Mid Engine SVX concept.

[Dessertrunner]

Have been considering the 12 cyclinder engines and were they should go, have also mentioned my search for a different car so I have come a full circle back to the SVX type car that I love. I spoke to Bazza about this idea at the end of last week so here it is.

I have worked out that you can fit the engine and gearbox behind the drivers seat. The issue will be as to how to mount the motor into the frame. For that I think I will take part of a front cut and relocate it to the back. Not sure yet but will work it out over time if I consider doing this project. This also means that if I get my hands on the 12 cyclinder they have a good home and its a Subaru.

So when I had a chance I started to look around at what others had done. I was dumb founded to find that this years Pike Peak winner Rhyns Millen winner car was just that a mid engine build. What a car, also I found that others had done it as well. So why not a SVX mid engine, it would be the ulimate sports car, a fitting evolation for a SVX.

So what do you think?????????


Tony

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/09/sema-preview-mid-engine-hyundai-genesis-coupe-by-rhys-millen.html

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/11/rhys-millen-racing-midengine-v8-hyundai-genesis-coupe.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmCC6hsMZE

[Huskymaniac]

Looking at a Testarossa engine to stay boxer?

[bazza]

Have been considering the 12 cyclinder engines and were they should go, have also mentioned my search for a different car so I have come a full circle back to the SVX type car that I love. I spoke to Bazza about this idea at the end of last week so here it is.

I have worked out that you can fit the engine and gearbox behind the drivers seat. The issue will be as to how to mount the motor into the frame. For that I think I will take part of a front cut and relocate it to the back. Not sure yet but will work it out over time if I consider doing this project. This also means that if I get my hands on the 12 cyclinder they have a good home and its a Subaru.

So when I had a chance I started to look around at what others had done. I was dumb founded to find that this years Pike Peak winner Rhyns Millen winner car was just that a mid engine build. What a car, also I found that others had done it as well. So why not a SVX mid engine, it would be the ulimate sports car, a fitting evolation for a SVX.

So what do you think?????????


Tony

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/09/sema-preview-mid-engine-hyundai-genesis-coupe-by-rhys-millen.html

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/11/rhys-millen-racing-midengine-v8-hyundai-genesis-coupe.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmCC6hsMZE

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2380691

[bazza]

Tony, i think the car that won pykes had engine up the front. Was a v6 with big turbo, videos are certainly not v8 sounding.


http://whatmonstersdo.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rhys_Millen_Hyundai_Genesis_Pikes_Peak_700-7.jpg

[Dessertrunner]

You are right, sorry about that,
and it was 2WD was it front or rear?

[Hocrest]

Here is a mid engined Soob coupe with a super charged eg33 for inspiration...
http://ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=134714

[icingdeath88]

If anyone could do it, it would be you, Tony.

[dragoontwo]

Here is a mid engined Soob coupe with a super charged eg33 for inspiration...
http://ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=134714

Same car posted 2 above yours.

[crazyhorse]

This post is amazing for a few reasons...
First because the legendary F1 V-12 sill exists, intact
Second because its actually for sale, not tucked away in a factory warehouse
Lastly because you are seriously considering such an audacious task as putting it in an SVX.

Irony, of ironies being that the two are related by more than the engine architecture. The fact that they were both financial failures for Subaru binds them.

If you decide to go ahead with your plan, i wish you smooth sailing. Take LOTS of pictures!

As for how to mount it? Could you use a front subframe from another SVX? My guess is the car would require "backhalving". IE a tube frame to support the rear half of the car, and powertrain. On the plus side, you could move the rear hubs inward to gain clearance for the larger tires that will be required for traction.

[Dessertrunner]

Don't know if any of you guys saw this, factory five are working on a rear engine Subaru Kit car. They are using the parts from a WRX or Imprezza, there are a couple of videos as well on there web site and on you tube. The car is called 818 being the target all up weight of 818 Kg. They argue that at that number its going to be a very fast car.

Tony

http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/project-818/

and they have a forum here,
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/content.php?

[huck369]

I say put a second FWD EG33 setup in the rear driving the rear wheels, and keep one in the front driving the front wheels....:D

[SVXRide]

This post is amazing for a few reasons...
First because the legendary F1 V-12 sill exists, intact
Second because its actually for sale, not tucked away in a factory warehouse
Lastly because you are seriously considering such an audacious task as putting it in an SVX.

Irony, of ironies being that the two are related by more than the engine architecture. The fact that they were both financial failures for Subaru binds them.

If you decide to go ahead with your plan, i wish you smooth sailing. Take LOTS of pictures!

As for how to mount it? Could you use a front subframe from another SVX? My guess is the car would require "backhalving". IE a tube frame to support the rear half of the car, and powertrain. On the plus side, you could move the rear hubs inward to gain clearance for the larger tires that will be required for traction.


+1 ^^^^^


Bill

[svxfiles]

Twin 3.3s.













Better install vinyl seats and a floor drain!:eek:

[Dessertrunner]

I think you guys and Harvey are thinking the same. He suddested on the weekend the same idea except turn the back engine around and connect the tail shafts.

Pretty wild.
Tony

[icingdeath88]

I think you guys and Harvey are thinking the same. He suddested on the weekend the same idea except turn the back engine around and connect the tail shafts.

Pretty wild.
Tony

Mind = blown

How would you sync up the transmissions though?

[Dessertrunner]

That was the point I asked Harvey, also have 2 transmissions would be a lot of dead weight. There is a guy here in Australia that joined to Porsche engines together. That would be a better idea.

If you need more power from our existing engine you can either rev it to 10k like we are doing or wack a big turbo on it like Bazza has.

Its worth dreaming though.
Tony

[icingdeath88]

That was the point I asked Harvey, also have 2 transmissions would be a lot of dead weight. There is a guy here in Australia that joined to Porsche engines together. That would be a better idea.

If you need more power from our existing engine you can either rev it to 10k like we are doing or wack a big turbo on it like Bazza has.

Its worth dreaming though.
Tony

I don't think you could really argue that 2 engines together would be the best way to get the most power. But while we're dreaming, might as well dream big. Some things you don't do because they're a good idea, some things you do just because nobody ever did it before.

[bishop]

Make room for the enormous fuel tank you'll need to get any range out of it :( but I like the idea

[Sir. Nate]

I've always toyed with the idea of a F/R v8 swap myself..

[Dessertrunner]

I have had a look at the back sub frame and it should be possiable build the front engine support frame into the back subframe. It will require strengthening but it all could work.
Tony

[crazyhorse]

How sweet would it be if the mounting points were the same distance apart on the front, and rear subframes. You could weld the front to the rear, and greatly simplify the fabrication of the motor/trans mounts. Up to, and including mounting the full powertrain to the assembled unit before bolting it into the body. It would be nice to have 6 bolts holding it in. Simply unbolt the cradle, and drop out the whole unit for service.

[Dessertrunner]

What you suggests is mostly the way it would work.

[oab_au]

I think you guys and Harvey are thinking the same. He suddested on the weekend the same idea except turn the back engine around and connect the tail shafts.

Pretty wild.
Tony

Well in my defence.:rolleyes:

We were talking of a project to do when Tony retires. The Idea was really only a, 5PM, 3 Coopers, type of thought bubble.:D

Tony had suggested moving the engine to the rear. I thought, that would leave a big hole in the front, so why not just put another one in the rear.

The Subaru “All for the Four Symmetrical”, logo came through the mist. So the thought of two engines and trans, the rear one turned around so the two transmission rear output shafts connected together. So that the wheels were driven all the time, and the two transfer clutches locked.

OK the rear engine would have to run backwards, but that can be arranged, but in the clear light of the day, the problems of getting a auto box and torque converter that will work the opposite way fouled the project.:(

Next day, only a 2 Coopers day.:)
OK we turn then rear engine around the right way, no mechanical connection between them, but enough electronic controls to keep the two engines under control.
Both use an auto trans, with only the front drive fitted. Both boxes are run by the one TCU, using the two speed sensors fitted to the diffs, to look for wheel spin. No transfer clutches, so the TCU uses the two electric throttles to control the torque of the engines.
The rear engine would not need any accessories, as the front can do those duties, to provide a biasing of the torque to the rear.

The result would be a 6.6lt 500Hp Flat 12, dual engine, AWD, SVX.

Huck can’t wait to get started.:eek:

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Harvey you are getting pretty wild,
Now image if you did wnat Bazza does and turbo both engine.

[Dessertrunner]

All jokes aside,
This project is do able and as such would be best with one engine, the goal is to end up with a final car that is driviable on the open road and is Subaru. For that reason its not a option to use any other motor or gearbox other then Subaru. If its a daily drive then one engine will be enough of a head ache so that is the way it would have to be.

Tony

[flamestone]

You guys are nuts.

But I'm cheering you on.

Definitely only one engine, just to keep weight down.

Going mid-rear engine gives you lots of opportunities to add lightness.

[Dessertrunner]

For Harvey I say sorry that I have continued this thought but hell it keeps me off the streets at night out of the pub.

I have spoken to a engineer about getting approval for the car to be registerted in the the state of NSW (in Australia). He said it can be done but I need to have a "Scope of work" meeting with him first so I can be clear what is involved to get it passed. I won't do this project unless I can drive the car on the road around Australia. I also want it to be a complete car in other words I need to start with a very good condiation SVX one that has never been crashed (I think I have a car in mind).
In addiation as I see it the car would be a standard SVX in all ways internally except it would not have a back seat. As regards the engine I would anticpate it would be a home for the 10k dry sump special Bazza and I are building.

In other words the car would need to be as good as if Subaru built it.

So the big question that I ask myself all the time is why bother to do this project. Well I think the answer is a lot simpler then I am letting myself beleive.
When I was 16 years old I brought books on designing race cars, they were engineering books about frame design etc. As part of that I had always wanted to get a rear engine car ubt at the time couldn't afford it. Today I can afford just about any rear engine car I wanted up to about 1/2million dollars but I don't see one single car that I want. So to say I am frustrated would be a understatment. I am all about the package which means the building as much as the driving, improving and developing, the proving to myself that I can do somthing, the uniqueness of what I will finally acheive.
I love when I drive throught the desert in a sports car and people are shock because it
"I can't do that, no one drives a sports car in the desert",

To say I enjoy P_ _ sing them off would be a understatment,

A rear engine SVX would be brillant,

Its never been doen before____
The SVX body is the toughest Subaru ever made____
Once the engine proformance was increased it would be a pretty fast car____

And finally its not about money its all about enjoying life and doing things different to the rest of the world, creating something unique that other have never done.

Sorry for the rant but I want to put my thought down as to why the project should hit the go button. Feel free to disagree or what ever, I am happy to here alternative opinions.

Have a great day all.
Tony

[bazza]

I think it's a great idea.

[Dessertrunner]

Brought a further SVX for this project, will provide more details later.
Tony

[SVXRide]

Brought a further SVX for this project, will provide more details later.
Tony

and let the cutting out of floor pans begin!!

:cool::cool:

Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Okay here is the link to the project car, need to start with a really good car.
Tony

http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/subaru-svx-1993-10965297

[zaueugen]

This is the best idea ever!! :eek:

[Dessertrunner]

Hi guys, I seek counsel,

I have the project car home, picked it up yesterday which required 11 hours driving. The car was very good and didn't miss a beat. For those that don't know I also brought an other SVX 3 week earlier. This car has rego but is pretty knocked around. It is a 92 red with black roof and was in a crash but repaired so the guard and bonnet are different colours. The back corner above the left rear wheel is damaged.

My question as this car will be parted out I am thinking of first cutting this car up and sorting out the problems with mounting the rear engine. Not suggesting that I convert the car over just that I use it as a scarifical SVX so I can do the second one correctly. You know the way it is when you do a job twice its always better the second time.

So what do you think ??????


Tony

[flamestone]

The seller of that '93 must have been stoked! It's been for sale longer than I can remember.

And yeah sounds like a good idea. You can pop all the glass and cut away as much as you need so you know exactly what you're dealing with.

Theoretically you won't need to do any experimenting on the final product - you'll already know.

Should I PM you a list of spare parts I would happily take off your hands while you're at it? :)

[Dessertrunner]

Okay I have decided it would be smarter to start on the rough one first then move to the newer one. As part of this the rough car could be sorted out by using it on time attack track car.

Started to work out the cutting, I feel that all the mid engine project cars to date have been cut to much. Basicly they seem to want all the braces between the two side to be cut out. This doesn't sound smart to me as the cross bracing in the back gives the body rigidity so that it doesn't flex. From my standpoint My approach is going be to keep ever exisitng brace in place. Then later we can cut some out.

Talk weight,
Harvey is always talking about the SVX being to heavy, when I look at the weight of Bazza's car its easy to understand Harveys point. Clearly we won't be able to match Bazza car weight but the car wheel base is more suited to track racing so what we lose on being to heavy we may gain by better handling.

The diet is,
Pull seats,
Remove carpet and sound proofing,
Replace the boot with a fibre glass unit (SVX unit is really heavy to improve handling.
Tail shaft,
Rear diff,
Smaller exhaust.
Back seats,
For racing all windows with perspect,
Internals of windows.
Rear spoiler,
Change steering wheel and column.
Reamove climate control etc.
Lighten dash,
Change front bonnet.
Sun roof,

Tony

[flamestone]

Yep. Add lightness I say. :)

So... drivetrain? A transaxle conversion?

And suspension? There's gotta be a couple of kgs to be lost with modern coilovers.

[crazyhorse]

Handling may end up being a bone of contention here. With the weight shifted rearward, and rwd, it will be very tail happy. I know that in the few short weeks i drove mine with a locked center clutch, and no front halfshafts, it was a great drifter. It also had loads of understeer. Shifting the weight to the rear, you will have to build some understeer back in.

