leew2
|
| posted on 6/6/15 at 11:40 AM |
|
|
Honda NC700X DCT engine in a BEC
Hi, newcomer here considering building his first car.
Main Objective for me is to build something with a High MPG, I'm not concerned about extreme acceleration or a top speed over 70mph. Current
thoughts are for a tandem 3 wheeler, loosely inspired by Messerschmitt KR200, using a reproduction KR200 windscreen. Slightly wider front track and
larger 145/60R13 tyres all round.
I'm been looking at various engine options and really like the look of the Honda NC700X DCT engine. To date I have not seen any examples of
this engine being used in a BEC. Does anyone know of any builds using this engine (either the manual or DCT version) or have considered using this
engine in a build?
Many thanks, lee.
|
|
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 6/6/15 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
Like this then?
http://www.frsmotorsport.com
IMHO the KR200 in its day was very narrow so suited tandem, add a wider track and are more suited to side by side
www.plusnine.co.uk
|
|
|
leew2
|
| posted on 6/6/15 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReMan
Like this then?
http://www.frsmotorsport.com
IMHO the KR200 in its day was very narrow so suited tandem, add a wider track and are more suited to side by side
Hmmm, not quite.
Mainly I want the engine at the rear, so that the driver will be much closer to the front wheels, this will allow a much better shape for the tail
end. The tail end of the FMR3 does not look very efficient, the angling in looks to sharp for my liking and could cause flow separation and thus
drag. Rear engine also means the presence/absence of a pax does not affect the handling much as the pax seat will be close to the COG.
The CdA of the FMR3 does not look brill to me. While having the wheels outboard reduces the frontal area (A), all the wishbones etc really hurts the
Cd. I want the front wheels and all the suspension and steering gubbins to be covered, a bit like KR200 however I want to blend the front wheel
housings into the body better, especially to the rear to improve the CdA. This extra space will also accommodate the pax feet, allowing for a narrow
main body of around 600mm and a "road to butt" seat height of about 150mm to provide a low CoG for good stability even with a narrow front
track of around 1300-1400mm.
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 6/6/15 at 02:50 PM |
|
|
There is a list of current three wheel kit cars on totalkitcar
http://www.totalkitcar.com/uk/uk-x-ref/
If you can forgo the tandem bit this is one of the nicer ones -
http://www.razorcars.co.uk
If you are after economical, what about something like the sylva j15 or the mev rocket with a 1.6 ford focus tdci diesel in it, I bet you would get
well over 70 to the gallon touring and still have decent performance.
Also have a look at the mev tr1ke, this could be a good place to start from if you intend building your won body.
[Edited on 6/6/15 by Ugg10]
---------------------------------------------------------------
1968 Ford Anglia 105e, 1.7 Zetec SE, Mk2 Escort Workd Cup front end, 5 link rear
Build Blog - http://Anglia1968.weebly.com
|
|
|
leew2
|
| posted on 6/6/15 at 11:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
If you can forgo the tandem bit this is one of the nicer ones -
http://www.razorcars.co.uk
I must say I did like the look of the razor, looks very smart, and they say they can make it to suit any engine, thus could get one built up to take
the NC700 powerplant which should result in some rather nice MPG however when I phoned up to find out more about it, I was told he ain't making
them at the moment 
After thinking about it for quite a while, I would still prefer a tandem layout, there are pros and cons to both designs however the main things I
like about tandem are:
1: Better weight distribution, A tandem design with a rear engine will be balanced left/right and have a similar COG with or without pax thus should
handle similar with or without pax. A side-by-side design when driven solo will have a right side weight bias meaning more likely to turn over in a
left hand turn.
2: central driving position makes driving on both sides of the road easier, as I intend to do a lot of mileage driving on both the left and the right
hand sides of the road, I reckon center drive would be better when driving on the right hand side of the road than driving a RHD car.
3: Allows for a smaller frontal area.
4: I just prefer being in the middle of a vehicle 
The cons I can think of are as follows:
1: no so good view for the pax, as he/she will be looking at the back of my helmet, but doubt it would be much worse than a rear seat pax in a
tin-top
2: longer overall length, my proposed design would be close to the 4m length limit for MSVA
3: access possibly not so easy for the pax, may require a tilting driver's seat simular to that in a 2-door tintop.
|
|
|
