Dreamspeed sums up my thoughts to a tee. When discussing practicality, I don't think anyone's suggesting OEM levels of refinement - just somewhere to put things is a good start. Nor does it need to be a four door saloon. I think back to driving around in my Nova - cash and carry runs, fortnightly trips from Surrey to Cornwall and back, 2 hours commuting each day come rain, sun or snow. Not sure I'd fancy doing that in a Caterfield - which is absolutely superb at what it does, but 'practicality' really isn't one of those things.

Another car that attracted me, and I nearly purchased, was a very lotus-esque mid engined two seater hardtop based on the Mk2 Golf. I can't for the life of me recall its name, but it was developed by a couple of chaps down in Ringwood, Hampshire. A desperately pretty little car, with a very cohesive design as I recall and relatively inexpensive. Not sure whatever came of that. Again, for a kit it would have been very practical, with a solid reliable donor vehicle as a base, and with enough performance coupled with light weight to be more than enough fun on public roads. Perhaps its trouble was that it ended up as an alternative Elise, which is fine until second hand Elises appear on the market - then you really are in direct competition.

Quantum cars were popular back then as well as an alternative to mainstream manufacturers, offering a car that could be used day to day. Their styling was cohesive, but lacked the wow factor which I think ultimately sealed their fate as mainstream cars improved.

There must still be a demand for the lightweight GT, a la TVR that's properly styled. Is part of the problem that those inclined to create a new kit approach it from an engineering perspective rather than an artistic one. That maximum effort is spent on chassis and suspension, and the bodywork is an inconvenient problem to be solved later. If you go for the stripped down track car then you need not worry about bodywork at all - bonus.

Given the minimal cost of paper, pens and clay, establish the fixed points and sketch out design after design around them until you get one that works - surely the better starting point for any kit? Then make a small scale clay model. If the design isn't working then start again. But until then there's no point building a chassis because people won't spend their hard earned on something that looks unpleasing to the eye unless it's a) cheap and b) very very quick (which is hard to achieve at the same time).

Access to quality components must be considered a serious issue.

The monroe strut could be lost if a top wishbone and hub carrier were available.

I like the idea of the Golf for its robustness and availability, low prices for the donor and parts, and a wide range of engines. What I'd be hesitant about is the drivetrain layout meaning you either go FE/FWD which puts it up against all the existing hot hatches (not to mention problems with bulky front end styling), or mount it in the back for RWD, with the "race car for the road" implications and expectations, and packaging issues. I'm also not convinced that engines below the V6 would be different enough from the mainstream and lightweight kits to offer something new.

Whilst those that can appreciate the difference between a kit based on a particular platform, and the original car in terms of dynamics, are still many (hopefully), for a kit to appeal to a wider audience I think the donor vehicle needs a certain kudos in the first place since people are no longer looking to build a kit from the terminally rusted but mechanically sound family car as was the case in the past.

As a layout, the mid-front engine rear wheel drive concept has a lot going for it, coupled with the marketing aspect of the donor vehicle base suggests BMW or Jaguar as donors - the former for it's driving dynamics marketing, the latter for its British association. Both have plenty of large engines available with impressive bhp in standard states of tune, and even diesels.

Just my opinion of course, but small engine + light weight already has plenty of choice for the kit builder.

I agree with everything you mentioned here. Although the Golf it’s self is a quality car, and I fully rate the 3.2 V6 (shared with Audi) I do understand the limitations of a transverse layout, and as you say it’s pretty similar to a hot hatch, but if you take a look at the Golfs “uncle” the A6 you’ll find an in-line front mounted, front wheel drive layout, perfect to be lifted out in one piece and dropped behind the driver for a mid-engined layout.

The VR6 engine could be turned 90 degrees and fitted to the Audi transverse gearbox, if you didn’t want to keep the original donor Audi unit.

Like you say, years ago you bought an old rust bucket and stripped it of its parts, today you can buy perfectly fine German/Japanese/British large luxury cars for next to nothing; even selling on body panels you don’t need for the kit.

I agree, there are plenty of small, lightweight cars already, let’s do something with a big powerful V6 or V8?

The tub would have to have a minimum spec, so that driving the family around with luggage was a build option, all the way up to can't get in easily because of the door bars and six point harness.




The subframes would be bolted not welded as in the photo.
This would make the build modular.

Not if you want a practical road car, surely. Not since Westfield realised they didn't know how to build the Libra.

In which case, perhaps the centre tub could even be a composite monocoque?



Yes - small, lightweight and practical aren't natural bedfellows. It's noticeable that as the kit car industry chases lightness, everyday useability has all but disappeared (with the exception of some particularly hardy individuals).

I like the idea of the Brit-flame. Granted, the Evora springs to mind but that'd be the only other 2+2 mid engine V6 coupe, so hardly a crowded market. It'd be necessary to distinguish them apart however to avoid the "cheap Evora" label. Perhaps 4 pot options later using 1point7bar's modular idea.

V8 Brit-fire sounds spot on still, in the spirit of TVR.

The prices appear reasonable, and I'm sure achievable.

A good quality build manual and parts list, yes definitely. Not 100% on the tool kit mind - perhaps a list of tools then people can source them wherever they wish, new or secondhand. I wouldn't want to be wasting time and money dealing with tool replacements when someone uses a screwdriver as a pry bar, etc.

Design them for the road rather than the race track, with practicality and useability and we'd be onto a winner (or two).

V12 Brit-inferno anyone?

The shearplate is for structural improvement in chassis shear.

It is a convenient design efficiency to use a shearplate across the front of the engine behind the pulleys also, to mount it as a rigid member. The suspension in such a machine is spherical brgs, so road miles are unrealistic.

The wheelbase and thus the silhouette remain a constant so changing body panels is unnecessary.
Obviously different cooling and induction systems need different ducting under the panels, but this is a kitcar.

I was talking about families and luggage.

Road cars do not use spherical brgs instead of wishbone bushes.

Have you driven any distance on bumpy roads without rubber bushes?