[Dessertrunner]

What happens is that the handling improves, the best weight ratio is 40% front 60% back. To acheive we are mounting the the motor behind the driver.
Tony

[flamestone]

And a custom fuel cell to the front?

[bazza]

.

Talk weight,
Harvey is always talking about the SVX being to heavy, when I look at the weight of Bazza's car its easy to understand Harveys point. Clearly we won't be able to match Bazza car weight but the car wheel base is more suited to track racing so what we lose on being to heavy we may gain by better handling.

The diet is,
Pull seats,
Remove carpet and sound proofing,
Replace the boot with a fibre glass unit (SVX unit is really heavy to improve handling.
Tail shaft,
Rear diff,
Smaller exhaust.
Back seats,
For racing all windows with perspect,
Internals of windows.
Rear spoiler,
Change steering wheel and column.
Reamove climate control etc.
Lighten dash,
Change front bonnet.
Sun roof,

Tony

Just ensure you understand the entire picture with regards to the wheelbase as it's not just about the wheel base but the ratio between wheel base and wheel track. Here are a few examples of the wheelbase to wheel track ratio:

Lambo: 1.59
Bazza STI: 1.61
Zonda: 1.64
11 Lotus: 1.64
22B: 1.67
07 STI: 1.69
02 WRX / STI: 1.70
SVX 1.75
RS: 1.77
Outback: 1.81

I owned an RS and a WRX at the same time many years ago with near identical mods, except the RS had about 50 kw more power. The Legacy RS also has a 6 cm longer wheelbase. I took both cars to Mallala and the difference of that 6 cm of wheelbase was worth 1.5 seconds and you can really feel it - I used to do a heap of driving in the hills in Adelaide back then in both cars and the short wheel base makes a difference - it's also why everybody in Time Attack using Subaru's runs the GC8 rather than the RS Legacy chassis even though there isn't to much weight difference.

So just make sure you look at the ratio because long wheel base alone is bad for circuit work such as the SVX - however increase the wheel base and get that ratio down to say 1.65 and it will work a treat on the circuit.

[Dessertrunner]

Well the cut is complete, I am dumb founded how well it went its as if Subaru had it planned all along. Just need to get my head around the reinstall and the new engine subframe. Its surprising how far the job progressed in one day, the plan of attack was worked out and it flowed. Biggest problem was my wife fueled the car last night so I had to deal with 70l of fuel before pulling the tank.

Engine location is cut I managed to keep the main beams so now it comes the time to figure how to mount the engine and gearbox back in. I was thinking of using the front hub assembly then I remember that on a road regristered I need to have handbrake etc and on a road car it would be good to have the ABS. So I think I have a way to do the engine install and make it all work.

Here are a couple of pics, just need to find somewere to post the rest of them.
I am going to write up a procedure so I can do it again with all the improvements.

Have a good day all.
Tony

[crazyhorse]

Thats an awful good start! I wish i could do that much in a day.

How close are the dimensions on a front subframe to the rear? I cant think of a better way than a factory setup to mount a torquey eg33. Im assuming, as dangerous as that can be, that you will be doing at least a 4 point roll bar. Using the bar to shore up the mounting would ease the engineering tasks.

[icingdeath88]

Holy crap Tony you work fast. Looks great.

[Conn SVX]

That's not just fast, that is holy ^%<%<*¥% FAST. should be done by next Friday at this rate:p

[Dessertrunner]

To speed the job up used a rattle gun to remove the bolt. Saved heaps of time.

I have to get my head around how I get to the motor for services etc, I had intended short term to leave the large back window in place but that may cause issues with getting at the engine.

Tested the front suspension cross beam in the back today, its not going to work that way I will need to stick with the first plan of mounting the the engine & gearbox onto the rear diff sub frame. To do this I will have to create a jig to mount the subframe so when its cut it doesn't go out of aligment. Then bring the engine and gearbox from underneath.

Today I will pull the engine & gearbox out of the car.

Keep well all.
Tony

[Conn SVX]

Explain: you planed to leave the rear glass in but now you are not? What is the plan? Hinge it? Or no glass?????.

[Dessertrunner]

Not sure what I am going to do yet, will update when I know the plan.
Tony

[michael]

This is the best thread ever! I wish you the best of luck. Please tell me you might be planning on something like a Delorean or mr2 style rear bonnet.

[Dessertrunner]

Had a slack day, Engine is out and gearbox is out, need to clean and strip the front engine bay of the things I don't need.

So the car will have a 6 speed fitted as well as the standard engine fitted to start with. Then I will replace the engine with a higher power one aiming to get to the 10k.

The ulimate tyre we would like to fit on the rear would be 295/35/20in 255/40/20in on the front. It might be that we have to settle for 19in but lets see how we go.

[dynomatt]

Interesting work.

Are you using a 6 speed with the rear drive disconnected? I know they make RWD kits, but do they make a FWD only kit? would a Porsche transaxle or even a Liberty FWD box work? Get some custom ratios made later?

Don't forget you'll need to get some custom front springs and probably shocks too...as much as you'll need uprated rears.

Will be watching.

Matt

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Matt,
A couple of the guys are using the Subaru gearbox in kit cars so as a result companies now make adaptors that blank off the back output shaft. Only catch its a grand.

Front axles, I had intended to install the DMS's and change the spring rate down till I get it right.

Do you think that will work is it what you mean???

Tony

[dynomatt]

That'll work fine. Might even pay to ask Jamie what rates he recommends after you've weighed it at the end.

[Dessertrunner]

As a result of the recent investigation it seems that the only way I can get 295 / 35 / 20in rims on the back is to change the suspenion to a better design. The removal of the strut will give more tyre room under the guard.

Has anyone used a suspenion simulator before, if so what type.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

This seems like a simple simulator that is free.
http://mysite.verizon.net/samitchell/Suspen2/

[dynomatt]

Where did your 20 inch tyre decison come from?

[Dessertrunner]

Good question Matt, please correct me if I am dreaming, but due to the rear drive only I need to get the biggest tyres I can on the back. Porsche are running 19 & 20in, also I wanted to be able to get bigger brakes in there.

I would like to here your thoughts,

[dynomatt]

You know I support your ideas...but to my humble thinking, sometimes we have to accept compromises.

To hear you say that the only way the 20 inch tyres will fit is to redo the suspension makes me think you aren't compromising.

In using an SVX shell as a donor, it's a compromise...you get a car that's on 4 wheels that then needs modifications to do what you want. And maybe 17 or 18 inch wheels would work better? Remember, V8 touring cars run 17" wheels with 375mm discs...admittedly they run 11" wide wheels, but you could potentially get the width on an 8" or 9" wheel without needing to mod the suspension too much and lose the benefits that chosing the SVX as a donor has given you.

My thinking is that as soon as you start changing suspension, custom making them etc...would not the 962 kit car you were looking at become a better more viable proposition?

I realise, to an SVX purist, that's not what you want to hear of course! And you of anybody could pull it off.

Just my thoughts...

M

[Dessertrunner]

Matt your point is right, thanks for bring me back to the ground, I appricate. Currently I know I could fit 235 wheels by 20in as that overall outter size is what I have on my car (235/R70/16).

The limit is the 235 as the clearance between the strut coils and the guards are a issue.

Tony

[flamestone]

Yeah you'll do better keeping some tyre side wall rather than having to wrap massive wheels with liquorice strips.

Plus you'll probably have a better selection of tyres if you keep the profile up a bit.

If anything, I'd focus on width instead. Maybe a subtle wide-body treatment to the guards while you're in there cutting things up?

Either way, still one of the awesomest projects I've come across for a while. :)

[92 SVX]

Go with a custom made coil over set up, the coils, as well as the entire thing is smaller and lighter it will allow you to run wider tires with less - offset(to keep from tire rub on fenders)

I believe the guy that owned icings pearlie managed to fit 20 inch rims on it so the size can be done I would NOT run too much side wall as it will cause flex and in extreme cases fold over. You will have more weight on those rear wheels and with weight transfer and hard cornering you dont want to lose a tire.

[Dessertrunner]

Go with a custom made coil over set up, the coils, as well as the entire thing is smaller and lighter it will allow you to run wider tires with less - offset(to keep from tire rub on fenders)

I believe the guy that owned icings pearlie managed to fit 20 inch rims on it so the size can be done I would NOT run too much side wall as it will cause flex and in extreme cases fold over. You will have more weight on those rear wheels and with weight transfer and hard cornering you dont want to lose a tire.

We are doing just that I have a set of 50mm DMS coil overs to go on the car
http://www.dmshocks.com/home_12.htm


Okay back to Matts point,
I have to mod or build a new back subframe to mount the engine and gearbox to as part of that I need to build a jig to hold everything together while I develop and build the subframe. Matts point was right I was jumping ahead of myself and making it harder then it needs to be. As I see it by building a jig for the back sub frame I then can built new and improved subframes without a lot of effort till I have it perfect for what I need. As with any job its never right the first time and will take a couple of goes.

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Just looking at this artical on the forum of the Subaru powered factory Five 818 they are building. Its seems that with the rear engine car they don't bother with power steering infact they pull the guts out of the rack to make it easier.

I need to think what I am going to do.

Here is the link.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?5966-De-powering-the-steering-rack-plus-more-to-come-on-rebuilding-wrx-parts

[92 SVX]

Just looking at this artical on the forum of the Subaru powered factory Five 818 they are building. Its seems that with the rear engine car they don't bother with power steering infact they pull the guts out of the rack to make it easier.

I need to think what I am going to do.

Here is the link.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?5966-De-powering-the-steering-rack-plus-more-to-come-on-rebuilding-wrx-parts

Makes sense to me, the need for the power is all the weight sitting on the wheels.
remove that weight and the power may be too responsive.

[icingdeath88]

You could get an MR2 or xt6 electric power steering pump.

[legacyau]

As much as we all hate the Aussie topgear they did prove a point testing a hsv crummydore that had 20's on it then running the same car with 18's and it was several seconds quicker per lap :eek:

[Dessertrunner]

As much as we all hate the Aussie topgear they did prove a point testing a hsv crummydore that had 20's on it then running the same car with 18's and it was several seconds quicker per lap :eek:

Its was quicker with which tyres the 20"s or 18's ???

Tony

Edit
Okay found the video of the story it was more abou the side wall size, in short low profile tyres are a waste of money.

[Dessertrunner]

Okay we have news, engine is in the engine bay, still need to lift up a bit more and sort out the clutch lever hitting the cross beam. I am aiming to get the engine as low as I can so the existing sump has to go to save height. Also I am aiming to think through the exhaust now as i can cause problem with the height. My aim tomorrow is to move the engine close to or into its final home then move the subframe up for cutting and install. To a degree the existing moded subframe will be used as the prototype for the final version. Enough talk here is the images.

Tony

['E']

Its was quicker with which tyres the 20"s or 18's ???

Tony

Quicker with 18's as it had 20's to start with

[92 SVX]

Quicker with 18's as it had 20's to start with

Weight of the rim tire combo? generally 20's would be heavier, and that unsprung weight would translate into slower.

[Dessertrunner]

Photos of the new Subaru powered Factory Five car about to be released as a Kit.

http://ffroadster.com/images/818/Spyshot818R-1.jpg

[Dessertrunner]

Had to cut the cross beam also did the cut and mounting of the olod rear diff subframe so it can hold the gearbox and motor. Having a bit of a challange to get the engine support beam right but its coming together.

Matt was right it would have been hell if I had changed all that now. I can always improve the suspension later if I want to.

Here is a couple of photos.

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

You should read this artical I found the car because its in this months Top Gear mag.

It makes me excited to get the Mid engine SVX going.

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=8080

[Dessertrunner]

Underside,

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5301/5600407901_7340e17be0_b.jpg

[oab_au]

Very compact, all mounted on a frame.
That is a front drive, east/west, engine-gearbox unit, that is very short front to back. A lot shorter than our unit.

Looks very interesting.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Harvey glad you jumped in,
The framing of the rear engine and suspension is not going good at all. I am sure it will look great and make everyone feel warm and fazzy but I feel it will be to heavy, lack strength and ignore thinks like how to get the exhaust pipes out the back.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Side%20view%20part%20subframe.JPG

In the image above the left side is the engine and the front of the car the right side is the back of the car. Photo taken throught the left rear wheel well.

This is what is spinning in my head,

- In one of the artical I read about that car they said the first ones (early models) of the car, the back subframe was not strong enough and it effect the cars handling, must have flexed.
- In a rear engine car the only way to get the engine out is throught the bottom which means that aspect need to be considered now.
- Do I want to be able to pull the gearbox without pulling the engine.
- Bazza mentioned that there is such a thing as having the engine weight to low, it will effect the handling, I think he said its like a boat. Can't get my head around that.
- Need a subframe that offers some degree of flexiability if I want to change anchour position.
- The front trailing arm is about 150mm back from the the engine mounts so the engine support beam has to be beefed up heaps to handle the side leverage .
- Bushes in subframe are designed to flex but given the amount of weight increase we are adding I think they will flex far to much.
- Back of gearbox needs to currently have its own support beam which is not part of the main subframe.
- Looking at the photo, were to send the exhaust becomes an issue I don't want to be stuck like our current cars and have to go between the cross beam and the ground as that will limit how low the car can go so I need to go over the cross beam.

Having seen how well the support beam was built in the Renault I think it best to go that sort of way one question I have is which would be stronger pipe or square RHS. I assume it would be pipe.

I am interested in the comments and opinions.

