akumabito
|
| posted on 22/1/07 at 11:40 PM |
|
|
I imagine there would still be some movement if not only from the increased momentum of the flywheel?
|
|
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 23/1/07 at 05:42 AM |
|
|
quote:
Mainly its symmetrical, tidy appearance IMO- particuarly for 'V' or flat engines with exhaust manifolds either side.
the defence rests.......
cheers
Fred W B
 
exhaust2
[Edited on 23/1/07 by Fred W B]
[Edited on 23/1/07 by Fred W B]
|
|
|
kikiturbo
|
| posted on 23/1/07 at 08:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rav
However, mated to a "normal" gearbox, with a different sump the engine could sit really low and have deffinite advantages...
the problem with flat engines is that you still need to leave some space for the exhaust manifold... so a V engine, with the heaviest part of the
engine being the crank / block might have lower CoG still... especially when running a dry sump and smeall flywhell
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 23/1/07 at 02:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fred W B
the defence rests.......
cheers
Fred W B
I'll take two!
No doubt the longitudinal layout has the sex appeal. People like symmetry. Because symmetry is good.
Transverse layout is more sensible from a space and packaging perspective. Ferrari did it with the dino... and Fiat with the X 1/9 (ok, bad
example)
[Edited on 1/23/07 by sgraber]
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 23/1/07 at 04:06 PM |
|
|
Lancia did it with the Stratos, also used McPherson struts to good effect.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
locost_bryan
|
| posted on 24/1/07 at 03:33 AM |
|
|
Some Italian bloke did a transverse V12 in the '60s, and named it after his tractor!  Check it out...
http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/miura/MiuraS/3676.html 
Bryan Miller
Auckland NZ
Bruce McLaren - "Where's my F1 car?"
John Cooper - "In that rack of tubes, son"
|
|
|
rav
|
| posted on 25/1/07 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
I agree, transverse has some logical advantages, mainly packaging & efficency, but in line still looks the best!!
Going back to a dry sumped flat engine, I measured up a subaru wrx engine (got a broken one off ebay) and discovered the if you were to mate it to a
type 9 box, with a normal sized flywheel, then sitting it so the flywheel is the lowest point it leaves about 90mm of height for the exhausts to bend
after they exit the head. Which is plenty of room for a normal tube bend.
Could even sit lower if you used a smaller flywheel & clutch with a suitable starter motor and bellhousing
I'm pretty confident the whole subaru flat 4 engine could sit below the top chassis rail in a locost chassis, with just the inlet pipework and
alternator above.
And before you say it, yes its too wide for a locost chassis, but only an inch and a half of head would be showing either side, easily covered by a
suitable panel...
|
|
|
roshier
|
| posted on 12/2/07 at 01:22 AM |
|
|
well it depends if you are going to build for looks or performance then?
Transverse manual transmissions have less power loss than the equivalent inline transmission given the same torque capacity. However there are
exceptions to this if you have the money and can accept the limitations.
For me, the manual transmission was the deciding factor in power unit choice. Inline transaxles were ruled out because of total finished cost. Yes I
know you can get a UN1 etc for 75 quid down the breakers. But then you have to service it, maybe rebuild it, you need an adapter plate, a
flywheel/clutch/throwout bearing and some accurate engineering etc
|
|
|
