mid engined cars....
09-08-2010, 02:31 PM
#1
mid engined cars....
I recently bought a mid engined white series 2 off of here. I'm going to be putting coilovers all round and adjustable tca's and then have the suspension all professionally set up. just a question.... will the front of the car need to be counter weighted? as it will be alot lighter on the front end being mid engined ? anyone with any ideas?
thanks in advance !
thanks in advance !
09-08-2010, 02:48 PM
#2
PassionFord Regular
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Greece
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what the weight distribution will be with this setup but the ideal is to achieve 50-50 or close to that. You can achive it by putting fuel tank in front, radiator, battery etc and counter weights...
09-08-2010, 02:59 PM
#4
My mid engined nova has just over 50% of the weight on the front of the car.
Bear in mind you are starting with a car thats probably 70/30, so moving the engine is a good thing not a bad one.
As the diff is on the back of the engine/box the weight is distributed between the two axles FAR better when its mid engined than front.
Bear in mind you are starting with a car thats probably 70/30, so moving the engine is a good thing not a bad one.
As the diff is on the back of the engine/box the weight is distributed between the two axles FAR better when its mid engined than front.
09-08-2010, 03:27 PM
#5
PassionFord Post Whore!!
My 5 has a 40/60 f/r weight setup, the engine is about2 2" off my back, but I have put as much as I can in the front of the car, 2 massive rads, battery, header tank, 3 swirl pots, but if you've got coilovers you can get it to do pretty much what you want.
09-08-2010, 03:48 PM
#6
My mid engined nova has just over 50% of the weight on the front of the car.
Bear in mind you are starting with a car thats probably 70/30, so moving the engine is a good thing not a bad one.
As the diff is on the back of the engine/box the weight is distributed between the two axles FAR better when its mid engined than front.
Bear in mind you are starting with a car thats probably 70/30, so moving the engine is a good thing not a bad one.
As the diff is on the back of the engine/box the weight is distributed between the two axles FAR better when its mid engined than front.
Trending Topics
09-08-2010, 06:41 PM
#9
I find setting up a mid-engined car what wasnt intented to be mid-engined far more difficult to do well all round, as Chip says move things around but do not add weight just for sake of gaining 50/50 staticdistribution. Fine tuning the dynamic balance is far more difficult to setup much more so than plucking spring rates dampers figures out of thin air the static figures should be seen only as the baseline not the end result.
09-08-2010, 09:54 PM
#12
You must have pretty limited knowledge of how it is now then TBH if you cant think of ways it could be worse, it was FAR worse when I first inherited it.
TBH the best way to go really would be to just use a vx220 rear subframe but ive quite enjoyed just making my own bits and pieces instead, its only a hobby car at the end of the day.
TBH the best way to go really would be to just use a vx220 rear subframe but ive quite enjoyed just making my own bits and pieces instead, its only a hobby car at the end of the day.
Last edited by Chip; 09-08-2010 at 10:04 PM.
09-08-2010, 10:20 PM
#13
You must have pretty limited knowledge of how it is now then TBH if you cant think of ways it could be worse, it was FAR worse when I first inherited it.
TBH the best way to go really would be to just use a vx220 rear subframe but ive quite enjoyed just making my own bits and pieces instead, its only a hobby car at the end of the day.
TBH the best way to go really would be to just use a vx220 rear subframe but ive quite enjoyed just making my own bits and pieces instead, its only a hobby car at the end of the day.
the last pics i saw - surely it could not be any worse
there comes a time when hobbyists make dangerous inventions hence why the MSA invented K37 ruling - yours is the reason why
09-08-2010, 10:36 PM
#15
Could be massively worse, could have terrible bumpsteer for example.
Really in this country we should have a proper TUV system, no hobbyist should be allowed to design their own suspension and weld up their own parts for it etc, im actually relatively confident in mine TBH despite whatever it is you are apparently mocking about it (would genuinely be interested in some actual constructive feedback if you really have any) but its certainly something that a non qualified person like myself could easily get wrong or misplace trust in.