Tony

[bazza]

- In one of the artical I read about that car they said the first ones (early models) of the car, the back subframe was not strong enough and it effect the cars handling, must have flexed.
- Bazza mentioned that there is such a thing as having the engine weight to low, it will effect the handling, I think he said its like a boat. Can't get my head around that.



Yeah flex is a nasty thing - suspension geometry changes due to flex (created during G loading) and is why roll cages and tubular subframes help reduce the flex and can increase grip.

With the engine weight to low theory - imagine putting 235 kg on top of the roof and driving - the car would want to try and tip over and would assist the roll. This is due to having raised the COG (center of gravity) and moved it further away from the RC (roll center). This creates a bigger lever arm (like a big torque wrench) trying to roll the car over.

In reverse if you put 235 kg very low in the car you might effectively move the COG beneath the RC. This would probably make the car behave like a yacht with a keel as the lever arm would be in reverse. Most RC's in the Subaru WRX and STI's are usually at ground level or 1-2 inches above it so you most likely won't have such a nasty issue but it's just something to be aware of as you're changing a lot of things.

[Dessertrunner]

Bazza I think the Renault had issues due to the ratio of wheel base to trank as well. I didn't run the numbers but figure they had issues because they tied to lengthen the wheel base.

Has anyone found out why that Mid engine Hyundai Genesis dispeared off the radar. I saw no more of it and would love to know why.
Tony

[Crazy_pilot]

Given how strangely the geometry seems to line up between the engine, suspension and subframe, would you consider doing away with the stock subframes entirely and building up a custom tube frame? It seems that trying to build from the stock parts is just going to result in a hodge-podge of welded together chunks that won't really suit the application. A custom subframe could be made modular to allow separate engine and transmission sections, or an upper cage that would wrap over the transmission to tie into the strut towers and stiffen the rear up.

[Dessertrunner]

Given how strangely the geometry seems to line up between the engine, suspension and subframe, would you consider doing away with the stock subframes entirely and building up a custom tube frame? It seems that trying to build from the stock parts is just going to result in a hodge-podge of welded together chunks that won't really suit the application. A custom subframe could be made modular to allow separate engine and transmission sections, or an upper cage that would wrap over the transmission to tie into the strut towers and stiffen the rear up.

I think the answer is yes with exception of the strut top mounts they should stay with the current postion in the body.

[Dessertrunner]

Here is a draft design of the new subframe design. I have had to change the trailing link but kept the rest of the suspenion the sames.

[bazza]

Here is a draft design of the new subframe design. I have had to change the trailing link but kept the rest of the suspenion the sames.

Very nice.

One suggestion - where the lateral arms bolt to the frame - create a flange with 3 x holes rather than one. Use a circle to get the holes in the right spot as the centre point will be where those arms join the hub. Basically this will allow you to raise and lower the ride height without destroying the roll centre. A major issue with all Subaru's is when you lower them - you fk the roll centre and the handling - hence why Whiteline / Perrin make "roll center adjustment" parts. It's also why my front and rear subframe also have adjustable roll centers and why if you look closely at the STI from say 98 to 06, the point at which the front and rear lateral arms mount hole moves to address changes in COG and ride height. Also the V8's used to run live roll centre height adjustment as the COG changes with fuel loading and reduces performance etc etc.

I'd probably also use 5mm steel there - my 3-4mm stuff tore under huge load at Mallala and needed some re-enforcement.

[Dessertrunner]

Got any photo of what you mean?

[Dessertrunner]

Had a look at the White Line units and as I see it some of there option for the front only move the bottom ball joint in or out to enable a correction. In realiaty they don't change the angle of the bottom trailing arm as you suggest Bazza. From my rough experiance your suggestion is the correct one not the White Line one.
As I understand it what counts is the angle & distance relationship for the 3 pivot points with in the gemotory of the suspension. Lowering the car has a number of effects as I see it. I am talking as regards the rear suspension.
- The angle of the suspension arms in relation to the ground has now changed and the gemonitory is as if the the wheel is in the up position.
- Distance between the inside pivot point of the arm and the pivot point at the top of the strut has now reduced.

Wild guess the Camber of the wheel has increase and when the wheel has to ride up for any reason the chanber will go past its design limits. In addiation I would expect that the toe in of the wheel would also change.


If my heads right then the only way to handle this issues is as Bazza suggests and put addiational pivot points on the centre support/pivot point.

Thanks for the suggestion I will take it on board.
Tony

[Tireiron]

Just for reference with the front whiteline kit (I've installed them) they use a taller balljoint and tie-rod end joint. This is so that when the wheel is in the "up" position because of lowering the car the hub ends of the control arm and tie-rod will be moved back down to keep the same angle in reference to the ground. I actually had to remove them from my friends car when he went to a different, taller, spring because they put too much angle on the arms at that point.

The factory rear suspension design doesn't have any adjustment for arm angle if you lower the car. It doesn't even have any camber adjustment in the rear, just mild toe adjustment to keep the wheels pointing straight.

Jason

[bazza]

Had a look at the White Line units and as I see it some of there option for the front only move the bottom ball joint in or out to enable a correction. In realiaty they don't change the angle of the bottom trailing arm as you suggest Bazza.

Check again mate - Whiteline move the mount point lower at the point of the ball join for the front. You'll need to compare a stock WRX item vs the whiteline item to see as it's hard to understand without comparing them side by side.

From my rough experiance your suggestion is the correct one not the White Line one.

My way is also the way Subaru WRC did their setup. However they also used adjustable ball joint mounts as well - doing so changes bump steer and scrub so both used in combination work rather well up front.

As I understand it what counts is the angle & distance relationship for the 3 pivot points with in the gemotory of the suspension. Lowering the car has a number of effects as I see it. I am talking as regards the rear suspension.
- The angle of the suspension arms in relation to the ground has now changed and the gemonitory is as if the the wheel is in the up position.
- Distance between the inside pivot point of the arm and the pivot point at the top of the strut has now reduced.

Wild guess the Camber of the wheel has increase and when the wheel has to ride up for any reason the chanber will go past its design limits. In addiation I would expect that the toe in of the wheel would also change.

If my heads right then the only way to handle this issues is as Bazza suggests and put addiational pivot points on the centre support/pivot point.

Thanks for the suggestion I will take it on board.
Tony

You'd use adjustable strut tops and camber bolts to sort out the camber. I'd even ditch the one piece SVX lateral rear arm and use some two piece whiteline WRX units (if they fit or custom make something) - this then gives you the ability to adjust toe and camber easily.

Moving the mount points on the subframe is purely for the roll center only. Do you have a rough idea on spring rate btw?

[icingdeath88]

You'd use adjustable strut tops and camber bolts to sort out the camber. I'd even ditch the one piece SVX lateral rear arm and use some two piece whiteline WRX units (if they fit or custom make something) - this then gives you the ability to adjust toe and camber easily.

Yes, the impreza lateral links fit. The stock WRX links have a bracket for the swaybar link to mount to - a lot of aftermarket ones make this a separate piece, which is what you want if you are putting them in an SVX. These should be good: http://www.performanceracesolutions.com/product.php?productid=354

I have the Megan ones, they work, but I think the eibach ones will give more useful adjustment, and are the cheapest I've seen so far, without the swaybar part.

[Dessertrunner]

You'd use adjustable strut tops and camber bolts to sort out the camber. I'd even ditch the one piece SVX lateral rear arm and use some two piece whiteline WRX units (if they fit or custom make something) - this then gives you the ability to adjust toe and camber easily.



Don't agree as the SVX has the third arm coming from the front to the wheel hub the same as your car. using flexiable trailing arms will require that to stay. Given that the arm has a very short length it would be effected by any rid heigth change the most of all.
A rigid arm can still offer toe in adjustment because one bush can be adjusted on a ecentic.

It maybe possiable to move the inner trailing arms to origanl position and leave all that fixed as Matt suggested using standard arms just with a couple of pivot positions in height for adjustment.

Tony

[bazza]

Don't agree as the SVX has the third arm coming from the front to the wheel hub the same as your car. using flexiable trailing arms will require that to stay. Given that the arm has a very short length it would be effected by any rid heigth change the most of all.
A rigid arm can still offer toe in adjustment because one bush can be adjusted on a ecentic.

It maybe possiable to move the inner trailing arms to origanl position and leave all that fixed as Matt suggested using standard arms just with a couple of pivot positions in height for adjustment.

Tony

That third arm is a trailing arm and that controls rear dive and squat and cannot be removed unless you change suspension type (ie double wishbone setup instead). Anyway it's your car - just letting you know what works and why it works.

[Dessertrunner]

That third arm is a trailing arm and that controls rear dive and squat and cannot be removed unless you change suspension type (ie double wishbone setup instead). Anyway it's your car - just letting you know what works and why it works.

I think we are saying the same thing,
if the bottom arms are rigided arm then the third arm is not needed. In the same way the the front of a SVX does not have the third arm.

Do you know what White Line suggest people do with the third arm when people lower the car?

[bazza]

I think we are saying the same thing,
if the bottom arms are rigided arm then the third arm is not needed. In the same way the the front of a SVX does not have the third arm.

Do you know what White Line suggest people do with the third arm when people lower the car?

If I were aiming to make the SVX into a handling machine, I would actually see if I could remove the front subframe completely and use the subframe as found in all the other Subaru's or at least use that design instead. The reason being is Subaru had the ability to change the front suspension geometry and use the SVX design yet they've used the same design from the 1989 Legacy to today's STI with a basic change to how the "a-arm" attaches near the gearbox and they did collect a few WRC titles and many wins with this setup so it's certainly quite good and strong. However they did completely change the rear suspension in 2008 in the Impreza to double wishbone (Legacy's did this in 2000).

Looking at the SVX front subframe, straight away without that longitudinal arm mounted back I can see you lose rigidity that the longitudinal mount point gives and you lose the ability to add castor via the longitudinal arm and also play with dive and squat properties - whiteline call this "anti lift kit". When you lower a car the dive and squat characteristics don't change that much to effect performance in a bad way (and as i said you can get the Whiteline ALK) - it's the roll center that kills performance.

So I think copying what I would see as a less than ideal front design without the strong longitudinal support in the rear is a bad idea. I can straight away see it would be very hard to control flex and 0.5-1 mm of flex is far to much for example. The wear on the bushes be it metal bearing or rubber would be massive and I just cannot see any benefit in doing this - especially if this mid engine concept is going to be a handling machine. I'd actually see if you can stick some the modern new age double wishbone WRX rear suspension in your beast.

[Dessertrunner]

I think MRT summed it up well in this artical from there web site when they talk about suspension.

"Subaru has tuned the suspension
settings of a standard WRX to cater for a wide range of
drivers. This means handling characteristics have been
set for the lowest common denominator, or drivers with
dubious skill levels, and those that demand ride comfort
over performance."

Kind of changes the thinking a bit.

I need to do as Matt suggested in the start then worry about it later. I can model the suspension behaviour on the 3D cad later

Tony
http://www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/docs/wrx_book/P96.pdf

[smc]

McNeil Racing's Mid Size T-Style fiberglass/carbon fiber dash are within spec of our stock dashes. I plan on using them for my car. http://www.mcneilracinginc.com/off-road-fiberglass/dash/
http://www.mcneilracinginc.com/wp-content/gallery/mid-size-t-style-dash/mid-size-t-style-dash-1-copy.jpg

For speedglass for the svx, talk to Talor Percy's http://www.percysop.com/racing_windshields.html
Contact Patrick at 816-765-5011 here in the states.
They built a new facility just for the speedglass (aka lexan) and can get you a custom set with quick turn around. you will need to provide a set of svx glass for them to make the copys from. However, the stock SVX glass is not all the heavy.
Rear Glass: 21 lbs.
Rear Side Upper Glass: 6 lbs. each
Rear Side Lower Glass: 3 lbs. each
Front Side Upper Glass: 6 lbs. each
Front Side lower Glass: 6 lbs. each.

Id just replace the flat, roll down sections and leave the rest.

Less the front windscreen there is only 63lbs worth of glass on our car. Honestly, I expected it to be more than that.

At most, with lexan you would only be shaving off perhaps 30 lbs.
Not worth the $800+ (usd) it would cost. Not to mention the cost of new weather stripping ( nearly $500 from Subaru ) and install.

[bazza]

I think MRT summed it up well in this artical from there web site when they talk about suspension.

"Subaru has tuned the suspension settings of a standard WRX to cater for a wide range of drivers. This means handling characteristics have been set for the lowest common denominator, or drivers with dubious skill levels, and those that demand ride comfort over performance."

Kind of changes the thinking a bit.

I need to do as Matt suggested in the start then worry about it later. I can model the suspension behaviour on the 3D cad later

Tony
http://www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/docs/wrx_book/P96.pdf

That's 100% spot on and it's the same with pretty much every single car on the road bar supercars - they're all built for the lowest common denominator. Just bare in mind though - that article was written back in the early 2000's and things have moved on in a big way especially in the Subaru mods world. A standard WRX back when that article was written was quite a boring unit although that said - through the hills the only none supercar street cars that could really keep up would be the EVO's and GTR's.

This is what happens when you goto town on the mods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOP3_1TsXs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAUG7w_GtmU

[oab_au]

Don't agree as the SVX has the third arm coming from the front to the wheel hub the same as your car. using flexiable trailing arms will require that to stay. Given that the arm has a very short length it would be effected by any rid heigth change the most of all.
A rigid arm can still offer toe in adjustment because one bush can be adjusted on a ecentic.

It maybe possiable to move the inner trailing arms to origanl position and leave all that fixed as Matt suggested using standard arms just with a couple of pivot positions in height for adjustment.

