Ford Focus V8

[InitialDave]

I don't think you can avoid a Q plate once you alter the chassis/bodyshell. The points system requires that some of those points come from an unmodified original or new standard one, yes?

Though I'm not sure it's that much of an issue, a Q plate still looks a bit "odd", but it shouldn't especially mean anything with an extensively modified car that's largely being built for the fun of it.

I don't see anything you're doing as being a insurmountable barrier to the car getting through an IVA, but it is a good idea to always have what regulations you'll be tested against at the back of your mind when you're doing the work, it's very annoying doing jobs twice because you missed something, and even if you're not intending to use the car on the road, being able to would probably be beneficial (plus is it a requirement that cars be road legal on track days anyway?)

So I'd say crack on with it, it seems like a fun idea, but do check the IVA stuff as you go along to ensure you don't paint yourself into a corner with anything.

[Jaffman]

Yeah I doubt this would get an age related plate if it had an IVA I think it would only retain about 2 points anyway

[CAPP0]

Sorry that my friendly chat about the joys of tinkering with old knockers set off such a tirade of interference! I'm clearly doing something wrong having failed to rebuild mine from a pile of nuts & bolts one day between breakfast and lunch

I'll be watching the thread progress OP, you never know you might have it done before I finish mine!

[Jaffman]

CAPP0 said:

Sorry that my friendly chat about the joys of tinkering with old knockers set off such a tirade of interference! I'm clearly doing something wrong having failed to rebuild mine from a pile of nuts & bolts one day between breakfast and lunch

I'll be watching the thread progress OP, you never know you might have it done before I finish mine!

I wouldn’t bank on it - I’m notoriously lazy lol.

Hoping to get it started and maybe moving by Xmas though so fingers crossed

[Blanco92]

Intrigued. Good luck with the build. Looking forward to seeing the finished article; on or off road!

[BEN99W]

Blimey, some real fun sponges here. Hopefully PH rules will policies will extend to editing out non-entertaining content too.

Keep up the good work OP, it makes the world a more interesting place and whatever the outcome you'll have an intriguing life experience.

Also, the whole time I have been reading this thread, I've had a nagging recollection from some dim and distant car mag about the mk1 focus originally being engineered to take rear wheel drive and that parts to enable the conversion, complete with a crate V8 engine were available from Ford in the US. Anyone else recall? I further remember it was in part because Ford weren't sure which direction a future RS model would go. Does the Focus have a transmission tunnel?

[C70R]

Max_Torque said:

Truth hurts eh........

You're usually a very helpful and informative poster.

You're coming across as a complete d!ck here though.

[Tommie38]

Brilliant thread OP. Please do continue to share.

[Jaffman]

BEN99W said:

Blimey, some real fun sponges here. Hopefully PH rules will policies will extend to editing out non-entertaining content too.

Keep up the good work OP, it makes the world a more interesting place and whatever the outcome you'll have an intriguing life experience.

Also, the whole time I have been reading this thread, I've had a nagging recollection from some dim and distant car mag about the mk1 focus originally being engineered to take rear wheel drive and that parts to enable the conversion, complete with a crate V8 engine were available from Ford in the US. Anyone else recall? I further remember it was in part because Ford weren't sure which direction a future RS model would go. Does the Focus have a transmission tunnel?

You are correct, there’s quite a large tunnel for what is a FWD car. The focus was rallied too so I have no doubt the car was built with 4WD in mind and they ended up just not doing it.

Yes there are kits, kugel components in the US sell them but I think the total cost comes out at over $25k which goes beyond my little garage hobby lol. It’s also a bit primitive for my liking with a solid rear axle from a mustang being used and an old school pushrod engine. I wanted to go more in the direction of independent rear suspension and a more modern engine like the 1uz with dual overhead cam, 6 bolt mains etc.

I originally was looking at bmw engines but they were over £2k just for the engine. I got the whole Lexus for £400 so that won me over lol.

I was also chatting to a mate the other day and worked out that I have about £800 in “lost” money in this project currently. That is £800 that I’ve spent and won’t be able to recoup. Not bad I thought

[Fastdruid]

Certainly easier if there is an AWD version available on the same platform for a different model.

I don't believe the C170 platform ever had any models with AWD (although I may be wrong!)

That is where (very slightly) newer focus would be easier.

The 2004+ Focus uses the C1 platform which means the AWD rear off the V70 or the Kuga bolts straight on (or nearly so!) to those.

[Jaffman]

Fastdruid said:

Certainly easier if there is an AWD version available on the same platform for a different model.

I don't believe the C170 platform ever had any models with AWD (although I may be wrong!)

That is where (very slightly) newer focus would be easier.

The 2004+ Focus uses the C1 platform which means the AWD rear off the V70 or the Kuga bolts straight on (or nearly so!) to those.

