loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
Lightest options
Im currently planning a locost build for the future and im weighing (litteraly) my options up.
My intial thought was to go for a redtop vaux lump, but as much as i love them they are quite a weight, so i am now considering a small block 1.6 16v,
which with carbs or TBs can easily match the 150brake 2.0 version. However I also want to keep weight down on the gearbox side of things. Ive not 100%
decided on a donor yet, so what gearboxes/transmissions are nice 'n' light?
I assume theres only a limited choice (ford, bmw, maybe early vaux? or even mazda?). Has anyone investigated their weights and if so what were the
conclusions?
Please no BEC comments 
|
|
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 09:17 AM |
|
|
The reliant engine and gearbox are light. Only 40 BHP as standard but can be tuned a lot.
I'll keep my BEC comments to myself, except this one. "60kg".
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 09:22 AM |
|
|
Are you sticking with Vauxhall? If not then a Rover K series with some work will get up to 150BHP and be very light. You could also mate it to a Type
9 GBX with an alloy housing to save 5kg approx. The 1.6 20V 4AGE is quite a light engine and IF you can find a Toyota RWD box to match would be a good
combo. Not exactly cheap alternatives 
[Edited on 12/6/08 by bimbleuk]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 09:26 AM |
|
|
i am very much a vauxhall man. and im still not 100% sure i wont go for the ease of a redtop with its 'out of the box' power advantage.
However i want to save as much weight as I can, thats the whole reason im going for the locost, if i wasnt, i'd just spend the money tuning my
Nova more!
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
K series can quite easily go over 200 bhp -- even straight from Longbridge a couple of different 1.8 versions had 160bhp.
It is difficult to appreciate just how light the K series is until you strip one down.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
chocolate head gaskets dont weigh much i guess 
|
|
|
worX
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
:cough: 60Kilos for engine AND 'box :cough:
|
|
|
TOO BADD
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
Sounds like the preverbial kiddies magazine.... I've got more horsepower than you. How about an engine that will give the best power delivery
and torque combined with weight as they are all different
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by worX
:cough: 60Kilos for engine AND 'box :cough:
*cough* 9 gearchanges a minute and as much torque as a blender *cough*
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
quote:
Originally posted by worX
:cough: 60Kilos for engine AND 'box :cough:
*cough* 9 gearchanges a minute and as much torque as a blender *cough*
*cough* who gives, light as a feather and fast as fook *cough*
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
chocolate head gaskets dont weigh much i guess
How many K series engines have you worked on ?
In 15+ years around these engines I have never encountered a single head gasket that "just blew" of its own accord, many many times I
have cars brought to me diagnosed elsewhere with blown head gaskets that turned out to just be leaking inlet manifold gaskets. The manifold gasket
& its studs was modified by Rover in mid 1999 since then the number of failures have dramatically dropped but I recommend it is changed at the
same interval as the cam belt.
Take a look around their are a lot of older Rovers on the roads running quite happily.
If the K series has a major weak spot it is actually roll pin dowels that drive the cams.
[Edited on 12/6/08 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
Red top 2.0 150bhp why so low? I believe they make closer to 200bhp with a proper exhaust and throttle bodies/bike carbs.
Do a search for posts by NS Dev who went that route.
K series isn't unreliable if you use the metal head location dowels (rather than the plastic ones they tried) and you don't cook it.
Their pub reputation is worse than the reality and there's nothing wrong with the head gasket AFAIK.
A decent BEC engine will give you more than enough torque for a 420kg car. Lots of changes the noise and no reverse makes them a bit marmite for the
road. But there's no denying they make a potent track tool.
IMO best power delivery/torque and weight for a CEC is a duratec. They only fail on the cost IMO.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 11:06 AM |
|
|
Years ago when the Chrysler Sunbeam was released I remember looking at the kerb weights --- the one with the Imp engine was just over 150lbs lighter
than the Avenger engined model ---- the only difference was the engine unit itself everything else -- gearbox, clutch, starter, radiator,
alternator, carb, fuel pump radiator, exhaust. were the exactly same or very minor variations..
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Red top 2.0 150bhp why so low? I believe they make closer to 200bhp with a proper exhaust and throttle bodies/bike carbs.
Quote was based on standard fueling as i would probly attempt to get the car running on standard setup , before more money became available and i
moved over to carbs/tbs.
Cost is big issue, so duratec is out, as is BECs as despite using it for comps/track it will spend alot of time on road as well.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 11:32 AM |
|
|
In think people have missed the OP's request i.e. what other gearboxes have people used apart from Type 9's which are heavy old lumps.
If you want to use a readily available bellhousing, then I don't know of any that are suitable for gearboxes other than the Type 9. If you have
very deep pockets you can get an alloy housing from Quaife.
I don't know if the Vauxhall RWD gearboxes are any lighter?
|
|
|
Z350
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
I have a Westfield with a Red Top in it and thats 497KG with all fluids and 1/2 tank of fuel
|
|
|
TOO BADD
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
Grief ! you must have hellium everywhere. My xe ST is all of 600 kgs:
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TOO BADD
Grief ! you must have hellium everywhere. My xe ST is all of 600 kgs:
You must have filled yoors with concrete!!! i could get the nova down to 650 with lots of FG panels. lol
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 02:42 PM |
|
|
I'm using the front half of a FWD gearbox with an adapter plate to bolt a Toyota RWD box to for my Turbo conversion.
The Toyota box is a lot bigger than the type 9 but all alloy, much lighter and easy to pick up. The resulting bellhousing from the FWD box weighs
bugger all!
Check out bilbo's blog.
[Edited on 12/6/08 by coozer]
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
lightspear27
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
Why not modify the chassis design in order to accept a transaxle at the rear (keeping the engine at the front).
Don't know if there are light enough transaxles but you save the weight of a diff (gearbox and diff = 2 in 1).
And you should also achieve a good weight distribution.
I'm no expert but the idea seem good ... no? Worth the effort?
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 03:48 PM |
|
|
Has anyone utilsed a transaxle set up (from an alfa, porsche etc?)
[Edited on 12/6/08 by loggyboy]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 04:03 PM |
|
|
Found this of the Alfa setup - looks quite hefty, and more importantly, long , with the bulk of it sitting right where the seats are.
[Edited on 12/6/08 by loggyboy]
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 04:36 PM |
|
|
Volvo (340?) also used the same layout no idea about the relative size.
Also need to be careful about the torque tube I guess - i.e. a prop running at engine rpms 6 inches from the family jewels
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 05:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Volvo (340?) also used the same layout no idea about the relative size.
Also need to be careful about the torque tube I guess - i.e. a prop running at engine rpms 6 inches from the family jewels
Why should that be a problem? If you have a type 9, the prop is running at 122% of engine speed in fifth!
|
|
|
mawmaw
|
| posted on 12/6/08 at 05:52 PM |
|
|
zetec se
having done 250 reliable full race miles with my latest zetec se i am now in a position to endorse it as a choice. Originally i wasn't due to
its need for oil but now i have an accusump correctly plumbed in i can safely say:
buy an engine from the scrappers for £200 (done this myself 6 times in the last 18 months!) fit a pair of piper rally cams and shims in about an hour
or so. bolt on a set of whatevers (webers, dellortos, tb's whatever and hey presto 155 reliable bhp in an engine that weighs similar to a k and
will run and run. none of the issues reverse gear etc, non of the understeering too heavy nose stuff and a very keen revvy engine unlike the torquey
2l jobs much more in suiting to the gennre inho
Oh and mine weighed 475kgs with a full body (phoenix)
Mark
[Edited on 12/6/08 by mawmaw]
|
|
|