Tony

That trailing link takes most of the drive thrust from the wheel to the body, and the braking forces.
It also provides some rear wheel steer.
On a left turn, as the body rolls to the right, the strut compresses. The trailing arm moves through a shorter ark so, as the wheel goes up, the arm pulls it forward, causing the wheel to toe in, to steer the rear into the corner.

The arms position on the car now, is designed to suit the car as it is. With an engine in the rear, the amount of rear steer has to change to suit the new conditions. Lengthing the arm reduces the change, and changing the height of the front pivot, changes the rate of change to wheel movement.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

That trailing link takes most of the drive thrust from the wheel to the body, and the braking forces.
It also provides some rear wheel steer.
On a left turn, as the body rolls to the right, the strut compresses. The trailing arm moves through a shorter ark so, as the wheel goes up, the arm pulls it forward, causing the wheel to toe in, to steer the rear into the corner.

The arms position on the car now, is designed to suit the car as it is. With an engine in the rear, the amount of rear steer has to change to suit the new conditions. Lengthing the arm reduces the change, and changing the height of the front pivot, changes the rate of change to wheel movement.

Harvey.

Harvey I think you hit the nail on the head again, you have got it right except that the wheel moves back when it comes up due to the trailing link sloping down towards the back.

Left brain tells me that the outside wheel goes back, the front of the wheel turns out and that enable the front of the car to turn in more thus reducing the understeer in the car. Back of car wants to swing around,

How does that sound for a load of bull. Even if I have it slightly wrong in behaviour what you say the reason its there now makes sense Harvey.
Thanks.

Tony

[oab_au]

Harvey I think you hit the nail on the head again, you have got it right except that the wheel moves back when it comes up due to the trailing link sloping down towards the back.

Left brain tells me that the outside wheel goes back, the front of the wheel turns out and that enable the front of the car to turn in more thus reducing the understeer in the car. Back of car wants to swing around,

How does that sound for a load of bull. Even if I have it slightly wrong in behaviour what you say the reason its there now makes sense Harvey.
Thanks.

Tony

The arm is slightly down in the static position, I reckon that it is flat in running, so that it swings up to pull the wheel forwards, toe in?
This happens with a fair bit of body roll, so the load is on the outside wheel, that does the steer.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Did some test work with the new sub frame design and I think the pipe won't work as the the main engine support. The engine load is down twards the ground and the pipe wants to flex, I will change the beams to two rails 75mm by 50mm by 2mm wall. In this way I should get a more rigid engine support.

Anyone have a opinion???

[Dessertrunner]

We are right but wrong Harvey,
The wheel DOES NOT toe out or in. I have been straching my head thinking if the wheel toed out or in there would be problems. If the wheel toed out the car would become unstable in the ass.
So what the smart buggers do is they move the wheels foward and back but maintain the parrell between each wheel. the centre line of the two wheels changes so if I am going around a left hand corner the left wheel lifts and it moves forward, the two laterial arms are the same length so they don't change the angle of the wheel just move it forward. THe left hand wheel raises so moves back staying parrel with the other side.
Now the centre line between each wheel is off line with the angle of the line of the car. in short the two back wheels are pointing towards the left causng the back of the car to want to go left, net result reduced understeer.

Sounds interesting.

So if this assumption is right what more can we do to make it better?
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Tried farming with RHS and it didn't happen, went back to pipe. Settled on final design and also designed the jig to hold all the parts in place while they are being welded. As you can see the suspenion mounts can be moved and adjusted. The overall height of the sub frame relitive to the support point on the chasse can be changed as well.

Here it is in 3d pdf, the main frame that goes in the car is the red part. We will start cutting the set for the jig this afternoon.

Tony

[bazza]

Tried farming with RHS and it didn't happen, went back to pipe. Settled on final design and also designed the jig to hold all the parts in place while they are being welded. As you can see the suspenion mounts can be moved and adjusted. The overall height of the sub frame relitive to the support point on the chasse can be changed as well.

Here it is in 3d pdf, the main frame that goes in the car is the red part. We will start cutting the set for the jig this afternoon.

Tony

Wow - the stuff you come if with in CAD is amazing.

[Dessertrunner]

Has anyone weighted the rear boot and the front bonnet. Also what about the front and rear bumper bar?

I am trying to figure were the total weight of 1,600kg's of our car comes from and how much can be removed.

Tony.

[SVXRide]

Wow - the stuff you come if with in CAD is amazing.

Ditto! Nicely done. Tony! The Acrobat software has come a long way regarding visualization. I take it you're using a high end CAD program and saving the file as a 3D pdf?? Are the green pieces just your welding jig and the blue representing the mounting points on the SVX frame?

Thanks.

Bill

[SVXRide]

Has anyone weighted the rear boot and the front bonnet. Also what about the front and rear bumper bar?

I am trying to figure were the total weight of 1,600kg's of our car comes from and how much can be removed.

Tony.


Tony,

I know just about everything has been weighed in the past. OT can probably pull everything out of his head. I'll see what I can dig up.

Cheers
Bill

[SVXRide]

Tony,
Here's what I was able to dig up after a little searching:

Driver seat (leather with electric controls)- 68 lbs.
Passenger seat- 49 lbs.
Rear seat bottom- 13 lbs.
Rear seat back- 24 lbs.
Factory type spare tire- 28 lbs.
Factory wheel complete with tire, balanced and inflated- 47 lbs.
(Note only a 19 lb. difference between those meaty real wheel assemblies and the goofy temporary spare. Those wheels are fairly light.)
Standard type battery- 31 lbs.
Back glass- 20 lbs
Rear 1/4(stationary) glass- 5 lbs
Rear 1/4(moving) glass- 3 lbs
Rear window regulator- 4lbs.
Front(moving) glass- 8 lbs
Entire AC system (less ducts)- 30 lbs.
Bumper core- 28 lbs.
Entire sunroof assembly (including motor, cables, tracks, wiring)- 29 lbs.
Hood- 46 lbs.
Entire trunk assembly (including lifters, hinges, lights, reflectors, and wiring)- 37 lbs.
Front fenders - 10 lbs/each

Bill

[svxfiles]

3580
3580 lb car
- 23 lb drivers seat swap
- 13 lb front bumper exchange
- 20 lb rear bumper reengineer
- 14 lb lighter wheels (16.5 ea)
- 33 lb spare tire, jack and tools
- 8 lb trunk carpet + cardboard
- 39 lb exhaust system
+220 lb driver
+ 35 lb gas
3685 lb car

The stock headers weigh 18 lbs, the pipe from the headers to the muffler weighs 50 lbs, the muffler weighs 35 lbs, 103 lbs total. My system, from the home made headers, cherry bomb, 3” tubing + afterburner + polished tip weigh 64lbs. 39 lbs savings
So far 150 lb savings.
Note; 4 lb savings on underdrive pulley offset by added weight of adjustable FPR
I cut out the bracing from under the hood, 11 lbs.(the hood was a spare) Not recommended for the street.
Took off the iron bracket for the ac belt adjuster, 3 lbs.
Note, if the complete front bumper support was removed, it would be a 26 lb loss.















What size are your boots?
:p

[svxfiles]

"When I weighed my spare stock hood I got 48#s on my digital scale, "

[Dessertrunner]

Ditto! Nicely done. Tony! The Acrobat software has come a long way regarding visualization. I take it you're using a high end CAD program and saving the file as a 3D pdf?? Are the green pieces just your welding jig and the blue representing the mounting points on the SVX frame?

Thanks.

Bill

Yes Bill your part guess is right. The CAD software isn't that costly, its Alibre which for the cheaper version is about $700.

Okay so what I wanted to do was see if we can work out how to put the cars on a massive weight loss program. So when I get a chance I will do up a spread sheet to run some calcs, also see if we can get compoent weight for things that are missing from out list. For things that will no longer be needed for this car, eg rear diff, tail shaft etc.

I am close to completing the rear subframe jig and also have started construction of the first subframe. I will post photos in the next couple of days of were it is up to.

Questions that I need help with.

I need to make drive shafts with rear outter and front inner, does any one have a clue if the splines are simlar so I can just swap ends????


Last thing I have been watching the Factory Five Racing development of there mid engine Subaru kit car. The first images have been realeased and the the thing looks brilliant. Just can't install a EG33 so it no good to me. But the guys that build the kits do a brilliant job.

http://www.factoryfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1c_a.jpg

http://www.factoryfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1a_a.jpg



You can go here to follow the cars at the show in Vegas

http://www.factoryfive.com/whats-new/the-2012-sema-show-is-under-way/

[Dessertrunner]

The jig is taking shape, I now need to locate and install the anchour points were the subframe will attach to the body of the car. Also instead of using a large flexiable bush like on our SVX's I have gone for bush from the shackle on a 4 wheel drive spring, less flex which should improve the handling.

Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/PICT0367.JPG

[Dessertrunner]

Jig is finished and the new mounting point design are done as well. I have played around with the engine mount and whats aviable. I think the final design will us 40mm by 80mm rubber bushes inside a steel housing. That way if I want to get the engine lower I can.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Here are a bunch of weight numbers not sure if it will post correctly so I may have to have a cuple of goes at it. Weights in KG for my part.
Tony

SVX parts weight contribution.





Engine 148kg ej20 is 98kg
6 speed 85kg 5 speed 65kg


Glass,
Rear Glass 21lb
times below by 2
Rear Side Upper 6lb
Rear Side Lower 3lb
Front Side Upper Glass 6lb
Front Side Lower 6b








3580 lb car
- 23 lb drivers seat swap
- 13 lb front bumper exchange
- 20 lb rear bumper reengineer
- 14 lb lighter wheels (16.5 ea)
- 33 lb spare tire, jack and tools
- 8 lb trunk carpet + cardboard
- 39 lb exhaust system
+220 lb driver
+ 35 lb gas
3685 lb car




Driver seat (leather with electric controls)- 68 lbs.
Passenger seat- 49 lbs.
Rear seat bottom- 13 lbs.
Rear seat back- 24 lbs.
Factory type spare tire- 28 lbs.
Factory wheel complete with tire, balanced and inflated- 47 lbs.
(Note only a 19 lb. difference between those meaty real wheel assemblies and the goofy temporary spare. Those wheels are fairly light.)
Standard type battery- 31 lbs.
Back glass- 20 lbs
Rear 1/4(stationary) glass- 5 lbs
Rear 1/4(moving) glass- 3 lbs
Rear window regulator- 4lbs.
Front(moving) glass- 8 lbs
Entire AC system (less ducts)- 30 lbs.
Bumper core- 28 lbs.
Entire sunroof assembly (including motor, cables, tracks, wiring)- 29 lbs.
Hood- 46 lbs.
Entire trunk assembly (including lifters, hinges, lights, reflectors, and wiring)- 37 lbs.
Front fenders - 10 lbs/each



From here on down all weights are in KG's


Engine Part Weight.


AC compressor 6.9
Alternator 5.6
AC & Alternator Bracket 1.9
Throttle Body, Intake Manifold & Injector 16.5
Power Steering Pump 4.0
Front Crank Pulley 2.1

Exhaust System 17.7
Engine manifolds 3.5

Front Brake/Hub/Disc/Axle 31.0
Front Spring/Strut/Top Mount 8.9
Front Axles (This weight is included in the above) 7.1
Front Disc (This weight is included in the above) 7.6

Rear Hub Assembly including Spring/Strut/Strut Top/Calip/Disc/Trailer Arm 30.9
Rear axle (This weight is included in the above) 6.5
The pair of Laterial Arms and bolts (One side) 2.7

Standard Tyre & Rim 17.6
My Large Tyre 23.7
Standard Rim 9.2


Driver Seat 30.5
Passenger Seat 21.6
Rear Seat Bottom 6
Rear Seat Top 11
Spare Tyre, Jack & Tool 15

Rear Diff 23.5
Tail Shaft 9.8
Rear diff support cross beam 8
Gearbox Support Beam (Front) 3.3
Rear Subframe (Bolts to 4 bolts) 22


Inside AC and heater unit 9.8


Power Steering rack 10.8
Door Including Windows Etc 34
Bonnet 21.4
Boot/Trunk 16.8
Sun Roof 13

Steering Column 15
Mats
ABS

[Dessertrunner]

Jig finished and started to assemble sub frame. I made the bushes for the anchour point and the small locators plates on the CNC lathe. The rubber bushes are from the spring shackle on a 4 wheel drive. With 6 of them to hold the engine and gearbox it should work out okay if they flex to much I will change them to more steel.
Here the photo.
Tony

Shows the front frame cut in with the two locating washers at the bottom and top of the Bush.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/front%20support%20bush.JPG

Further shot.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Side%20view%20part%20jig%202.JPG

These are the parts that I made up on the CNC lathe, bushes and locating washers. Still trying to get my head around the CNC lathe.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Jig%20bushes%20and%20support%20locks.JPG

[Dessertrunner]

First version of Subframe is in place, I have decided to make a further version so this prototype will be is old hat. Effectively the reason is that I want to later be able to lower the engine down closer to the ground when I install the dry sump and the exhaust. I am working on a new design engine mount for the job but to start with I will go with this orignals.
In the photos I have included a photo of the concept of the engine mount. It has the advantage of being lower and stronger then the existing one.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Version%201%20Subframe%20in%20place.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Concept%20Engine%20mount.JPG

[SilverSpear]

Great work Tony!

[SVXRide]

Yes Bill your part guess is right. The CAD software isn't that costly, its Alibre which for the cheaper version is about $700.

Okay so what I wanted to do was see if we can work out how to put the cars on a massive weight loss program. So when I get a chance I will do up a spread sheet to run some calcs, also see if we can get compoent weight for things that are missing from out list. For things that will no longer be needed for this car, eg rear diff, tail shaft etc.