Everything K37 mentions really should trigger an IVA anyway TBH, although my car predates those rules, but none of it is followed up by MOT stations etc. Its more to do with controlling costs than safety though as far as im aware?
Our rules are definately too relaxed although that suits me personally obviously.
there comes a time when hobbyists make dangerous inventions hence why the MSA invented K37 ruling - yours is the reason why
Everything K37 mentions really should trigger an IVA anyway TBH, although my car predates those rules, but none of it is followed up by MOT stations etc. Its more to do with controlling costs than safety though as far as im aware?
Our rules are definately too relaxed although that suits me personally obviously.
Last edited by Chip; 09-08-2010 at 10:39 PM.
09-08-2010, 10:47 PM
#16
Could be massively worse, could have terrible bumpsteer for example.
Really in this country we should have a proper TUV system, no hobbyist should be allowed to design their own suspension and weld up their own parts for it etc, im actually relatively confident in mine TBH despite whatever it is you are apparently mocking about it (would genuinely be interested in some actual constructive feedback if you really have any) but its certainly something that a non qualified person like myself could easily get wrong or misplace trust in.
Everything K37 mentions really should trigger an IVA anyway TBH, although my car predates those rules, but none of it is followed up by MOT stations etc. Its more to do with controlling costs than safety though as far as im aware?
Our rules are definately too relaxed although that suits me personally obviously.
Really in this country we should have a proper TUV system, no hobbyist should be allowed to design their own suspension and weld up their own parts for it etc, im actually relatively confident in mine TBH despite whatever it is you are apparently mocking about it (would genuinely be interested in some actual constructive feedback if you really have any) but its certainly something that a non qualified person like myself could easily get wrong or misplace trust in.
Everything K37 mentions really should trigger an IVA anyway TBH, although my car predates those rules, but none of it is followed up by MOT stations etc. Its more to do with controlling costs than safety though as far as im aware?
Our rules are definately too relaxed although that suits me personally obviously.
are you saying that your car does not suffer bump steer with track/steering arms that short over full travel ?
you must have changed it alot since the pics i saw.
I agree on the laws though - but the mot does affect welded suspension parts like tcas ect though no one ever bothers to enforce it.
sorry to the OP for detracting the post.
09-08-2010, 10:57 PM
#17
Yes mate thats what im saying, it is massively improved now from a bump steer point of view because the toe control arm is mounted so closely to the bottom arm and is almost the same length as it and ive dropped the outer end to be so close to the bottom balljoint they move almost as one.
On the old setup it had a massive 10mm of toe change for 40mm of travel (which is effectively full travel for the use it gets) and now it has an amount too small for me to measure on my crude measuring rig that I set up.
I am NOT claiming its perfect or anything, but you make it sound like no thought has gone into it and thats simply not the case at all, I think if you actually looked at it in real life although no doubt you would consider some of it a bit crude you could probably see what im working towards with it and why.
I have very limited resources and experience as a fabricator but a fairly good understanding of how suspension geometry needs to move during travel and so everything I have done has been to improve this, and from driving it, the difference is absolutely night and day from where it was.
Its not a pro prepped VX220 and it never will be, but to say it couldnt be worse is just silly TBH considering how much better it drives now than it used to!
On the old setup it had a massive 10mm of toe change for 40mm of travel (which is effectively full travel for the use it gets) and now it has an amount too small for me to measure on my crude measuring rig that I set up.
I am NOT claiming its perfect or anything, but you make it sound like no thought has gone into it and thats simply not the case at all, I think if you actually looked at it in real life although no doubt you would consider some of it a bit crude you could probably see what im working towards with it and why.
I have very limited resources and experience as a fabricator but a fairly good understanding of how suspension geometry needs to move during travel and so everything I have done has been to improve this, and from driving it, the difference is absolutely night and day from where it was.
Its not a pro prepped VX220 and it never will be, but to say it couldnt be worse is just silly TBH considering how much better it drives now than it used to!
Last edited by Chip; 09-08-2010 at 10:59 PM.
09-08-2010, 11:07 PM
#18
Yes mate thats what im saying, it is massively improved now from a bump steer point of view because the toe control arm is mounted so closely to the bottom arm and is almost the same length as it and ive dropped the outer end to be so close to the bottom balljoint they move almost as one.
