540HP NA 7L V12 3 seater
Discussion
3D print of nose at 1/10 scale has turned out good, surfacing is as desired. Wall thickness has to be exagerated otherwise the parts risk misprinting.
1/10 scale door skin.
Going to focus on chassis detailing for the next couple of weeks - got some MDF today for the cabin mock up but my carpentry skills will get stretched.
1/10 scale door skin.
Going to focus on chassis detailing for the next couple of weeks - got some MDF today for the cabin mock up but my carpentry skills will get stretched.
Edited by F1natic on Sunday 25th August 09:56
RoverP6B said:
There is such a thing as an LS V12...
I don't know about you guys but USD$45K is out of my reality - crazy aussies. My plug and play V6's are currently NZD$850+ tax each = 520 GBP. The transmission and 3.42 ratio diff (rear carrier) can be bought NEW from GM for $USD 5,500 = 4,450 GBP - can't get a used porsche G50 for that as far as I have seen.
Low miles used C6 transaxles are averaging USD $3,850 = 3,135 GBP.
The Tbox is the key, and thats where I have my IP.
Because the whole rear section will drop out on a subframe I have a few options once the chassis is rolling;
1) a race spec setup - 2 dry sumped J37's
2) road car setup with the 2 stock J35's
3) fully electric for the near future when Tesla motor and battery packs are cheap enough secondhand
4) fallback position of a single V6 bolted direct onto the transaxle - twin turboed to get the power up (as per AR35TT setup) - if the Tbox is a failure
obtaining a v12 bmw engine from a 7 series must be cheaper and easier than the engineering to combine two v6’s?
Edit - some poolside googling;
complete 760’s are in the 8k + range in uk and nz
but n72 v12’s are on ebay in europe for less than £2k, which is pretty good compared to what people here pay for rover v8’s and chevy LS engines.
jag v12’s are probably even cheaper - but it’s not the right engine for the job.
Edit - some poolside googling;
complete 760’s are in the 8k + range in uk and nz
but n72 v12’s are on ebay in europe for less than £2k, which is pretty good compared to what people here pay for rover v8’s and chevy LS engines.
jag v12’s are probably even cheaper - but it’s not the right engine for the job.
Edited by eliot on Monday 26th August 01:05
Why do people keep suggesting traditional engines?
The OP has explained numerous times that in order to keep with the F1 datum points any such engine would need McLaren’s unique transverse gearbox.
Before saying “I’d fit a V...” come up with a unique gearbox to make it work
OP, did you find the answer to the cut outs above the headlights?
The OP has explained numerous times that in order to keep with the F1 datum points any such engine would need McLaren’s unique transverse gearbox.
Before saying “I’d fit a V...” come up with a unique gearbox to make it work
OP, did you find the answer to the cut outs above the headlights?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Why do people keep suggesting traditional engines?
The OP has explained numerous times that in order to keep with the F1 datum points any such engine would need McLaren’s unique transverse gearbox.
Before saying “I’d fit a V...” come up with a unique gearbox to make it work
OP, did you find the answer to the cut outs above the headlights?
I reckon its because they don't like marmite! Or that we are all so used to seeing a certain setup that radical alternatives are viewed with great suspicion, and fair enough too, I've specifically put a weak link in the chain that will fail first - i.e. the dual mass flywheels are not reknowned for durability but if they take the beating and insulate my expensive custom made gears in the Tbox and also the ones in the transaxle then I am OK with that. Even Mclaren took a few attempts with some pretty experienced companies to get the transverse gear box sorted - I don't have their budget so my solution is really just a big lego set.The OP has explained numerous times that in order to keep with the F1 datum points any such engine would need McLaren’s unique transverse gearbox.
Before saying “I’d fit a V...” come up with a unique gearbox to make it work
OP, did you find the answer to the cut outs above the headlights?
One big benefit I see of splitting the full crankshaft power between the 2 engines is each clutch can be a lighter - a sport clutch will be all that is needed - I am intending to go through a few of them so ideally they should be cheap.
One benefit that I haven't discussed is the right angle drive in the Tbox allows me to set the engine crank centerline at an offset to the trans input axis - by using a hypoid gear set (like in a normal diff). The race version can therefore have a lower COG due to the drysumped engines being able to be dropped a few inches. The first powerplant will be road focused and used for testing the Tbox durability so engines will be stock initially.
I have not had a reply yet on the headlight eyebrow panels - refer my post in the epic Flemke Vol 5. I really don't see any reason for them to be there??
eliot said:
Well i wish you the best of luck sir, but i feel the engineering and available budget will see this become another rusty part-finished project on ebay in a couple of years.
Yes indeed, that's one of my fears too. Hence my strategy of multiple options on the powerplants. All the effort I put into the bodywork is independant of the powerplant. The twin v6 is an option nobody in industry would sanction, it adds too much weight and complexity to the package for little gain. But my budget dictates a few tradeoffs and unconventional options - I don't mind trying it because I have a foundry and machine shop to hand and I am OK with failure. The "only" unconventional parts are a 3 piece gear set and their housing and a custom steering rack - the rest of the chassis is fairly much off the shelf parts that just need a little cunning to bind together. The body work is of course a much bigger deal but that comes after I am out having fun on the track. Once the demonstrator is proven I think the rest will fall into place, people can be very supportive here in NZ once you are past the "dreamer" stage.
The driveable chassis will be very similar to one of my sources of inspiration;
https://youtu.be/6a1Gsjt92Do
Olivera said:
Extending the dimensions by a few cm here or there is infinitely easier than trying to engineer a twin engine setup
I think it appropriate to make reference to the Artiplastzabrze effort - not a bad effort but even minor changes make a big difference to the aerodynamics, I am not sure I would attempt 200mph in one of those.The supercars world is littered with failed attempts, a good example is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTT_Pléthore
They bolted a V8 onto the end of the same transaxle so resulting wheelbase forced bodywork to follow.
Classic styling has to follow the underpinnings, when form follows function you get a true design purpose, rather than a fashion statement.
Surely the sensible money has to be on using an existing proven transmission and one engine? The Ricardo 6-speed transaxle has been used with both the 5.4 Modular V8 in the Ford GT and an LSX derivative in the Hennessey Venom. The twin-engine idea sounds like it's asking for trouble in terms of mechanical fragility.
Have you considered an F355 gearbox? They are transverse, not crazy money in the scheme of things, and would bring the complexity and lead time down a great deal I imagine. I don't know what sort of power they can handle or if the ratios are suitable for your application, but as you are looking into having custom gears machined anyway it might be worth a punt.
If you're at all thinking about commercialising the project, getting a 348/Mondial T (5 speed) 'box and a single V6 would probably not be a bad way to get an MVP. But hey, I'm a first time poster and not an engineer, so what do I know
If you're at all thinking about commercialising the project, getting a 348/Mondial T (5 speed) 'box and a single V6 would probably not be a bad way to get an MVP. But hey, I'm a first time poster and not an engineer, so what do I know
Olivera said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Why do people keep suggesting traditional engines?
Extending the dimensions by a few cm here or there is infinitely easier than trying to engineer a twin engine setup I think the reason why people are suggesting a stock engine is to remove an area of easy failure to the project...just getting the body panels, suspension and doors is challenge enough and we want it to succeed.
AMG v12 or supercharged v8 would be on my radar too.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff