http://www.smartsrus.com/evil_twin_z-cars.htm

I've been taking a look at this cool conversion. I was wondering about weights and dynamics.

The concept is very attractive, something like a mad and cheap Elise-like car (lightweight, convertible with top, heater, mid mounted engine).

BUT then, if you take a look at the position of the engine in the car, it can't be in the right place, can it?? The car is too short, to me it looks like the engine must be sitting both too high + too at the back, close to rear engine?? Maybe over the back axle or close to that??

Which is the one thing I don't like much about the Fury Menace, BTW.

What do you gurus think?

Cheers,

Alex

Of course... you would need a top and a heater in your location

I'll put my woolies back on....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
Of course... you would need a top and a heater in your location

I'll put my woolies back on....

---

smarts are mid engined. The diff is inline with the rear "axle" to one side of centre. The gearbox is just in front of it at the same height. the crank is in line with the gearbox i.e. forward of the longe drive shaft. the cylinders are mounted at an angle, like half of a V6. (anyone remember the smart brabus roadster V6?) and the seats sit where the "front" bank of cylinders should be.

In the roadster, the seats are at floor level and are mounted further forwards to clear the engine mounting and sump (the forward most parts of the engine). There is therefore more room in the engine bay.

given the height of a roadster I would guess that a bike engine couldn't be above the diff. It must be mounted forwards of it.

NICE!!! Thanks for the explanation!

I'm confused. From the Smart website, it first says, "... the engine produces 180bhp so we can expect Ferrari eating acceleration..."

Then they say, "180 BHP Smart Car... proved highly effective with a 0-60 time of under 6 seconds."

Must have been a pretty old Ferrari they were "eating."

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
I'm confused. From the Smart website, it first says, "... the engine produces 180bhp so we can expect Ferrari eating acceleration..."

Then they say, "180 BHP Smart Car... proved highly effective with a 0-60 time of under 6 seconds."

Must have been a pretty old Ferrari they were "eating."

---

who on earth would feel comfy in one of those smarts at nearly 120Mph????

though having said that.... watching the windscreen wipers struggling at that pace is kinda cute....

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgraber

But I think that in the same paragraph they mention it being a cold wet day... So maybe it was a traction related issue? Just a possiblilty...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nick baker
who on earth would feel comfy in one of those smarts at nearly 120Mph????

---

> I'm confused. From the Smart website, it first says, "... the engine produces 180bhp so we can expect Ferrari eating acceleration..."

> Then they say, "180 BHP Smart Car... proved highly effective with a 0-60 time of under 6 seconds."

Didn't they mention that they modified the Ferrari as well, so it takes the 3-cyl engine of the Roadster??

> Good point, though the "cold" part is a good thing... Also, what does one of these weigh? Unless it's 1400lbs or so I'm suspicious of who's going to eat who.... considering the bike engine has little torque while the Ferrari does

Pretty crap, 815 kg for the unmodified Roadster (the 3 cyl engine is about 60 kg). Even if it had car-like torque (which it doesn't!): 180 / .815 = 220 bhp / ton, not a lot of Ferraris to be beaten!! Maybe the ZCars mod includes saving some weight somehow but, how much in total??

I'd say around 6 secs makes sense for a 220 bhp / ton car, dry or wet?


[Edited on 21/2/05 by Alez]