I am close to completing the rear subframe jig and also have started construction of the first subframe. I will post photos in the next couple of days of were it is up to.

Questions that I need help with.

I need to make drive shafts with rear outter and front inner, does any one have a clue if the splines are simlar so I can just swap ends????


Last thing I have been watching the Factory Five Racing development of there mid engine Subaru kit car. The first images have been realeased and the the thing looks brilliant. Just can't install a EG33 so it no good to me. But the guys that build the kits do a brilliant job.





You can go here to follow the cars at the show in Vegas

http://www.factoryfive.com/whats-new/the-2012-sema-show-is-under-way/

Tony,

So brilliant, in fact, that there is already at least one company that has been formed to just handle all of the donor WRX pieces (engine, etc.)

Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Think that I will get around the rear drive shaft issue by using the front wheel hubs and do some machining on them.

So why do that,
- when they are machined (remove steering arm) they will be lighter,
- Can use the original front axles which again are slightly lighter.
- Will get a different handbrake system so don't need the standard ones.
- The wheel axle is ligther.
- Front hubs have bigger bearings so should be better suited to take the weight of engine etc.
- Wil give better air flow to the disc as there will be no backing plate with the handbrake assembly.

Tony


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Front%20Wheel%20Hub%20Standard.JPG

['E']

Think that I will get around the rear drive shaft issue by using the front wheel hubs and do some machining on them.

So why do that,
- when they are machined (remove steering arm) they will be lighter,
- Can use the original front axles which again are slightly lighter.
- Will get a different handbrake system so don't need the standard ones.
- The wheel axle is ligther.
- Front hubs have bigger bearings so should be better suited to take the weight of engine etc.
- Wil give better air flow to the disc as there will be no backing plate with the handbrake assembly.

Tony


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Front%20Wheel%20Hub%20Standard.JPG

Tony if you use the 05 sti front hubs you'll have a direct fit hub with the front six speed gearbox shafts and the new better bearing packs, abs sensor and tone wheel will match up if needed.

Plus you can run sti brembo 4 pots on the rear and my brembo 6 pots up front ;)

[bazza]

First version of Subframe is in place, I have decided to make a further version so this prototype will be is old hat. Effectively the reason is that I want to later be able to lower the engine down closer to the ground when I install the dry sump and the exhaust. I am working on a new design engine mount for the job but to start with I will go with this orignals.
In the photos I have included a photo of the concept of the engine mount. It has the advantage of being lower and stronger then the existing one.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Version%201%20Subframe%20in%20place.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Concept%20Engine%20mount.JPG


Nice bit of work that. Was thinking about it and looking at the pics - how close is the exhaust pipes to the 2 x beams that support the engine mounts and original oil cooler position. Might be worth bringing those closer together so you can ensure the engine can be moved up and down and have no compromise on the NA spec header design.

[Dessertrunner]

Bazza was planning on going out side ways then back with the header, then over the top of the axle. If you see the remaining cross beam left near were the axles comes out I will cut this out completely and that will allow the exhaust pipes throught there.

I just looked at the photo and its confusioning, the beam goes between the exhaust ports and the sump with about 50mm clearance on both sides.

Tony if you use the 05 sti front hubs you'll have a direct fit hub with the front six speed gearbox shafts and the new better bearing packs, abs sensor and tone wheel will match up if needed.

Plus you can run sti brembo 4 pots on the rear and my brembo 6 pots up front

Is the stud pattern 114 or 100mm?

[smc]

114, however this is only with the 05+ STI's.

[bazza]

If it was my car I wouldn't even try swapping hubs / making handbrake nasty to work with and just making the setup hard to work on and hard to fix. You don't want to build something that's hard and time consuming to fix especially if it's track oriented.

I would send the proposed outer CV and the proposed inner CVA to Albins in Ballarat and tell them to make up a new shaft to make it all work and you could prolly add a bit of wheel track at the same time - the current weakness of the SVX (assuming weight reduction goes well) is it's too long. So to reduce that issue make it wider where possible to offset this. The driveshafts will cost $950 including new CV's IIRC (I think shafts alone are half that). They swear they're driveshafts are unbreakable which is a good start. The shafts would then be very strong and CV's are easy to swap out. If you've ripped out 300-400 kg of weight then there's a good chance the bearings will be pretty good.

Now I also say this about the hubs and shafts is because a major issue as shown in all the RWD R160 and R180 STI's etc is that you will chew through driveshafts and probably the diff also. Replace front diffs in a 6MT is quite easy, but still the box needs to be dropped and it's not cheap. PPG most likely make stronger gears.

[bazza]

Although silly me... you've got CNC's in the shed. Make up some of these for the rear and find a decent bearing for them. This is a front upright with adjustable steering mount. Very cool bit of kit - think that's for 05 STI onwards.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eIq4WAzqOk0/S9mmUQUJFVI/AAAAAAAAAbE/SX32OKyMuDk/s1600/IMG_6130.jpg

[smc]

The problem is that there is no fwd conversion for the 6-mt. Although your reducing overall stress on the 5-mt, your still pushing all that power through a punny set of ring and pinion. The best bet to handle power with the 5-mt is to swap out to dog box strait cut gears for the trans and cryo treated ring and pinion.

I have to agree with Bazza in regards to the uprights. If anything, swap in a rear set of sti uprights for the better bearings, and get a custom axle shafts made.

[Dessertrunner]

These guys supply FWD locks for the 6 speed transmission for $1,000 the only concern I have is that boxer 6 metion that the back drive drives the pump so I need to be sure it works right.

I agree the SVX back axles are weak but there is no way I would break the front ones. I have busted 5 tonne rated tow straps and kill my engine from 6,000 rpm, I have been on 3 wheels climbing rock hills and the axles never let go. Give that this is not built for drag but track the axle will stand the load.

The issue with the existing hand brake system is the weight including the hub, a lighter hub is the way to go. I also found this artical on how to fabricate one from steel. The problem CNC them is that the cost of the alum could be $300 per corner but I need to double check as the suggestion is a good one.

Tony

http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/undergrad/thesis-catalog/files/290.pdf

[Dessertrunner]

Also worth reading this thread.
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12384


Also
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5616&sid=e998138a38cf03b455cf526f3125065e

Tony

[bazza]

These guys supply FWD locks for the 6 speed transmission for $1,000 the only concern I have is that boxer 6 metion that the back drive drives the pump so I need to be sure it works right.

I agree the SVX back axles are weak but there is no way I would break the front ones. I have busted 5 tonne rated tow straps and kill my engine from 6,000 rpm, I have been on 3 wheels climbing rock hills and the axles never let go. Give that this is not built for drag but track the axle will stand the load.

The issue with the existing hand brake system is the weight including the hub, a lighter hub is the way to go. I also found this artical on how to fabricate one from steel. The problem CNC them is that the cost of the alum could be $300 per corner but I need to double check as the suggestion is a good one.

Tony

http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/undergrad/thesis-catalog/files/290.pdf

Tony, you may be interested in this, Subaru WRC parts. Would work nicely and very light and even better - race proven. Although with my car I'm going to ditch the handbrake soon enough and install a hydraulic handbrake in it's place.... but in your case it could work very nicely also. Given you'll be lightweight and RWD and rear engined you'll probably need a proportional valve like what I've got as the braking is going to be up **** creek - so kill a few birds with one stone.

http://www.subaruwrcspares.com/5.html

Also you're forgetting something - you will now be RWD with double the original torque and power if all goes to plan so they will snap like match sticks in certain situations. However if you make that item nice and cheap and easy to replace then it's not an issue. You're most likely going to light up the wheels very easily - if that is the case they won't snap. It's when they grip and the torque loading goes through the roof, that's an issue.

['E']

114, however this is only with the 05+ STI's.

what he said

[Dessertrunner]

I hear you but would be surprised if I broke a front axle. I had the heavy duty clutch in and distroyed it in about 60 sec one time and still the axle didn't break.

We will see if it breaks I wil get them from the guy you mentione Bazza. The uprights are pretty impressive I was looking for price but didn't see any.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can just a eaisly mill steel as Alum so might be able to do some sort of more fancy but cheap upright in steel.

Tony

[oab_au]

I hear you but would be surprised if I broke a front axle. I had the heavy duty clutch in and distroyed it in about 60 sec one time and still the axle didn't break.

We will see if it breaks I wil get them from the guy you mentione Bazza. The uprights are pretty impressive I was looking for price but didn't see any.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can just a eaisly mill steel as Alum so might be able to do some sort of more fancy but cheap upright in steel.

Tony

I think the axles will be ok.
Walter, "Powered x2" ran a 125hp shot of Nox, with sticky drag slicks tyres on a FWD Svx, + a QC. Front axles lasted, eventually blew the diff.:cool:

Harvey.

[bazza]

I hear you but would be surprised if I broke a front axle. I had the heavy duty clutch in and distroyed it in about 60 sec one time and still the axle didn't break.

We will see if it breaks I wil get them from the guy you mentione Bazza. The uprights are pretty impressive I was looking for price but didn't see any.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can just a eaisly mill steel as Alum so might be able to do some sort of more fancy but cheap upright in steel.

Tony

You're ignoring many key points, 1: you were on dirt / gravel IIRC so no grip, 2: your weakest link was the clutch which destroyed itself 3: you were sending power evenly out 4 wheels. Your rear engine 10,000 rpm RWD setup will be nothing like what you've seen thus far. I think you'll be okay but you cannot compare what you've done in the paddock to what your new mid engined setup will do. Gimme a PPG fancy shaft and I'll smash it to pieces in 5 seconds - it's also about knowing what kills shafts and what type of shock loading to avoid. Had to learn that the hard of course... 1 broken shaft, 1 broken diff, 2 broken PPG gearboxes, 5+ clutches and 2 broken 6MT boxes haha.

With regards to the upright (MSI), they are about $5K for a set of two.

[Dessertrunner]

For now lets hope they stand the pain so I can put my hard earn't cach to better purpose.
Tony

[bazza]

For now lets hope they stand the pain so I can put my hard earn't cach to better purpose.
Tony

I reckon they will. A lot of people said to me that the front WRX bearings would fail and the rear diffs would fail and hence I should upgrade. As you know I tend to ignore most ideas until I've done full analysis and understand the entire system and weight it up against my race budget. Take the rear diff for example - R160 costs about $50-100 to replace and there's a massive supply of them. R180 costs $500+ to replace and supply is low. So even if I blew 1-2 R160's per year it's still a cheap operation and easy to fix. And I've only blown one in 10 years and that was me not understanding the weakness and how to avoid it. Ie don't sidestep the clutch with massive power at the drags haha. Also R160 setup is a lighter than R180, so why would I add dead weight.

With the front bearings, I've replaced one in 600+ laps of track work which cost me $50. To upgrade to 05 STI hubs and shafts etc is a major exercise, $500-1000. As you can see it not a smart decision race budget wise as I can replace 20 odd bearings before the 05 STI hubs become a better option - might take me 20 years haha. I also believe the 05 STI hubs are a touch heavier but can't recall 100%.

So I understand where you're coming from - just want to make sure you keep the full story in mind :)

[Dessertrunner]

Slightly off topic but when you mention tar and the car it reminded me of one night.
I was in bed asleep and my son woke me and told me his friend had just crashed his car so my son and I went to the crash (its 3am) and his friend is drunk the car is a write off. The guys was okay just shock up and bruised so I figure we need to get the car away as quick as possaible, problem was none of the wheels were going around and it was on its side so I hocked a toe rope on the car loaded everybody in my car locked the centre diff and draged the car 3 blocks home. If cops had of wanted to find us that just had to follow the stracth marks on the road.

So the old SVX has been tested and few times.

Tony

['E']

I also believe the 05 STI hubs are a touch heavier but can't recall 100%.

05+ sti hubs weigh 8.7kgs

[bazza]

05+ sti hubs weigh 8.7kgs

I think the early RS / GC8 hubs were lightest then 02 STI hubs then 05 STI hubs - do you have them all listed by chance?

['E']

I think the early RS / GC8 hubs were lightest then 02 STI hubs then 05 STI hubs - do you have them all listed by chance?

no i just happen to have a set of 05+ hubs that i weighed

[Dessertrunner]

no i just happen to have a set of 05+ hubs that i weighed

What was with the hub did it have the bearings in it and the hub to bolt wheel to or just the outer.

['E']

another option for rear hubs would be to use the hubs off a ba gt falcon, handbrake mechanism is the same, stud pattern is the same and shafts? well a little bit of measuring could be required. you could even use the suspension arms maybe even cannibalise the subframe

be better then chopping up or machining a subaru hub

['E']

What was with the hub did it have the bearings in it and the hub to bolt wheel to or just the outer.

that was the hub with the bearing pack bolted to it

['E']

by the way i have a gt rear end i dint really want any more and was going to sell on ebay

['E']

the ford shafts and bearing come out of the factory with 335kw and weigh over 1800kg so they should handle anything you through at it

[Dessertrunner]

Here is a PDF of the rough suspension layout bottom laterial arm has to come from the front of the subframe so as to clear the exhaust on the heads.
Have designed up new uprights that have a number of advantages, they take a bigger bearing 4 times stronger then our existing units, are 3kg lighter then the existing unit, enable me to us the front drive shaft and privide point to attach the laterial arms. They are made from steel as the the cost of just the Alum would have been $500 a side, also not sure my design skills are good enough to reduce the safety factor that far.

