Originally Posted by
RWD_cossie_wil
The RS Automotive one is spaceframe built, and actually about 4" longer at the back end, and the rear clamshell opens the "wrong" way compared the original, due to fitting the YB lump in there.
.........
Out of all of the kits, I would have had the RS Automotive one as at least it was mid engined, and rear wheel drive. I did look into making it 4x4, but the stumbling block was finding a transmission that is suitable for a mid-engined 4x4 layout is pretty tricky, very very few cars are mid/4x4 design.
I can live with RWD if needed. Ive had the customer speil from RS motorsport as they are now known but want experience of those whove built one rather than just the manufacturer.
Hes already sorted the clam shell and are making the sills look closer to original. But yeah id agree with you, identical banham bodywork and a shortened rs shell.
Aparently hes developing a 4wd version and i know the rival already has a 4wd midengined in line option but the build cost could easily reach £25-30k.
Originally Posted by
cfoster
Hardest part is choosing gearbox/linkage, he was going to go the porker gearbox route but worked out too costly so went the Renault 21 box which worked well (most common route)
I was thinking porker as well. Plenty of other kit cars use a porker box in a mid engined layoout with the transaxle behind engine driving rear wheels. Reversed diff probably??
From what ive seen the front of the RS automotive car uses some sierra componants and rack so id imagine its not too hard to modify to take a front diff and sierra 4wd front bits and the tunnel is big enough, but as you say its getting a gearbox that can drive the rears and has a 4wd transfer box to drive forward.
Although from what will said about porkers, surely if the YB was turned around the same way as a real 200 lump (cambelt to rear) then it could drive a porker box off a later 4wd 911???