Discussion
Max_Torque said:
I'm all for this sort of project, but only when it's done properly (I'm not suggesting you aren't going to do it properly btw!)
Putting a V8 auto into a defender is nowhere near the same thing as cutting into a unibody, because you can of course buy a V8 defender from the factory. In fact, it can be done without cutting any metal at all, simply from the parts book! I've converted Tdi 90's into auto V8 in a weekend, it's easy, and simple
It's important to realise, that in the eyes of the law, there is an enormous difference between cutting out rotten metal, and replacing it with new metal in exactly the same shape and form in order to repair rust or crash damage, and cutting out and replacing it with completely different form material. In the first case, you are still relying on the original manufacturers design and load paths, in the second case, you are not. The IVA laws are clear, once you have cut the unibody, it's Q plate time if it needs to be road legal.
My comment was based on what the guy had said he had done, which is change the tunnel, which I have also done, and changed some suspension mounting points which depending on how fussy you want to be I have also done because the subframe has been mounted. So I wasn’t trying to imply that it was the same, just commenting that the work hats been done is similar.Putting a V8 auto into a defender is nowhere near the same thing as cutting into a unibody, because you can of course buy a V8 defender from the factory. In fact, it can be done without cutting any metal at all, simply from the parts book! I've converted Tdi 90's into auto V8 in a weekend, it's easy, and simple
It's important to realise, that in the eyes of the law, there is an enormous difference between cutting out rotten metal, and replacing it with new metal in exactly the same shape and form in order to repair rust or crash damage, and cutting out and replacing it with completely different form material. In the first case, you are still relying on the original manufacturers design and load paths, in the second case, you are not. The IVA laws are clear, once you have cut the unibody, it's Q plate time if it needs to be road legal.
I’m aware of what’s required to get this car road legal but last time I checked there was nothing illegal about me tinkering in the garage, which is all I’ve done so far. But of course the internet has to tell me what I’m doing wrong before I’ve even done it yet.
Again, the picture showing the rear of the car, the arches were rotten, they will be replaced by non rotten arches, maybe even non rotten standard focus arches. Depends how I feel and how much work is required. 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
trails said:
I rather liked the mkI Focus, was much more fun to drive than any other car in it’s class at that time...even with a cheap nasty interior 
Are you going to move the dash and bulkhead back to try and make it as front/mid as you can?
Even the relatively small weight difference between the old 1.8/2.0 zetec and 1.4/1.6 zetec se was noticeable in terms of handling.
Nope I wanted to keep the interior as standard as possible, less work on the tunnel, interior still fits, and it’s a nicer place to be than your generic track focus car that’s been stripped to within an inch of its life.Are you going to move the dash and bulkhead back to try and make it as front/mid as you can?
Even the relatively small weight difference between the old 1.8/2.0 zetec and 1.4/1.6 zetec se was noticeable in terms of handling.
Handling will be different on this one anyway due to the rear end but should be a dam site better than a solid axle.
Despite what people think about the focus it’s actually a really good car. Handles well, cheap to maintain, cheap to run (mostly). But at the end of the days it’s still a cheap hatchback so you’re not exactly going to have leather dashboards and exotic materials on it
stevemcs said:
Nice project, i see nothing wrong when people look at a Lexus V8 then look at at Focus and think, yeah that'll fit.
You should have used an estate body shell though
I used to have the new focus st estate - had 2 infact You should have used an estate body shell though
Fancied a normal hatch for this project. Plus an estate V8 has been done before in the same colour
Max_Torque 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, which has a Unibody design of structure, ie the body IS the structure. All parts of the chassis, even those that are just for beauty / shape carry loads. This means it has complex load paths,using thin sheets of metal, formed into complex shapes to provide stiffness and strength as necessary (and of course, softness and crushablity as well)
Changing the "tunnel" in a landrover to allow a v8 to be interested where a diesel previously resided, requires you to be able to use a socket set, and that's it. You unbolt the old tunnel, and bolt the V8 part in it's place. That part is a standard part, made by LR for the V8 defenders it certified and sold.
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".
To be clear, i'm not "down" in any way of people messing around in their garage building home made monsters out of left over cars, it's fun, and can result in amazing feats of "shed engineering". But it's important to realise our laws are very clear and concise on what actions you must take should you want to use such a vehicle on the road once you have carried out your mods
(PS be glad that thanks to the UKs long history of "shed engineering" by amateurs, our laws do actually have a valid route to allow vehicles like this to be used on the road. In many countries, it would simply be illegal!!)
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. Changing the "tunnel" in a landrover to allow a v8 to be interested where a diesel previously resided, requires you to be able to use a socket set, and that's it. You unbolt the old tunnel, and bolt the V8 part in it's place. That part is a standard part, made by LR for the V8 defenders it certified and sold.
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".
To be clear, i'm not "down" in any way of people messing around in their garage building home made monsters out of left over cars, it's fun, and can result in amazing feats of "shed engineering". But it's important to realise our laws are very clear and concise on what actions you must take should you want to use such a vehicle on the road once you have carried out your mods
(PS be glad that thanks to the UKs long history of "shed engineering" by amateurs, our laws do actually have a valid route to allow vehicles like this to be used on the road. In many countries, it would simply be illegal!!)