On the old setup it had a massive 10mm of toe change for 40mm of travel (which is effectively full travel for the use it gets) and now it has an amount too small for me to measure on my crude measuring rig that I set up.
I am NOT claiming its perfect or anything, but you make it sound like no thought has gone into it and thats simply not the case at all, I think if you actually looked at it in real life although no doubt you would consider some of it a bit crude you could probably see what im working towards with it and why.
I have very limited resources and experience as a fabricator but a fairly good understanding of how suspension geometry needs to move during travel and so everything I have done has been to improve this, and from driving it, the difference is absolutely night and day from where it was.
Its not a pro prepped VX220 and it never will be, but to say it couldnt be worse is just silly TBH considering how much better it drives now than it used to!
On the old setup it had a massive 10mm of toe change for 40mm of travel (which is effectively full travel for the use it gets) and now it has an amount too small for me to measure on my crude measuring rig that I set up.
I am NOT claiming its perfect or anything, but you make it sound like no thought has gone into it and thats simply not the case at all, I think if you actually looked at it in real life although no doubt you would consider some of it a bit crude you could probably see what im working towards with it and why.
I have very limited resources and experience as a fabricator but a fairly good understanding of how suspension geometry needs to move during travel and so everything I have done has been to improve this, and from driving it, the difference is absolutely night and day from where it was.
Its not a pro prepped VX220 and it never will be, but to say it couldnt be worse is just silly TBH considering how much better it drives now than it used to!
get some pics up somewhere of the modded bits then pal, im glad you saw fit to improve your rear steer !
09-08-2010, 11:17 PM
#19
I dont have any before pictures, but basically the old (calibra) front struts have the steering arms mounted a long way up them, the new (mk4 astra ones) have it much lower down, and then ive spacered it down further when I rose jointed them.
The pictures you have already seen I would have thought (I put them up a year or two ago when I redesigned it last) are what im describing now, well assuming these are the pics you are thinking of?
Although it looks in that picture that the inner end is a about 10mm higher center than the tca arm, the rear mount for the TCA is higher, so the effectice pivot point is very close to the same height as the toe control arm, and the balljoint as you can see is not very much lower than the effective height of the steering arm (ie the centre of the balljoint compared to the centre of the rose joint)
In an ideal would I would move the outer mounting point of the steering arm lower down to get from too little toe change for me to measure to acutally none, but casting new parts is beyond what im tooled up for and there is no trivial way to drop it further on the setup I have.
In the video of it at mallory with massive steer the arms were mounted totally different, I had made the schoolboy error of mounting them onto the bottom arms which moved their pivot point (well actually it was a mate of mine that mounted them there I was asleep at the time but it was where we had decided was the only place they could go) this was because there was no exposed fixed framework anywhere near to mount from, but I had a "eureka moment" when I swapped them over from the left to the right so that they went forwards instead of back which put them level with the subframe instead of the back of the TCA, and then it was easy from there on in to achieve what I had kept being compromised on doing before.
Silly really that I didnt think to swap them left to right before, but it was just natural to fit them onto the car the same way around that they were on the donor car and once they were fitted up, I coulnt see the wood for the trees that I should have put them on the opposite sides!
The pictures you have already seen I would have thought (I put them up a year or two ago when I redesigned it last) are what im describing now, well assuming these are the pics you are thinking of?
Although it looks in that picture that the inner end is a about 10mm higher center than the tca arm, the rear mount for the TCA is higher, so the effectice pivot point is very close to the same height as the toe control arm, and the balljoint as you can see is not very much lower than the effective height of the steering arm (ie the centre of the balljoint compared to the centre of the rose joint)
In an ideal would I would move the outer mounting point of the steering arm lower down to get from too little toe change for me to measure to acutally none, but casting new parts is beyond what im tooled up for and there is no trivial way to drop it further on the setup I have.
