LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently July 18, 2018, 9:51 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 387 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: November 27, 2017, 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 22, 2005, 8:12 am
Posts: 1459
Location: 4AGE in S.E. Michigan
Before you invest time and money for a fully enclosed cabin, I think you should consider how much noise there is inside a typical Seven cabin. I have foam panels in the footwells, tunnel and side. But it still sounds like you are riding inside a tin can full of ball bearings spinning around. The only good thing is that the defrosters actually work. If you go forward, you need lots of sound damping material. Dave W


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 27, 2017, 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 20, 2010, 7:56 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Warrenton, Virginia
davew,
Thanks for the heads up. I'll consider myself lucky that the build is not to far along to add insulation / sound deadening material.
The article in the register for the 1962 Lotus 7 hard top also mentions the smell of hot oil, exhaust fumes, and hot fiberglass.
I've visited a few of the Caterham kit build sites that show how they approach those issues. I sure wouldn't want all that extra racket to interfere with the sound of a well tuned exhaust system.
I better start thinking in terms of carpet while I'm at it.
Ron

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 27, 2017, 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 24, 2007, 5:11 am
Posts: 742
Location: Seattle area
Have you seen Gale and Lana Newlin's Stalker Coupe?

http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery ... emId=23737

Very nicely done.

_________________
Larry in Seattle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 27, 2017, 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 5, 2016, 7:03 am
Posts: 197
Location: ontario
STranger 7 wrote:
davew,
Thanks for the heads up. I'll consider myself lucky that the build is not to far along to add insulation / sound deadening material.
The article in the register for the 1962 Lotus 7 hard top also mentions the smell of hot oil, exhaust fumes, and hot fiberglass.
I've visited a few of the Caterham kit build sites that show how they approach those issues. I sure wouldn't want all that extra racket to interfere with the sound of a well tuned exhaust system.
I better start thinking in terms of carpet while I'm at it.
Ron



I too am building a coupe seven (mine is a rear engine) as my second seven build.

I am in the middle of making the roof and the doors. You can see pictures in the exterior section ( under phil) or in the non conventional sevens section . My build is GM corvair powered. I have used for the roof the conventional fiberglass over balsa wood technique which does not seem to be too complicated. The web offers youtubes etc of boat hull building projects that may be useful to you. My doors are made of a lamination of ply and aluminum.
I expect the sound level to be high. A bit like a small airplane. However I recommend to you to use airplane engine soundproofing material. Mostly high density black foam (about three quarter inches thick) as well as aluminum heat reflecting foils. I too thought of gull wing doors and I backed out. It makes the roof really difficult to fabricate because the car is so small. I also found that although they look good, on this small car they are less functional that ordinary doors. Try it for yourself when the chassis construction will be more advanced. It really takes a shoe horn to be in and out of this car.
Here below some pics. One is the alu doors being fabbed. The other one is the GF roof braced to be removed from the chassis for finishing (I.e it will be easier to finish the inside with the roof away from the chassis and working outside is a must). Prior to being removed the "shell" was bolted to the chassis so that when the time comes to put it back permanently it will still fit.
Good luck. :cheers:


Attachments:
DSC_0103.JPG
DSC_0103.JPG [ 608.57 KiB | Viewed 895 times ]
DSCN0007.JPG
DSCN0007.JPG [ 690.47 KiB | Viewed 895 times ]


Last edited by phil on November 28, 2017, 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 28, 2017, 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: March 30, 2011, 7:18 am
Posts: 1393
Location: central Arkansas
phil wrote:
I am also building a coupe seven (mine is a rear engine)


Wait, what? I thought you were going front-engine. I've seen a VW flat-four and at least two Subaru front engine builds, so I just assumed you were going the same route.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 28, 2017, 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: June 5, 2016, 7:03 am
Posts: 197
Location: ontario
TRX wrote:
phil wrote:
I am also building a coupe seven (mine is a rear engine)


Wait, what? I thought you were going front-engine. I've seen a VW flat-four and at least two Subaru front engine builds, so I just assumed you were going the same route.


Hi,

I may have thought of setting up the GM flat six in the front at some point but I changed my mind. Two reasons: 1) the complexity of bolting the Corvair engine to a non stock transmission. The unmodified Corvair engine rotation is opposite to all engines (except some Hondas). 2) the 1965 GM corvair package (engine, differential, transmission) rear independent suspension (same as Corvettes) is pretty good, why not use it. I should add a third reason too: I owned three rear drive cars in my life (Fiat 600, Simca-Chrysler something, Porsche Carrera) and I liked the rear wheel drive arrangement. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 28, 2017, 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: February 8, 2014, 10:47 pm
Posts: 489
Location: Cornholio OR "Where the magic happens"
Are you going to be able to get enough weight in the front of the locost to balance it?
That Corvair motor, trans, suspension, lump will probably weigh considerably more than the rest of the car.

With a front motored car the lump gets spread out between the axles.

With a sideways motor a good percentage of the lump is in front of the axle.
Fuel, battery, and radiator close to the front axle provides balance.

Food for thought, fuel for discussion?