Indeed - had I wanted to spend a little more money I would have opted for a mk2 ST, although I still think it would require some tunnel changes, and chucked a kuga rear end on it. That has however been done previously although not with a V8 as far as I’m aware.

Plus where the challenge there?! Lol

Having said that I’m getting sick of the rear subframe at the moment. I’m 90% done with the rear end but that last 10% means getting it lined up properly and it’s driving me mad

[agent006]

C70R said:

You're coming across as a complete d!ck here though.

Only here? He's like it wherever he goes on here and it undermines the enormous wealth of knowledge he has. He's clearly a very good engineer with a vast amount of experience, which is all the more of a shame that he can't help getting so worked up about things.

[DanielSan]

agent006 said:

C70R said:

You're coming across as a complete d!ck here though.

Only here? He's like it wherever he goes on here and it undermines the enormous wealth of knowledge he has. He's clearly a very good engineer with a vast amount of experience, which is all the more of a shame that he can't help getting so worked up about things.

It's rare for a know it all to actually have knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge or not that type of person is still a regardless. If they went round talking to people like that when they weren't behind a keyboard it wouldn't be long before someone smacked them in the gob.

[Fastdruid]

Jaffman said:

Indeed - had I wanted to spend a little more money I would have opted for a mk2 ST

I think I'd personally have started with the base model with the lowest VED! Take advantage that VED doesn't change with engine swaps....and then if it works out get an ST with a trashed engine and swap all the interior and body bits over.

[Jaffman]

Fastdruid said:

I think I'd personally have started with the base model with the lowest VED! Take advantage that VED doesn't change with engine swaps....and then if it works out get an ST with a trashed engine and swap all the interior and body bits over.

I’m not one to really be bothered about a once a year cost. The clk is best part of £600 so saving a little money every year doesn’t seem worth the effort of doing all of that.

[croyde]

Replied to bookmark and to say well done. Love threads like these.

There's a guy on a Mustang group putting a S197 dash and central console into a '88 Fox body.

Some say what's the point, I say, if you have the skills, do it.

Looking forward to updates OP.

[anonymous-user]

DanielSan said:

agent006 said:

C70R said:

You're coming across as a complete d!ck here though.

Only here? He's like it wherever he goes on here and it undermines the enormous wealth of knowledge he has. He's clearly a very good engineer with a vast amount of experience, which is all the more of a shame that he can't help getting so worked up about things.

It's rare for a know it all to actually have knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge or not that type of person is still a regardless. If they went round talking to people like that when they weren't behind a keyboard it wouldn't be long before someone smacked them in the gob.

anyone else want to stick their oar in?

and yet, guess what, i'm not "smacked in the gob" very often (actually, never). People listen when i speak about cars, and that's because i know what i'm talking about and have the reputation to back it up. On forums, where everyone is a "expert via google" loads of people like yourself think you are more knowledgeable that they actually are. These people tend to fall short in the real world, the sort of person who are poor at putting across their point, cannot back that point up with any actual science, and then, just as you have, resorts to personal insults in order to try and save face"

Lets summarise this build thread, using actual quotes shall we:

The OP, quite clearly from the language they used did not fully understand their legal obligations as to the requirement to IVA a car that has had modifications to the unibody, namely:

jaffman said:

The boot floor was also cut out due to rot which I have no problem replacing with a flat floor panel. If that was the only thing I had changed I’d not tell anyone either. Risk/reward and all that

Another poster pointed out they had put a v8 in a defender, but failed to point out that a defender is a non structural body on a ladder chassis, and that a V8 defender is a model actually sold by the OE, hence it's both legal and easy to V8 swap a defender in a way that is simply not comparable with chopping up a unibody car to do the same.

at which point i said:

MaxTorque said:

Please understand that a Landrover 90 has a non-structural body mounted on a seperate ladder frame chassis. This makes it very different to your Focus

and

MaxTorque said:

You, as a private individual are legally obliged (if you want to use the car in the road, and fair enough you haven't said you will be) to get your car IVA tested if you cut or modify the unibody of it in any significant way. "in any significant way" means you would need to be able to prove, using engineering fact (ie a qualified engineer report) that your modifications have or have not in any way changed the strength, stiffness or load paths of the vehicle structure. From the pictures you have already posted, it's clear that your cuts have already more than passed the point that your changed would be considered "significant".

I said and clarified several times, that i fully support his project, but only if it were to be done legally. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the OP took my advice as criticism, because that advice differed from the path they had already made up their mind on.

jaffman said:

I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to achieve here. I understand what is required if I need to make the car road legal, I’ve explained the pictures make it look worse than it is. In its current state I could get standard non rotting inner arches and weld them back in along with a flat boot floor and nobody would know any different. I take your point with the tunnel - not knowing about land rovers it didn’t seem that such a throwaway comment would be taken so seriously.