In the video of it at mallory with massive steer the arms were mounted totally different, I had made the schoolboy error of mounting them onto the bottom arms which moved their pivot point (well actually it was a mate of mine that mounted them there I was asleep at the time but it was where we had decided was the only place they could go) this was because there was no exposed fixed framework anywhere near to mount from, but I had a "eureka moment" when I swapped them over from the left to the right so that they went forwards instead of back which put them level with the subframe instead of the back of the TCA, and then it was easy from there on in to achieve what I had kept being compromised on doing before.
Silly really that I didnt think to swap them left to right before, but it was just natural to fit them onto the car the same way around that they were on the donor car and once they were fitted up, I coulnt see the wood for the trees that I should have put them on the opposite sides!
10-08-2010, 12:03 PM
#20
some pics.....
http://img16.imageshack.us/i/03072010032.jpg/
http://img29.imageshack.us/i/dscf0352ff.jpg/
http://img251.imageshack.us/i/03072010031b.jpg/
http://img706.imageshack.us/i/03072010029.jpg/
http://img517.imageshack.us/i/03072010028.jpg/
http://img823.imageshack.us/i/dscf0363.jpg/
http://img96.imageshack.us/i/dscf0366x.jpg/
http://img812.imageshack.us/i/dscf0371h.jpg/
http://img405.imageshack.us/i/dscf0374q.jpg/
http://img641.imageshack.us/i/dscf0375h.jpg/
http://img16.imageshack.us/i/03072010032.jpg/
http://img29.imageshack.us/i/dscf0352ff.jpg/
http://img251.imageshack.us/i/03072010031b.jpg/
http://img706.imageshack.us/i/03072010029.jpg/
http://img517.imageshack.us/i/03072010028.jpg/
http://img823.imageshack.us/i/dscf0363.jpg/
http://img96.imageshack.us/i/dscf0366x.jpg/
http://img812.imageshack.us/i/dscf0371h.jpg/
http://img405.imageshack.us/i/dscf0374q.jpg/
http://img641.imageshack.us/i/dscf0375h.jpg/
10-08-2010, 01:03 PM
#22
Part of the Furniture
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic for the OP, there are 2 other things you should consider;
1. Spring rates, I would speak to quite a few professionals on this first, before then going out and buying something, as an off the shelf kit probably wont do due to the way the weight has moved in your car.
2. Move the weight forward with things like the rads, tank and battery, but try and get them as low as possible in the car, so you can keep the centre of gravity as low as possible.
Good luck with it, there seems to be a lot of contention when it comes to cars like this!
Rich
1. Spring rates, I would speak to quite a few professionals on this first, before then going out and buying something, as an off the shelf kit probably wont do due to the way the weight has moved in your car.
2. Move the weight forward with things like the rads, tank and battery, but try and get them as low as possible in the car, so you can keep the centre of gravity as low as possible.
Good luck with it, there seems to be a lot of contention when it comes to cars like this!
Rich
10-08-2010, 01:25 PM
#24
10K+ Poster!!
Nice car! Definately a bit different.
10-08-2010, 03:38 PM
#31
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
that really looks cracking
have to admit i am no CVH fan but a turbo zetec swap at a later date should be no probs when the cvh has gone bang
have to admit i am no CVH fan but a turbo zetec swap at a later date should be no probs when the cvh has gone bang
10-08-2010, 03:42 PM
#33
THIS isn't a video of your car is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-hV5...eature=related
10-08-2010, 03:47 PM
#34
I have all my engine and running gear from my series 1 cab to go in ;
cvh,
newman ph4 cam
double valve springs
big valve head
ported/gasflowed
standard ford gasket
wossner forged pistons
farndon steel rods
ap 4 paddle
cts stage 2+ box
803's
cossie managment
p8 anti-lag
coilpack
28psi and making just under 280bhp.
so good enough for now
cvh,
newman ph4 cam
double valve springs
big valve head
ported/gasflowed
standard ford gasket
wossner forged pistons
farndon steel rods
ap 4 paddle
cts stage 2+ box
803's
cossie managment
p8 anti-lag
coilpack
28psi and making just under 280bhp.
so good enough for now
Last edited by s1cab; 10-08-2010 at 03:49 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