As alway the PDF are 3d
Tony

[SVXRide]

Here is a PDF of the rough suspension layout bottom laterial arm has to come from the front of the subframe so as to clear the exhaust on the heads.
Have designed up new uprights that have a number of advantages, they take a bigger bearing 4 times stronger then our existing units, are 3kg lighter then the existing unit, enable me to us the front drive shaft and privide point to attach the laterial arms. They are made from steel as the the cost of just the Alum would have been $500 a side, also not sure my design skills are good enough to reduce the safety factor that far.

As alway the PDF are 3d
Tony

Tony,

Looks good! What are you using as your FS in this design, 2x? 3x?

Bill

[oab_au]

Here is a PDF of the rough suspension layout bottom laterial arm has to come from the front of the subframe so as to clear the exhaust on the heads.
Have designed up new uprights that have a number of advantages, they take a bigger bearing 4 times stronger then our existing units, are 3kg lighter then the existing unit, enable me to us the front drive shaft and privide point to attach the laterial arms. They are made from steel as the the cost of just the Alum would have been $500 a side, also not sure my design skills are good enough to reduce the safety factor that far.

As alway the PDF are 3d
Tony

I guess you have changed the concept of the suspension from the original strut, to top and bottom A arms. This places all the drive and braking forces on the lower A arms, as you can't use a training link to take those forces.

Where are you going to mount the spring/damper units?

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Tony,

Looks good! What are you using as your FS in this design, 2x? 3x?

Bill

Bill not sure what you ment by "FS".

So guys the design has evolved, I have been searching for just the right bearing/bush/rod end for the arm pivot points, also got up this morning thinking the easist thing was to stick with the current suspemsion. When I looked at it stuffing around with the trailing arm seemed a waste of time, also I am conviniced that its there to help with the inherant understeer of our cars. The mid engine car won't have that issue, also I need to be able to advance the suspenion design over time so I need flexiability.
I crossed off rubber bush for the arms early in the project and have looked at what everyone else is using.

It seems the most comon is spherical bearings are the go, I have used these at work and they just can't stand a lot of load, I am sure they would be okay short term but long term forget it. Looked at rod ends and they just won't last, so I moved onto double row angular contact ball bearing, drama there is the ID options were 12mm or 17mm also while good would require 2 per pivot point.

So were am I at I found a AG bearing that is double row roller but 44mm wide in the centre 39 outter has build in seals to protect from dirt 16ID & 40OD. Its just perfect for the job. Its the largest in the photo.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Laterial%20Arm%20bears.JPG


I guess you have changed the concept of the suspension from the original strut, to top and bottom A arms. This places all the drive and braking forces on the lower A arms, as you can't use a training link to take those forces.

Where are you going to mount the spring/damper units?

Harvey

Well Harvey I have moved on as I say above, now its a rigid arm like the front suspension only the inboard pivot points are 480mm apart as opposed to 220mm. In the short term the hub stays the same just need to make sure I can mod it to install the larger bearing. The mcpherson strut stays, later as I get more time I will remove the strut and go to a laterial top arm. For now this is the quickest option. When I go to the top arm the spring damper will be inboard with a 90 degree leaver system.
Haven't redone the cad but will and then repost it.
Have a great day all.


Tony

[crazyhorse]

Bill not sure what you ment by "FS".

So guys the design has evolved, I have been searching for just the right bearing/bush/rod end for the arm pivot points, also got up this morning thinking the easist thing was to stick with the current suspemsion. When I looked at it stuffing around with the trailing arm seemed a waste of time, also I am conviniced that its there to help with the inherant understeer of our cars. The mid engine car won't have that issue, also I need to be able to advance the suspenion design over time so I need flexiability.
I crossed off rubber bush for the arms early in the project and have looked at what everyone else is using.

It seems the most comon is spherical bearings are the go, I have used these at work and they just can't stand a lot of load, I am sure they would be okay short term but long term forget it. Looked at rod ends and they just won't last, so I moved onto double row angular contact ball bearing, drama there is the ID options were 12mm or 17mm also while good would require 2 per pivot point.

So were am I at I found a AG bearing that is double row roller but 44mm wide in the centre 39 outter has build in seals to protect from dirt 16ID & 40OD. Its just perfect for the job. Its the largest in the photo.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Laterial%20Arm%20bears.JPG




Well Harvey I have moved on as I say above, now its a rigid arm like the front suspension only the inboard pivot points are 480mm apart as opposed to 220mm. In the short term the hub stays the same just need to make sure I can mod it to install the larger bearing. The mcpherson strut stays, later as I get more time I will remove the strut and go to a laterial top arm. For now this is the quickest option. When I go to the top arm the spring damper will be inboard with a 90 degree leaver system.

have a great day all.
Tony
Haven't redone the cad but will and then repost it.

Tony

When you get away from the struts, a good solution may be to use a longitudinal setup with the pushrods, like current f1 practice. This leaves room around the engine for maintenance.

[smc]

Check out this video on that factory five car that was mentioned earlier. One of the first things I noticed was how they converted the stock sti uprights to a double wishbone suspension with a bolt on adapter.

http://youtu.be/uN_jVWlSPmk

Might be worth considering.

[SVXRide]

Tony,

FS = Factor of Safety

Cheers,

Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Sorry Bill missed the reply,

Your point is correct, I will tell you what has happened to my rear suspension on the SVX then I need to take on board your suggestion and my past experiance and find a happy point to the two of them.

2 years ago I jumped the SVX over a channel/bridge, in other words was driving so fast that instead of just going over and down the bridge the car left the ground and we maybe went 30metre through the air before hitting the ground. Okay no big deal we do it pretty regularly. This time we had a slight problem, the bolt in the trailing arm on the back either broke or fell out so when we landed the wheel was floating forward and back. Now this was a bit of a pain but there was not sharp things in the wheel well so the tyre just hit the back and made a lot of noise. We were able to drive the next 10k carfully but we got there.

Even more years back we were in the centre of Australia and I had rebushed the back laterial arms a couple of years before but didn't realize that this had weaked the link. Were were flogging the absoluate hell on a dirt road when suddenly the handling went nuts. Anyway found we broke the inside bush holder of the laterial link. THe fun part was that we then had to drive 700k to get it fixed. It moved around a lot but still did stop me.

So your point is correct I need the new suspension design to be able to brake something and not kill me. So I will have to give this a bit more thought.

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Harvey why did you ask about Trailing link are youc concerned the suspenion won't be strong enough as I suggest it should be?
Tony

[SVXRide]

Sorry Bill missed the reply,

Your point is correct, I will tell you what has happened to my rear suspension on the SVX then I need to take on board your suggestion and my past experiance and find a happy point to the two of them.

2 years ago I jumped the SVX over a channel/bridge, in other words was driving so fast that instead of just going over and down the bridge the car left the ground and we maybe went 30metre through the air before hitting the ground. Okay no big deal we do it pretty regularly. This time we had a slight problem, the bolt in the trailing arm on the back either broke or fell out so when we landed the wheel was floating forward and back. Now this was a bit of a pain but there was not sharp things in the wheel well so the tyre just hit the back and made a lot of noise. We were able to drive the next 10k carfully but we got there.

Even more years back we were in the centre of Australia and I had rebushed the back laterial arms a couple of years before but didn't realize that this had weaked the link. Were were flogging the absoluate hell on a dirt road when suddenly the handling went nuts. Anyway found we broke the inside bush holder of the laterial link. THe fun part was that we then had to drive 700k to get it fixed. It moved around a lot but still did stop me.

So your point is correct I need the new suspension design to be able to brake something and not kill me. So I will have to give this a bit more thought.

Tony

Tony,

You must be the Australian version of the Dukes of Hazard!! :lol::lol:

Bill

[oab_au]

Harvey why did you ask about Trailing link are youc concerned the suspenion won't be strong enough as I suggest it should be?
Tony

You could make it strong enough, but it would be heaver than it need be.

If you look at the front suspension and compare it to the rear. The rear uses light direct links, which locate, and take the forces of the wheel, in a direct line.

The front uses a heavy A arm with widely spaced pivots, to locate and take the forces. On the front it has to be like this because the wheel has to turn, direct can't be used, so the pivots have to be wide apart to provide the strength to locate the wheel against the forces.

As you are building the rear, direct links are the strongest, and lightest.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Finished the engine mount design and about to weld the in. Here is a photo of the mounting design.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Engine%20Mounts.JPG

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Stuffed around with the suspension on the back and in the end I had some concerns that if the design failed then it might be all over. Bit the bullet and purchased a set of alum arms front and back. They are the type used on Factory Five GTM see photos. I might not have as many options to change the suspension but it should get me going and safer.
Tony
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Aluminum%20control%20arms.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/gtmspecs-694x413.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/gtmrearsuspension-694x413.jpg

[SVXRide]

Stout! Good move - no questions on these and the balance you've designed like a tank.:cool:

Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Stout! Good move - no questions on these and the balance you've designed like a tank.:cool:

Bill

Wasn't sure what you ment for a while Bill,

I just followed one of the Factory Five GTM's in the 25 hour and was surprised how well it was doing at the start, very quick track times, some links here,
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?8440-Factory-Five-Teams-Compete-at-10th-Annual-25-Hours-of-Thunderhill

The car uses Corvette suspension so that is were I got the idea. I fully understand what Harvey's and others point about how heavy the SVX is but the GTM has 400hp and weighs in at 2600lb, my guess is that I can get the svx in race form the same weight and with out turbo I could get 400hp with a lot more. Having a flat engine low mounted the CG would be heaps lower.

In addiation I got some advise from Harvey's son about a suspension simulator and I can play with anchour point on the car later on. Okay so that is were my heads at on this one.

I built new anchour point pins to weld into the chaiss to add the 5th & 6th anchour points for the subframe so it should be pretty strongly mounted.

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Waiting on the suspenion arms from the USA but have been trying to figure out the design of the suspenion interms of height of anchour points etc.
I want inboard springs and shocks and have wondered about some sort of linkage between the two sides of the suspension. I came across this idea and thing it might be tne way to go,
What do you guys think.

http://www.walker-partnership.com/


Tony

[oab_au]

Waiting on the suspenion arms from the USA but have been trying to figure out the design of the suspenion interms of height of anchour points etc.
I want inboard springs and shocks and have wondered about some sort of linkage between the two sides of the suspension. I came across this idea and thing it might be tne way to go,
What do you guys think.

http://www.walker-partnership.com/


Tony

I have seen that before, looks good, as you can use a much lower spring rate to improve traction on bumps and rough surfaces.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

I have seen that before, looks good, as you can use a much lower spring rate to improve traction on bumps and rough surfaces.

Harvey.

Hi Harvey,
I think it has a problem and that is that the simulation doesn't show examples of when one wheel hits a bump. Looking at it closly can't see any reason why the body and opposite wheel will stay un effected.

Tony

[SVXRide]

Tony,

Looks good. Definitely eliminates the need for sway bars, yet also definitely not an easy retrofit for production cars due to the geometry (additional linkages) involved. I can see how you'll be able to adapt it to the rear as long as the engine is far enough forward of the a-arms.

Cheers,
Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Harvey's son (Steven) and I had a disussion via email and its agreed that the design while looking good has a few problems. Steven has designed his own suspenion using a simulator program so he is speaking with experiance.

As I see it that design won't work as the most important stability are car needs is when one wheel hits a bump.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Parts arrive for the suspenion and starting to get my head around it. Have done up a Cad to see how it all fits.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/PICT0397.JPG

here is the pdf as well.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Have made some progress as you can see by the photo. I am up to the exhaust and back gear box mounts. There are two photos one showing how I have saved 100mm of height on the engine by going to a dry sump and different exhaust. The current plan is for the exhaust pipes to go from the heads between the rocker covers and then back above the drive shafts. This wil enable me to keep the engine low as intended. Not real happy with the corvette trailing arms so I am still deciding if I will dump them and move to some thing better.

Given all my other jobs progress is slow.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0405.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0399.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0407.JPG

[michael]

Does a dry sump involve an oil filter relocation?

[SVXRide]

Tony,
any flexure in the motor mounts? what's your concern with the vette arms?
cheers,
Bill

[brumbyrunner]

Hard to tell from the pic but does that crossmember successfully clearence the water pump, oil pump and oil filter?
Also, when you say the exhaust will route "between the rocker covers..." do you mean it will run from the manifold (in the first pic), up in front of the timing covers and then turn rearwards over the heads?

[icingdeath88]

Hard to tell from the pic but does that crossmember successfully clearence the water pump, oil pump and oil filter?
Also, when you say the exhaust will route "between the rocker covers..." do you mean it will run from the manifold (in the first pic), up in front of the timing covers and then turn rearwards over the heads?

Looks like it will clear the oil pump itself, the oil filter could be relocated since the engine in this will have a dry sump. The oil pan doesn't look like it will fit, but again that doesn't matter because of the dry sump. The water pump itself looks like it will clear. The thermostat housing/water pump inlet will not be a stock one regardless, it'll have a bigger diameter, so it could be made to point in a completely different direction.

Not sure on the exhaust.

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Guys,
A lot of questions so if I don't answer all please ask again.
The exhaust and sump were there just to show how much lower the engine is they are not to be used in the final.
- Current oil filter position is dead being moved up top and the exiting housing milled off. Dry sump pump will be on top of motor and changed to 3 stage. 2 stages sucking from sump and pressure to block. Oil will be feed direct to the top two galleries on the top of the block.
- Water pump will clear just, will be a slight dent in the tube (heat and dent) for the water pump and the CV joint onto the gearbox. Every thing is right on the limit to enable the engine to go as low as possiable.
- Engine mounts are pretty solid as are the new gearbox mount I am currently building.
- Bill I am of 2 minds on the Corvette arms, while they fit well I need to have a steeling arm on the upright due to the corvette arms having bottom ball joints. It makes it more difficult for me to keep the correct angle when the wheel moves up and down. They do fit well and they look the part so maybe I just need to get my head around them a bit better.

- Harvey my jump in here but I am going to narrow exhaust pipes for the first 400mm in stead of 1 3/4 I will do it in 1 1/2 then into a 3in pipe. My logic is that I want the velociety in the pipe to have a hi scavenge effect to get the last bit of gas out of the cyclinder at hi revs. The small pipe will only make it harder when the valve first opens which is the time the exhaust has the most power.

Hope that covers all your quetions.

Tony

[icingdeath88]

- Current oil filter position is dead being moved up top and the exiting housing milled off. Dry sump pump will be on top of motor and changed to 3 stage. 2 stages sucking from sump and pressure to block. Oil will be feed direct to the top two galleries on the top of the block.


So you're not going to have the pump also pulling from the heads, on each side? Just 2 point suction from the pan?

[Dessertrunner]

So you're not going to have the pump also pulling from the heads, on each side? Just 2 point suction from the pan?

Correct, I think the oil from the heads is over kill now that I have worked through a number of issues with the engine.
Tony

[brumbyrunner]

I'm in the process of dry-sumping an EJ20 and I'm also using a 3 stage pump with 2 stages of scavenge direct from the oil pan. My initial plan was to run the oil pressure feed directly into the factory oil filter location and then use a remote mounted oil filter.

After mocking everything up, I decided it was all too messy and now I using the factory oil filter in the factory location. I'm running the oil pressure feed into the bottom of the (gutted) oil pump so that the oil flows straight to the filter and then follows the oil path as designed by FUJI.

Your idea of running the pressure feed into the top of the block intrigues me as it would suit my high clearance objective and save lots of custom work on the oil pump housing. I did think of it early on, but couldn't guarantee it would work, so dismissed the whole idea. I'm keen to see if it works for you.

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Brumbyrunner,
I have the design of the oil pump so I can take it fully off and bolt a blank plate in its place. The oil filtes nipple can be removed and a 14mm plug installed.

How are you going to drive the pump? Also what type of pump are you going to use? The Dailey I am goiing to use has a pressure reg on its ass next to the pressure pump.

Tony

[brumbyrunner]

Hi Brumbyrunner,
I have the design of the oil pump so I can take it fully off and bolt a blank plate in its place. The oil filtes nipple can be removed and a 14mm plug installed.
How are you going to drive the pump? Also what type of pump are you going to use? The Dailey I am goiing to use has a pressure reg on its ass next to the pressure pump.
Tony

I found it easier just to pull the guts out of the pump and use the housing instead of making a blank plate but that would work fine too. It's not like you can see it.
The oil filter thread is M20x1.5. I'm using a nipple to fit a genuine oil filter straight up to the block without the factory oil cooler.
I bought a 3-stage Peterson oil pump, it has an integrated pressure relief valve. Looked at Dailey and Nutter which both have good reputations but these guys had the best range and service.

[Dessertrunner]

Brumbyrunner,
What water pump are you running and is the thermostate still in?
Tony

[icingdeath88]

Brumbyrunner,
What water pump are you running and is the thermostate still in?
Tony

Just want to point out, in case you didn't notice, he's working with an EJ20, not an EG33.

[Dessertrunner]

Just want to point out, in case you didn't notice, he's working with an EJ20, not an EG33.

Thanks,
I already realized it was a different engine.
Tony

[brumbyrunner]

Brumbyrunner,
What water pump are you running and is the thermostate still in?
Tony

Turbo water pump. The non-turbo one would suit me better as it only has one extra 1/2" inlet but it hangs down too low.
No thermostat. Coolant flow is controlled by an electric pump. Standard non-turbo radiator, mounted in the back.
Runs very cool. If I leave the fans on at idle, the temp will come down to 40*C.

[Dessertrunner]

Did some mods to the other dry sump so it can be used on this job. On the mid engine I am only going to worry about 3 stage pump.
Here it is.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Dry%20sump%201.JPG

[icingdeath88]

Looks great. I love this thread. Got any pics of the other side?

Looks like both suction ports are going to be pulling from the same area. I would think it would be better to have one at the front and one at the back? Or on either side?

[Dessertrunner]

Its more about pulling the surge volume out when it comes in from the heads when the car changes direction and have the high capicaity.
Here is the top side.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Dry%20Sump%202.JPG

[Dessertrunner]

Okay I have been busy here are some shoots. Milled the upright from a 37kg block of steel down to 3.4kg. This means I can use the front axles in the rear of the car.
Tony
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Upright%201.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Upright2.JPG

[Dessertrunner]

Don't want to have a top engine mount, so have beefed up the gearbox one with a new heavier design.
Its tacked ready for welding when the other parts are in place.
Tony

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/Rear%20gearbox%20mount.JPG

[Sean486]

Aren't you done yet? Come on!


Seriously, awesome work man. Looks great.

[michael]

Updates???

[Dessertrunner]

Sorry guys have been working just not posting,
Here is a 3d pdf of the final brake, disc, upright & wheel assembly.

Hope it all makes sense.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Okay brake capliers are wilwood 120-4322 &23 they are the type used on a GT III and NASCAR here are the details.

"The cast aluminum GT III Caliper is ideal for NASCAR Nextel Cup, Busch GN, Craftsman Truck, ARCA Supercars and SCCA road racing. The double bridge bolt design is extremely rigid and provides drivers with a firm, responsive pedal and superior stopping power. The differential piston bores have been positioned to maximize clamping force, provide even pad wear and enhance caliper stiffness. Weighing only 8.4 pounds, the GT III incorporates stainless steel heat shielding throughout the bridge area and piston bore facing, along with heavy duty pad abutment plates. The GT III utilizes the thick GT pad (11.3 cubic inches, 1.10” thick), and is a direct bolt-on interchange with the 5.25” mount GT Series calipers. Wilwood’s exclusive short track pistons are available for the GT III Caliper. Recirculator tubes are also available. 1.88"/1.75" piston diameter. 1.38" rotor width. "


Front and back of the car will have the same calipers, same size disc and wheels.

Discs are the same as late STI 13in or 326mm diameter.

At this point I am aiming to run ABS as you can see fromt from the plan.

Tyres at this time are 275/35 - 20in, there has been a fair bit of debate on this issue. Bazza and I came to blows on this point as he beleived that 275/35 on 16 or 17in rims would give me faster lap times. I don't agree, happy for anyone to express a opinion.

Tony

[neverLift]

Unless the 20" wheel is designed to be lighter AND have less rotational inertia, 16/17's will be faster. And if the 20" wheel is designed to be better than a 16/17" wheel, the 16/17" with equivalent design would be faster.

You can't fight physics.

Upright assembly looks cool though!

[Dessertrunner]

Unless the 20" wheel is designed to be lighter AND have less rotational inertia, 16/17's will be faster. And if the 20" wheel is designed to be better than a 16/17" wheel, the 16/17" with equivalent design would be faster.

You can't fight physics.

Upright assembly looks cool though!

Do you mean the physic of the weight or the physic of the grip?

[neverLift]

Of the weight and more specifically, how far away it is located from the center of rotation.

The tires themselves should be more or less equal in terms of mechanical grip. But the 20" tires take more energy and therefore time to accelerate and decelerate. Moment of inertia I=mr^2, where m is the mass and r is the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation. The mass I'm referring to is that of the tire and the outer barrel of the wheel

[Dessertrunner]

In Australia our V8 supercars went from 17in to 18in and they say they expect lap times to be quicker. 24 hr Le Mans cars are 19in and the rules stop them going to 20in, as I understand it NASCAR tyre outter diameter is simlar to 20in with 275/35.

So I can't get my head around what is the right thing. THere has to be a gain from a larger over all diameter other wise they would need rule to stop people putting smaller tyres on not larger.

Its confusing:confused:
Tony

['E']

Does it have anything to do with engine speed, gearing and overall speed? I have 19's on my Svx and that adds 10kph at 100kph at the same revs that would yield 100kph on normal rims

[neverLift]

In Australia our V8 supercars went from 17in to 18in and they say they expect lap times to be quicker. 24 hr Le Mans cars are 19in and the rules stop them going to 20in, as I understand it NASCAR tyre outter diameter is simlar to 20in with 275/35.

So I can't get my head around what is the right thing. THere has to be a gain from a larger over all diameter other wise they would need rule to stop people putting smaller tyres on not larger.

Its confusing:confused:
Tony

Most of the time, brake set-up size is the limiting factor. The teams want as large of discs as possible. So the wheels need to be a certain diameter to clear them. Of course there is a tipping point where the brakes are more than big enough, and you're just adding weight. Most of the time though, teams always want more brake.

As for rules dictating size, there are other, non-performance reasons too.

"The tread is still the same width, it's just missing half an inch out of the sidewall. It won't look a great deal different from what we have now.

"Having a bigger tyre gives a lot more flexibility as to the variety of braking packages you can fit inside the wheel as well.

"Cars all over the world are being made with 18-inch wheels now so we're going with the flow and moving along with that.

"Most race cars around the world, particularly in GT racing, use 18-inch too so it's more of a common size.

Source (http://www.v8supercars.com.au/technical/car-of-the-future)

[smc]

Agreed with neverlift. The rule on wheel diameter is primarily there to limit the size of the brakes. Kinda like in gravel rally. 15" diameter wheels. You have squeeze some punny brakes in there. But a good rule of thumb when it comes to brake size. When your at speed, if you can slam on the brakes and lock them up, then you dont need bigger brakes. R-compound tires and in many cases, non power brakes would require larger brakes to aid in it.
A great example of this is the stock SVX calipers. Most people this our cars have crummy brakes. And up until recently, I would agree with them. Until I put on a set of quality pads. Even with my r-spec tires, i could lock up all 4 wheels. 80 to 0 mph was damn good.
... Sorry, getting off topic here..

In terms of wheels, you only need to go as large as your brake system requires for clearance. Yes, you get less rotational inertia from the lighter tire/wheel package, but you mainly gain a more compliant tire carcass. A tire needs to have sidewall. If your tire looks like you painted it onto the wheel, chances are you will be All over the track. The trick is finding out what is Best for YOUR car and the track conditions. Bumpy track, more sidewall. The tire can conform better and take more abuse. A silky smooth track, less sidewall for crisper steering input.
Its really a game of trial and error, and in Many cases racing regulations. ALWAYS check to make certain you are in compliance with what ever racing sanctioning body you are racing with.

This also tends to bring up the thought of tire width. Most people tend to think a wider tire is better. This is rarely the case. A crazy wide tire on a car is there to cover up bad handling characteristics. Be it bad camber fluctuations in suspension travel, bad roll center, or akerman angle. A wide tire has far more surface area in contact with the tarmac at any given time. Most think, "Ahhh, that means more tire to grip with!" yes and no. Yes, there is more tire. However the pressure per cm of that contact patch pressing down on the road is far less than that of a skinnier tire. Thats why in tarmac rally, our tires are not all that wide. In reality, that fat rear tire is not giving a heck of a lot more grip that the front.

I talked to a few fellow racers on this, who quickly bring up formula 1 as an example. Huge rear tires! However with out the downforce to squish all that rubber to the ground, they handle like absolute crap. Now take a look at other formula classes. Similar cornering speeds, less areo, thinner tire. Most of our cars will Never have that sort of downforce aiding us in racing :)

In the end, it all comes down to choice and track conditions. Wide, skinny, lots of sidewall, little sidewall.

Get a set you happy with and experiment over time. Talk to others with similar setups and so on.


Cheers
SMC

[bazza]

Agreed with neverlift. The rule on wheel diameter is primarily there to limit the size of the brakes. Kinda like in gravel rally. 15" diameter wheels. You have squeeze some punny brakes in there. But a good rule of thumb when it comes to brake size. When your at speed, if you can slam on the brakes and lock them up, then you dont need bigger brakes. R-compound tires and in many cases, non power brakes would require larger brakes to aid in it.
A great example of this is the stock SVX calipers. Most people this our cars have crummy brakes. And up until recently, I would agree with them. Until I put on a set of quality pads. Even with my r-spec tires, i could lock up all 4 wheels. 80 to 0 mph was damn good.
... Sorry, getting off topic here..

The bigger brake you can stick in there gives far superior control and yes better pads are under-rated.

In terms of wheels, you only need to go as large as your brake system requires for clearance. Yes, you get less rotational inertia from the lighter tire/wheel package, but you mainly gain a more compliant tire carcass. A tire needs to have sidewall. If your tire looks like you painted it onto the wheel, chances are you will be All over the track. The trick is finding out what is Best for YOUR car and the track conditions. Bumpy track, more sidewall. The tire can conform better and take more abuse. A silky smooth track, less sidewall for crisper steering input.
Its really a game of trial and error, and in Many cases racing regulations. ALWAYS check to make certain you are in compliance with what ever racing sanctioning body you are racing with.

Agreed. However I explained to Tony that at Winton (where I'm the quickest Subaru two years running now so I must be doing something right and not pissing in the wind lol) that I spent 55% of a lap turning and 18% braking. So big brakes are a waste of time at this track. Wide tyres however.. worth 3 seconds (proven).

This also tends to bring up the thought of tire width. Most people tend to think a wider tire is better. This is rarely the case. A crazy wide tire on a car is there to cover up bad handling characteristics. Be it bad camber fluctuations in suspension travel, bad roll center, or akerman angle. A wide tire has far more surface area in contact with the tarmac at any given time. Most think, "Ahhh, that means more tire to grip with!" yes and no. Yes, there is more tire.