Again, clearly the OP is under the missapprehension that they can modify the structure of a unibody car, in this case the boot floor (which is an integral part of the rear crash structure on a modern car) and avoid having to get the car IVA'd.

They used the phrase "nobody would know any different". to which i replied:

MaxTorque said:

you CANNOT just weld in a flat boot floor and remain legal. "nobody knowing any different" is not a legally robust defence. An engineers report (such as that carried out by the police/insurance company should your vehicle be involved in an accident......) would clearly spot the fact you have added non standard suspension, subframe and modified the unibody to accept those changes.

The OP replied:

jaffman said:

Dude, it was clear when I first said if it needs to be road legal then I know what is required.
I don’t understand why you continue to labour the same point.

When it was quite clear they did not in fact know what is required (the suggestion that you could "weld in a plate and nobody would know the difference")


They went on to say:

jaffman said:

I am well aware of unibody chassis and how they are built and why they are built and how they are made structurally sound.

to which i replied:

MaxTorque said:

And your qualification or demonstrable competence in structural engineering is?

Yes, i'm playing devils advocate, and you don't like that, but compared to standing up in front of an actual advocate accused of manslaughter, i'm an easy listener.......

You'll note i even put in the point that i was playing devils advocate, but that the reason for that is the seriousness of the situation, with regard to both their safety, their financial obligations and the safety of others.


At that point, the OP got all stroppy, called themselves a "chimp", and because i had not given them anywhere to hide, they couldn't bulls*it there way though any more, and rather than acknowledge the truth of the situation, they did that modern thing of doubling down rather than admitting they needed to do a bit more research and investigate what actually was required for them to build this car.

Despite this, i said:

MaxTorque said:

I have never called you a chimp. Plenty of people weld stuff together in our sheds and garages. However, just because you or i think we know what we are doing, does not mean we do, which is why we have a system such as the IVA test, that acts as a final, independent arbiter to our work. My car has a heavily modified unibody. I'm a automotive engineer with 25 years of direct experience in the design and development of passenger cars. I have done FEA and ADAMS simulations and stress calculations to back up my modifications, and yet, yes, my car was required to be IVA'd by the independent body of our department of transport. I had to provide an second independent engineers report on my car despite my specific knowledge and skill. This is how it should be. I just like you, am not above the law.


I'm not derailing your thread. Your thread is about a "Ford Focus V8" and as Ford never built this car, a suitable level of engineering, fabrication and yes, the necessity of an IVA test to validate that work is in fact central to this thread.

So, go ahead, build your car, get it suitably tested and registered and i'll be first in line to shake your hand, pat you on the back and tell you "epic job dude" !!! :-)

In summary, so you think i'm a know-it-all, well good for you, guess what, i am, and i have the skill, experience and history to back it up. The law that relates to modified vehicles is quite clear and applies to us all. It doesn't matter your skills, your knowledge (or ignorance) it applies unconditionally.
If you don't like it, write to your MP. The good news is, that we actually have a system to allow people like the OP to build one-off specials such as this car. Be thankful that is case, if people abuse the system, chances are it will simply be banned lock-stock.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 9th November 14:04

[Monkeylegend]

Max_Torque said:

DanielSan said:

agent006 said:

C70R said:

You're coming across as a complete d!ck here though.

Only here? He's like it wherever he goes on here and it undermines the enormous wealth of knowledge he has. He's clearly a very good engineer with a vast amount of experience, which is all the more of a shame that he can't help getting so worked up about things.

It's rare for a know it all to actually have knowledge. Unfortunately knowledge or not that type of person is still a regardless. If they went round talking to people like that when they weren't behind a keyboard it wouldn't be long before someone smacked them in the gob.

anyone else want to stick their oar in?

and yet, guess what, i'm not "smacked in the gob" very often (actually, never). People listen when i speak about cars, and that's because i know what i'm talking about and have the reputation to back it up. On forums, where everyone is a "expert via google" loads of people like yourself think you are more knowledgeable that they actually are. These people tend to fall short in the real world, the sort of person who are poor at putting across their point, cannot back that point up with any actual science, and then, just as you have, resorts to personal insults in order to try and save face"

Lets summarise this build thread, using actual quotes shall we:

The OP, quite clearly from the language they used did not fully understand their legal obligations as to the requirement to IVA a car that has had modifications to the unibody, namely:

jaffman said:

The boot floor was also cut out due to rot which I have no problem replacing with a flat floor panel. If that was the only thing I had changed I’d not tell anyone either. Risk/reward and all that

