rayward
|
 posted on 16/8/02 at 04:43 PM |
|
|
spitfire engine
has anyone built a locost using a triumph spitfire engine and gearbox and does the chassis need to be modded???
|
|
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 16/8/02 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
that would give it character, but do you want a 40 year old low power engine in your car?
I thought of using a dolomite at one time but thought the late 70's tech of the ford might be better than 1965 engineering.
atb
steve
|
|
|
david walker
|
 posted on 17/8/02 at 06:39 PM |
|
|
Rayward,
There is little wrong with the Spitfire Engines, either 1300 or 1500. They are robust and simple yet will turn out fair power. A 1500 with a fast road
cam will match a 1600 crossflow.
In terms of physical size they are pretty identical to the crossflow and should fit OK. Go for it.
Ignore snide comments from others, whilst I have 1700 x/flow, at a fair level of tune (in a car built entirely by me and with SVA ticket, on the road
etc), that engine also has its heritage back in the early sixties. Rover V8's and Pinto's go back about the same in the States. Keep away from small
block Ford V6's especially 2.3/2.4's which were poor (but cheaper to manufacture) copies of the Essex but then they only go back about 35 years!
Dave Walker, Race Engine Services - 07957 454659 or 01636 671277
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 17/8/02 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
that wasnt a snide comment.
It was my reasoning when I looked at triumph as a potential donor. I had a herald once, and was the car i passed my test in. 25 years ago, and the car
was a 1965 rusty heap i renovated.
To restate my point, I couldnt see a good reason to use a very old engine producing low horse power as standard, when you can get an 80's car at low
cost with far more STANDARD power.
Not snide - just my real life reasoning based on experience.
If you want to fit a triumph, then great. But then if you are happy with (70 or so) low horsepower......if not it will cost you to get it higher. Even
a pinto will give 105 hp from a standard 2L engine.
You pays yer money and takes yer choice.
If you want a triumph, why not a dolomite 1850 (91hp) or a sprint (128hp) instead...I very nearly used an 1850.
atb
steve
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 17/8/02 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
you might find this useful for engine data
http://www.triumphspitfire.com/Size.html
atb
steve
|
|
|
dougal
|
| posted on 18/8/02 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
i think a spitfire engine would be great.
now what were they now, a 21 litre super charged merlin v12. didnt a bloke fit one of them to a roller. not sure about the gallons per mile though.
|
|
|
Metal Hippy™
|
 posted on 18/8/02 at 11:21 PM |
|
|
I thought the Merlin engine was 27 litres?
Anyway, the engine that bloke put in was never a plane engine. He put it into a custom chassis and stuck a Rolls Royce grill on the front as it was
one of their engines.
Rolls Royce weren't impressed apparently and also tried to take him to court about it from my vague recollections of reading about it ages ago.
The engine was a 'seriously underpowered' 800 something horsepower I seem to remember.
The Spitfire mkI had 1050 with it's supercharger.
Later models of the engine (not technically still a Merlin, but derived from it) had 2350hp. That was in the Seafire 47.
Full of useless info me.
President of the Non-conformist Locost Builders Club. E-mail for details...
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 19/8/02 at 07:42 AM |
|
|
I believe it was a tank engine made by the Rover group!
David
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/8/02 at 08:11 AM |
|
|
Thanks guys.
If I was being accused of snyde comments, your follow ups nicely paled me into insignificance!
My original comment stands - having a triumph engine would make the car interesting - i.e, character, and it does seem quite light and simple.
However, I would have to seriosly ask if 71 hp would be sufficient, or would I be forever spending money upgrading it when I could have bought more
standard horsepower.
atb
steve
|
|
|