I can advise you that going from 195's to 205's to 215's to 225's to 235's and now to 275's that in the case of a Subaru AWD, wider is ALWAYS better ON tarmac. There is no doubt a point exists where you need to consider steering geometry - maybe above 300's. Also if anyone has ever read Carrol Smith's books - he also states this amongst is other findings. There are a few "tyre grip vs force" graphs which are quite useful and interesting.

However the pressure per cm of that contact patch pressing down on the road is far less than that of a skinnier tire. Thats why in tarmac rally, our tires are not all that wide. In reality, that fat rear tire is not giving a heck of a lot more grip that the front.

I found that the pressure density doesn't really matter on tarmac circuit work. It's more about the available grip of the tyre. Skinny "215" tyres run out of available grip easily and mine only handled around 1.35G's. Similar setup with 275's went up to 1.80G's - of course it's unknown how much is "wide" tyre alone, however you'd assume a fair bit would be.

At the end of the day, the rubber is the link between racecar and track and you only have so much grip for X amount of rubber.

[Dessertrunner]

Now I am confused,
Would it be different between a front engine car and a mid engine, can't argue with Bazza's lap time point, also difficult to understand why most of the race cars use a higher side wall profile.

Anyway from my point the mid engine project is a work in process so I am sure I will try different rim/tyre sizes over the next couple of years. The main issue is to design the body and suspenion to fit the biggest tyre I think I would use then go down from there. Easier to go that way then trying to go larger later.

Mesuared the Brakes etc on a rim last night, looks like can fit a 18in rim over the calipers, 17in might be to tight. Given that the V8's went to 18in for more choice that sounds like a plan down the track.


Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Getting a bit frustrated with the project, need to get the lugs/pivot point for the laterial arms away from the discs a bit better which then means the plate I am using is not thick enough. Currently its 75mm and I need to be 100mm. Current thought are to do up a bearing hub simlar to what is on the newer STI's. It looks like it will work just more cad time getting it all sorted out. On the postive side the bearing pocket is quicker to cut on the CNC lathe then the mill, also the new dsign for the main upright is a lot simpler which means it will require less machine time on the mill. Will post the new design when I get it sorted. I might be asking a bit much as I am trying to keep the Abs sensor as well.

Tony

[bishop]

I don't see any reason you couldn't keep the abs sensor as long at the wires were lengthened.

and the answer the question about why race cars have a lot of sidewall is because it lets the tire conform to the road surface and absorb bumps better.

[smc]

I suppose "Wide" is a relative term when it comes to tires. Im just saying that there is a point when you either stop gaining traction or begin to loose it all together with width. Akerman angle is a big issue with wide tires in the front of the car and Flotation in the rear. AWD cars tend to be a different situation all together with tires when in comparison to fwd and rwd. heh.. Sorry, man. Its is bloody confusing. :P

Question for ya: Are you using an aftermarket ABS system or sticking with the SVX's abs? I know that the stock abs tends to be a bit aggressive and cant be reprogrammed. You can get programmable abs boxes that are more of an Anti-flatspot system then anything else. They can be set to pulse only the tire that's locking up. Not all 4 at the same time.

[Dessertrunner]

Question for ya: Are you using an aftermarket ABS system or sticking with the SVX's abs? I know that the stock abs tends to be a bit aggressive and cant be reprogrammed. You can get programmable abs boxes that are more of an Anti-flatspot system then anything else. They can be set to pulse only the tire that's locking up. Not all 4 at the same time.

I was going to use the standard SVX ABS, not sure what you mean about all 4 out the same time. I have been in mud with my car and the ABS only works on each wheel as needed.

Tony

[smc]

Hmm. Perhaps USDM cars have a different abs computer. It drives me nuts to the point of just pulling the fuse. With my 92, when one wheel started to slip, the abs would kick in and the pedal would go the floor. All four wheels would modulate and braking would go to crap. Drove me crazy on autocross and on dirt roads. Nearly caused me to crash into a wall at one autocross event. Heavy breaking for a tight right hand corner. Passenger front locked up for a moment, then the abs kicked in. Pedal to the floor and my heavy breaking was all but gone. There was no way to make the corner now as I was no longer scrubbing off speed at the rate needed. I had to get off the brakes and mash the throttle to regain control and flick it past the wall that was now infront of me.
I never delved crazy deep into the subject, but from my experiences with it (my 92 svx) when one tire slipped, the abs kicked in and all the wheels began to modulate.
In all honesty, I would love to know if non usdm cars have a different abs computer. :cool:

[Dessertrunner]

Okay bit of a update,
I am trying to widen the back of the car new tyres are 275 r35 20in. I want to be able to go to 335 so the configuration of the back suspenion is STI 13in disc with NASCAR Calipers (big mothers) and to fit it I have had to use a 20mm wheel spacer, So currently from the outside of tyre to tyre on the back its 1.8m wide, really need to have 1.9 of clearance.
Other factor is that the large tyre dia needs to go high enough into the wheel well during bump so some mods are required inside the wheel well to increase the cleariance.

What would make it easier if I could find a air bag to pump up and force the guard out, haven't found it yet. here are some shoots of the cuts I have made. The black line is were I am thinking of cutting the side for the air scoop to get air into the engine and the possiable intercoolers.
Tony
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0450.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0451.JPG

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0452.JPG

[bishop]

Is that wide of a tire really necessary? with the extra weight over the back i would think that would be enough to keep traction on a 235 or 245.

[Dessertrunner]

If I go down the path Bazza suggests I will need all the grip I can get to get the power down.
Tony

[oab_au]

Tony have a look at how these blokes have done it, they seem to have seen the same problem.:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q9XVV5lN8c

Harvey.

[SVXRide]

They should rename the video "How to build a car around a massive engine" :rolleyes::D

Bill

[Dessertrunner]

Thats pretty cool Harvey, luck I don't have to add that much to the body. Its amazing how good they make it look.
Tony

[SVXRide]

Thats pretty cool Harvey, luck I don't have to add that much to the body. Its amazing how good they make it look.
Tony

I'm almost willing to say the folks doing this work also work at the Ferrari body shop ;)

Bill

[smc]

The best airbag method I have found so far is simply a deflated basket ball. Squish it into what ever area you need to push, then inflate it. Easy peasy. And its not likely to be cut by sheet metal as well.

[Dessertrunner]

The best airbag method I have found so far is simply a deflated basket ball. Squish it into what ever area you need to push, then inflate it. Easy peasy. And its not likely to be cut by sheet metal as well.

That's a neat idea thanks.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Hi All,
Okay haven't been siting on my but just been slack posting, I have got my first hub assembly close to final and the CNC program complete. I have 4 pistion Wilwood brake calipers, when I say 4 pistion I should make the point that they have a bigger piston area of even the 6 piston version. These units were designed for endurance racing .
Disc are 330mm or 13in from a late model STI, remember this is the rear hub.

Also sorting out the drive by wire just brought a control card that should drive the BMW throttle actuator. Can go into it later but in chases the peddle voltage by checking the feed back from the actuator.

Any wahy heres a few images
.https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0479.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0483.JPG

Tony

[SVXRide]

Tony,

Somehow I don't think you're going to have to worry about brake fade ;):cool:

So, do you feel you've got the rear suspension all sorted out now?

Cheers,
Bill

[Tireiron]

Why not use the subaru electronic DBW pedal and wire that in? Or does this card read from that electronic pedal? I have one of those pedal assemblies in my basement if you need any info from it.

[Dessertrunner]

From my research I think the Subaru throttle system needs the ECU, also it functions on a single throttle were I need to control 6 of. For that reson the BMW actuator will be better, more power.

Tony

[Dessertrunner]

Okay got the throttle running on the test bench, so I will have to install it on the can later.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0485.JPG

[Dessertrunner]

Just finished a balance bar that attaches to the brake booster. This means that we can adjust the brake balance between front and back wheel.
Tony

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0662.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Mid%20Engine/PICT0659.JPG

[sketch]

glad to see that there's still progress being made on this project!

[Dessertrunner]

The project will continue but I will no longer be posting on this forum as I have had enough of some memeber.

[bishop]

is there anywhere else we'll be able to follow? really wanted to see how this turns out.

[Crazy_pilot]

is there anywhere else we'll be able to follow? really wanted to see how this turns out.

Just to second this, does anyone know a forum that Tony hangs out on now? He's got some awesome projects going and I'm sure plenty that can benefit this community. It would be great to see how he's doing.

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Guys,
Most of the time I hang out on this forum
http://www.ozclubbies.com.au/
You have to regrister and you need to answer a question which is to do with a Lotus that was built to drive on the road and has been famous for 50 years. I find the forum good because there are a buch of guys that are experianced with engine and building your own car. Currently I am building this you can folow the build on he forum also me getting beatten up because I want to do things my way. At this time the engine in it is a Subaru 1.8l single overhead cam and 5 speed box. Due to the short stroke and big bore of the engine we are hoping to get it to rev to 10 to 13,000 rpm and develop some were north of 250hp. The build will have a total weight of around 500kg so it will be something like 2kg per Hp and be regristered for road use as well. I have got rods and pistons for the EG33 development that will give a compression ratio of 13.5:1 also pretty sure that we will get the EG33 to develop over 400hp Na may even get closer to 500. You never know the EG33 may end up in the build yet its just that the 1.8l and gearbox is coming in at 100kg for the lot. Anyway come join us on the other forum when ever you feel inclined
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Clubbie%20Pics/PICT0166.JPG

[SVXRide]

All,
For what it's worth, the OZClubbies site that Tony is on might just be full of more "characters" than the SVX Network ;):lol:
Cheers,
Bill

[BRZCory]

Here I was hoping for an update, only to be saddened :(

[Suberdave]

about 2 years ago i sold my SVX, so i dont get back to this forum much.

however i had this same idea and was going to do it in an SVX but instead opted for an older GL coupe. and sold the SVX rather than cut it up.

I still used a EG33 from the junk yard. built a manifold to adapt an Eaton M90 Super charger to it, i opted for a 5 speed rather than the auto. (makes it much more fun to drive). and i am running a full stand alone Link G4 Extreme.

well here it is. it has been up and running for about 2 years now. took it to the drag strip and put down a 13.9 @ 101mph. on 205mm street tires, hard to keep them from spinning. on a dyno jet she put down 254RWHP and 270RWTQ.

Pics:

http://wordpress.suberdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tn_101_0119.jpg

http://wordpress.suberdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tn_DSC_3653.jpg

Videos:

http://youtu.be/dNQR40rblwohttp://youtu.be/dNQR40rblwo

http://youtu.be/0BEsow9v5Tw

more pics.

http://wordpress.suberdave.com/?page_id=335

Dyno:

http://wordpress.suberdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dave-H6-Pic-2.jpg

[Conn SVX]

Wow Subi under glass

[huck369]

Me Likey.....:D

[Dessertrunner]

SuberDave that is one hell of a build, a job well done. Is there any chance of getting a copy of your Link G4 program as I am using the same ECU please.

What have you set as your maximum revs?

Tony

[Scoobyru]

Tony, please continue to share your progress with us. i was talking with Nate G. about this thread recently and am glad to see that you have come back. very interested in seeing the progress :D

[Dessertrunner]

Hi All,
Have been busy on another thread,
what may interest you all is that I just brought 2 of these, one may go in the mid engine just undecided.
Going to be a hoot for sure. They cost me a small fortune, had to sell the wife and kids but hell its worth it.
Tonyhttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Subaru%201235/Subaru%201235.jpg

[svxfiles]

Hi All,
Have been busy on another thread,
what may interest you all is that I just brought 2 of these, one may go in the mid engine just undecided.
Going to be a hoot for sure. They cost me a small fortune, had to sell the wife and kids but hell its worth it.
Tonyhttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Subaru%201235/Subaru%201235.jpg

Tony, are you serious?
Did you really buy these engines?

[Crazy_pilot]

:eek::eek::eek:

You bought two of the Subaru F1 engines?










Can I have your life?

[SVXRide]

Okay, Tony, now it looks like I'm going to have to buy that plane ticket to Australia! :cool:

Bill


Hi All,
Have been busy on another thread,
what may interest you all is that I just brought 2 of these, one may go in the mid engine just undecided.
Going to be a hoot for sure. They cost me a small fortune, had to sell the wife and kids but hell its worth it.
Tonyhttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91210059/Subaru%201235/Subaru%201235.jpg

[Dessertrunner]

Bill there is always a bed here for you at my house.

Yes I did buy 2 engines plus all the race F1 teams spare parts. A guy in Sweden brought them from the original team. Him and I have been negotiation for about 3 years, actually started about the time I put up the first post on this project. He wants to move them and so he dropped his price, he also had a big emotional attachment to the engines so he went out of his way to make sure that I got them. Being that I am a Subaru lover, it all made sense.

Over the last couple of years I have got a bunch more SVX's, have 4 of 1995, 4 of 1992 and 1 of 1993. Only 2 will be parted. 5 have rego and are used. I also have acquired about 18 extra EG33 engines for development work that I am doing as regards hi compression and compression ignition. Don't want to get bored.

My plan is to sort out the complexities of the build on this chassis I have post about. When that is all sorted and I know what I am doing I will cut up a 1995 that is in mint condition to complete the job.

Tony

[SVXRide]

You're the man, Tony!! 😎🚀

Bill

[bishop]

When you get these in take pictures of everything, all the other subaru forums will go nuts.

[theflystyle]

When you get these in take pictures of everything, all the other subaru forums will go nuts.

+1000000

Subaru engine porn at its best

[LetItSnow]

The circle is complete. <linky (http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/showthread.php?t=961)>