Another poster pointed out they had put a v8 in a defender, but failed to point out that a defender is a non structural body on a ladder chassis, and that a V8 defender is a model actually sold by the OE, hence it's both legal and easy to V8 swap a defender in a way that is simply not comparable with chopping up a unibody car to do the same.

at which point i said:

MaxTorque said:

Please understand that a Landrover 90 has a non-structural body mounted on a seperate ladder frame chassis. This makes it very different to your Focus

and

MaxTorque said:

You, as a private individual are legally obliged (if you want to use the car in the road, and fair enough you haven't said you will be) to get your car IVA tested if you cut or modify the unibody of it in any significant way. "in any significant way" means you would need to be able to prove, using engineering fact (ie a qualified engineer report) that your modifications have or have not in any way changed the strength, stiffness or load paths of the vehicle structure. From the pictures you have already posted, it's clear that your cuts have already more than passed the point that your changed would be considered "significant".

I said and clarified several times, that i fully support his project, but only if it were to be done legally. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the OP took my advice as criticism, because that advice differed from the path they had already made up their mind on.

jaffman said:

I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to achieve here. I understand what is required if I need to make the car road legal, I’ve explained the pictures make it look worse than it is. In its current state I could get standard non rotting inner arches and weld them back in along with a flat boot floor and nobody would know any different. I take your point with the tunnel - not knowing about land rovers it didn’t seem that such a throwaway comment would be taken so seriously.

Again, clearly the OP is under the missapprehension that they can modify the structure of a unibody car, in this case the boot floor (which is an integral part of the rear crash structure on a modern car) and avoid having to get the car IVA'd.

They used the phrase "nobody would know any different". to which i replied:

MaxTorque said:

you CANNOT just weld in a flat boot floor and remain legal. "nobody knowing any different" is not a legally robust defence. An engineers report (such as that carried out by the police/insurance company should your vehicle be involved in an accident......) would clearly spot the fact you have added non standard suspension, subframe and modified the unibody to accept those changes.

The OP replied:

jaffman said:

Dude, it was clear when I first said if it needs to be road legal then I know what is required.
I don’t understand why you continue to labour the same point.

When it was quite clear they did not in fact know what is required (the suggestion that you could "weld in a plate and nobody would know the difference")


They went on to say:

jaffman said:

I am well aware of unibody chassis and how they are built and why they are built and how they are made structurally sound.

to which i replied:

MaxTorque said:

And your qualification or demonstrable competence in structural engineering is?

Yes, i'm playing devils advocate, and you don't like that, but compared to standing up in front of an actual advocate accused of manslaughter, i'm an easy listener.......

You'll note i even put in the point that i was playing devils advocate, but that the reason for that is the seriousness of the situation, with regard to both their safety, their financial obligations and the safety of others.


At that point, the OP got all stroppy, called themselves a "chimp", and because i had not given them anywhere to hide, they couldn't bulls*it there way though any more, and rather than acknowledge the truth of the situation, they did that modern thing of doubling down rather than admitting they needed to do a bit more research and investigate what actually was required for them to build this car.

Despite this, i said:

MaxTorque said:

I have never called you a chimp. Plenty of people weld stuff together in our sheds and garages. However, just because you or i think we know what we are doing, does not mean we do, which is why we have a system such as the IVA test, that acts as a final, independent arbiter to our work. My car has a heavily modified unibody. I'm a automotive engineer with 25 years of direct experience in the design and development of passenger cars. I have done FEA and ADAMS simulations and stress calculations to back up my modifications, and yet, yes, my car was required to be IVA'd by the independent body of our department of transport. I had to provide an second independent engineers report on my car despite my specific knowledge and skill. This is how it should be. I just like you, am not above the law.


I'm not derailing your thread. Your thread is about a "Ford Focus V8" and as Ford never built this car, a suitable level of engineering, fabrication and yes, the necessity of an IVA test to validate that work is in fact central to this thread.

So, go ahead, build your car, get it suitably tested and registered and i'll be first in line to shake your hand, pat you on the back and tell you "epic job dude" !!! :-)

In summary, so you think i'm a know-it-all, well good for you, guess what, i am, and i have the skill, experience and history to back it up. The law that relates to modified vehicles is quite clear and applies to us all. It doesn't matter your skills, your knowledge (or ignorance) it applies unconditionally.
If you don't like it, write to your MP. The good news is, that we actually have a system to allow people like the OP to build one-off specials such as this car. Be thankful that is case, if people abuse the system, chances are it will simply be banned lock-stock.

Edited by Max_Torque on Saturday 9th November 14:04

I got as far as "anyone else" then gave up.

I prefer to read OP's posts and look forward to him keeping us updated.

Hopefully Max Torque will change his name to No More Torque on this thread.

[DanielSan]

If only.

[anonymous-user]

And we are now down into the insults. I'll not be joining in with the name calling, as the facts stand for themselves.