_________________
Yaaaaaaay! The profile link is fixed!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 28, 2017, 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 20, 2010, 7:56 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Warrenton, Virginia
benny_toe,
That is a very nice build. Those galleries allow the builders to share a wealth of detail.

phil,
Thanks for the tips about fiberglass construction. I'm looking for all the information I can find.
Good luck with the Corvair build.
Ron

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 29, 2018, 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 20, 2010, 7:56 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Warrenton, Virginia
Minor update. I hope to pick up this Mustang II bell and trans next Saturday.
it appears to be damage free in the Craigs list pic.
Attachment:
00G0G_eW3qg8ABtqx_1200x900.jpg
00G0G_eW3qg8ABtqx_1200x900.jpg [ 138.5 KiB | Viewed 689 times ]

this is the bell housing used to put a T5 behind a Cologne V6 like mine.
Attachment:
DSC04420.jpg
DSC04420.jpg [ 138.85 KiB | Viewed 689 times ]

Using a T5 will make life easier all around.
Ron

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 29, 2018, 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 5, 2016, 7:03 am
Posts: 197
Location: ontario
Bent Wrench wrote:
Are you going to be able to get enough weight in the front of the locost to balance it?
That Corvair motor, trans, suspension, lump will probably weigh considerably more than the rest of the car.

With a front motored car the lump gets spread out between the axles.

With a sideways motor a good percentage of the lump is in front of the axle.
Fuel, battery, and radiator close to the front axle provides balance.

Food for thought, fuel for discussion?


Sorry to be so late. I missed your post.
The Corvair lump as you call it weighs about 300 lbs (according to GM). By all standards it is a light engine. The heavy part of the power plant is the transaxle differential, by definition situated where the rear axles are, just as in other rear power plants commonly referred to as middies. In the case of the Corvair the transmission is situated in front of the differential further contributing to moving the weight forward. My goal is to achieve a weight distribution comparable to Porsches.

On my build approximately 300 lbs hang behind the rear wheels. The 100 lbs differential is neutral. The 50 lbs transmission is in front of the diff. Altogether by design, the effective weight behind the rear wheels should be 250 lbs. Situated in the nose cone I placed a 45 lbs battery. Under the front hood I have a 45 lbs spare wheel and tanks will add about 45 lbs full.

The car weight will be between 1700 and 1800 lbs. I am building a touring car, not a racing car.

In designing my chassis I have moved the seats, steering wheel and and scuttle forward by about 12 inches. This I believe will contribute to a better weight distribution.
Thanks for you point. :cheers:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 8, 2018, 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 20, 2010, 7:56 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Warrenton, Virginia
Picked up the Mustang II bell housing.
Attachment:
MIIBandW,4speed,30inches2shifter.jpg
MIIBandW,4speed,30inches2shifter.jpg [ 139.83 KiB | Viewed 552 times ]

The M II used the same dia. 138 tooth fly wheel so I can use the Ranger starter, flywheel and pressure plate. The clutch disc will need to be custom made to fit the t5s 1 1/16 10T spline input shaft. the Ranger disc is 8 7/8" dia. 23T 1" shaft. The 1988 2.3L mustang uses a 8.5" 1 1/16 10T disc. The 3/8" difference in dia bothers me.
Also the 1994 mustang 3.8L t5 I have will need to have the input shaft turned down to fit the Ranger pilot bearing and the input bearing retainer needs to be slightly smaller to fit the M II bell opening.
Ron

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 8, 2018, 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 24, 2008, 2:13 pm
Posts: 3487
Location: Carlsbad, California, USA
STranger 7 wrote:
Picked up the Mustang II bell housing.

The M II used the same dia. 138 tooth fly wheel so I can use the Ranger starter, flywheel and pressure plate. The clutch disc will need to be custom made to fit the t5s 1 1/16 10T spline input shaft. the Ranger disc is 8 7/8" dia. 23T 1" shaft. The 1988 2.3L mustang uses a 8.5" 1 1/16 10T disc. The 3/8" difference in dia bothers me.
Also the 1994 mustang 3.8L t5 I have will need to have the input shaft turned down to fit the Ranger pilot bearing and the input bearing retainer needs to be slightly smaller to fit the M II bell opening.
Ron


Geeez Ron,

You left out the critical last step . . . . stand on your head and cluck like a chicken. :rofl:

You're definitely more adventurous mechanically than I am. Best of luck to you.

Cheers,

_________________
Damn! That front slip angle is way too large and the Ackerman is just a muddle.

Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5886


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 8, 2018, 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 20, 2010, 7:56 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Warrenton, Virginia
"cluck like a chicken"
Best of luck to you Lonnie.

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 14, 2018, 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19, 2009, 12:33 pm
Posts: 411
STranger 7 wrote:
Also the 1994 mustang 3.8L t5 I have will need to have the input shaft turned down to fit the Ranger pilot bearing


Wouldn't it be easier to get a piece of oil-impregnated bronze and have it turned to fit the Cologne crank and the T5 input shaft? This way you can still use standard T5 replacement parts. The 302 has both pilot bearings and bushings available, both are considered legitimate options.

_________________
Ford 5.0 into an M3
mikaelvroom.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: May 14, 2018, 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: March 30, 2011, 7:18 am
Posts: 1393
Location: central Arkansas
The bronze bushings work just fine and don't Brinnell the pilot section of the input shaft when they go bad. Actually, "go bad" is practically nonexistent for a bushing. There's almost no radial load on the bushing.

Other than a few bushings for ancient engines, needle rollers are the norm. But if you have an electric motor ship, starter/alternator rebuilder, etc. around, they might be able to fix you up. Worst case is you have to turn an adapter and press the bushing in with it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 387 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY