mini engine) So the elise/MR2 etc are quite legitemately mid-engined.
Well he does have a point about the weight distribution. I don't see how rotating an engine in this way (longitudinal vs. transversal) can lower
the center of gravity though...
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 8/6/06 at 04:01 PM |
|
|
Weight ratio front/rear is a greatly debated topic and it depends which side of the fence you prefer as to which is best.
Two opposing, but not necessarily wrong arguements.
50/50 to 45/55 slight rear bias makes the car very stable during the transitional period of turning in. And it could be argued that the car spends
more time in transition than in constant rate turn.
45/55 to 40/60 rear bias is considered more stable during constant rate turning and is slightly better at the exit transition stage. It could also be
argued that as the front takes a larger turn radius than the rear it would be preferable to move weight rearwards to reduce the pendulum effect.
Please excuse the terminology, but I know what I mean!
Spyderman
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 9/6/06 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
A lot of mid-engine cars use FWD engines to achieve this. They tend to be narrow and tall to fit in the front engine bay.
Now cars designed with a longitudinal engine and transmission eg Ferraris, Porsches, Lambos etc have designed the whole package with a very low crank
centre line at least thats what I've noticed in the past.
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 9/6/06 at 09:23 AM |
|
|
My car has a fwd engine mounted at the rear of my car. It was the simplest and cheapest option.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 9/6/06 at 09:42 AM |
|
|
We built a transverse mid engined nova rally car years ago and the weight distribution was only a few percent away from 50-50 (46-54 front-rear
iirc)
just have to design it carefully.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 9/6/06 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
The mk2 MR2 turbo was revised at the back due to the tendency of owners going backwards through hedges!
That was not so much caused by the location of the engine as the ropey suspension geometry that gave toe out on bump on the Rev1 cars. Fixed on Rev2
onwards. I still drive mine like a granny in the wet but in the dry the rear grip is phenomenal.
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 9/6/06 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
Just
place one gearing pair on the cam 
then you could turn the crank one way..
and the cam would turn the way it likes..
what would be now the problem?
shouldn't be to difficult to do?
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