I hazard a guess that if the UK wasn’t so lenient with car modifications none of us would be as “into” cars as this forum seems to display, myself included. So we wouldn’t be having these pointless conversations over what I may or may not have to do when and or if this project works. We would be talking about how my custom built grandfather clock in the garage isn’t timed to a certain frequency and how it’s against the law to have it outside of defined parameters.
Max_Torque said:
You clearly don't understand, because 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.
Your picture:
clearly show a completely different damper/spring seat is required to attached the dampers for the new subframe (because the std focus is fwd, and uses short springs that sit between the lateral arms and the std subframe), therefore you cannot use "standard" inner arches, you will have to modify them to make the dampers fit. And it also shows the spring loads being applied to the chassis rails in a non standard position. In fact, just removing the spare wheel well (which is an integral part of the rear crash structure of a modern unibody) is enough to result in the need for an IVA. The subframe and diff also are significantly difference in terms of crush strength / stiffness to the original multilink suspension.
The Law might seem like a PITA, but it's actually there to protect you as an amateur builder as much as it protects the general public.....
Dude, it was clear when I first said if it needs to be road legal then I know what is required.Your picture:
clearly show a completely different damper/spring seat is required to attached the dampers for the new subframe (because the std focus is fwd, and uses short springs that sit between the lateral arms and the std subframe), therefore you cannot use "standard" inner arches, you will have to modify them to make the dampers fit. And it also shows the spring loads being applied to the chassis rails in a non standard position. In fact, just removing the spare wheel well (which is an integral part of the rear crash structure of a modern unibody) is enough to result in the need for an IVA. The subframe and diff also are significantly difference in terms of crush strength / stiffness to the original multilink suspension.
The Law might seem like a PITA, but it's actually there to protect you as an amateur builder as much as it protects the general public.....
I don’t understand why you continue to labour the same point.
I am well aware of unibody chassis and how they are built and why they are built and how they are made structurally sound. Not that it makes any difference because I’ve already cut the f
king thing apart before it fell apart. You can harp on about the law, make assumptions, call me out all you like. So far I have done nothing illegal, I’m literally someone tinkering in the garage being treated as if I’m about to go crowd surfing with my deadly focus the minute it’s ready.
I’ve not claimed ignorance on anything. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this but I am aware of what is required to do this.
Max_Torque said:
Macron said:
The OP clearly understands he needs an IVA,
It's pretty clear that he doesn't. Phrases such as "nobody would know any difference" and "just weld in a flat floor" tell us that he doesn't have a realistic approach, an approach that he is legally obliged to take.Macron said:
and less sanctimonious knowitall.
Let me give you an example why it's important.You are walking on a pavement outside your house, a car clips a kerb when the driver is forced to swerve around a car that has failed to stop at a roundabout. As that car clips the kerb, and the rear suspension fails because it had been modified by a amateur home builder who did not to build the vehicle to the necessary standards and have them checked, as the law requires. The rear suspension collapses, the car looses control, mounts the pavement, hits you and your family, resulting in life changing injuries.
Luckily, this is a rare event, very rare, but it happens. And if it happened to you, and you found out your wife was now in a wheel chair for life because the owner/modifier of the car "short cut" the system and didn't IVA their car, then you'd want then to be appropriately prosecuted.
If that happened, and i sincerely hope it never does, i bet you wouldn't glibly shout "bloody know it all engineers who design cars for a living and make sure they are safe, bloody spoil sports"........
(BTW, standard cars undergo a raft of tests specifically to ensure the chassis is suitably robust over the lifetime of the vehicle. The reason there are so few true mechanical failures of modern passenger cars is precisely because they are engineered, by "know it all engineers" like me, to very high standards, and then explicitly tested to validate our knowledge. Kerb strike tests, pavé tests, pot hole impacts, rough road, not to mention actual full scale crash testing, all those test are in place to protect both the cars occupants and the general public. We all benefit from that.
I’m not some chimp in my back garage welding stuff together in the hopes that it works. I’m actually carefully considering everything I’m doing. But you seem to know better so please do continue to derail this thread until you’re happy that I’m saying the right things
Max_Torque said:
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. Not that it makes any difference because I’ve already cut the fking thing apart before it fell apart.
And your qualification or demonstrable competence in structural engineering is? king thing apart before it fell apart. 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 perhaps should note, i have previously acted as expert witness for the prosecution in a case where an "illegally" modified vehicle failed, resulting in an accident, and luckily no serious injuries, but the insurance company still used my evidence to successfully negate an insurance payout and recover all costs from the defendant..... )
I lied I am indeed a chimp with no engineering experience at all living in a cage being worked like a slave to my master puppeteers “weld monkey! Weld!” Day in day out that’s all I get!
But enough! I’m done with this project!
Thanks for releasing me from these chains!
Max_Torque said:
Truth hurts eh........
Crippling! Like that time me and you sat down for a beer and you got to know me and actually realised I was actually a human being with an engineering background that respected my own life as well as my family’s and others around me, and I learned that you were not a self important sanctimonious know it all, and I told you just once that I was aware of what was required to get this car to be safe and legal should it get to that point.
Ahh s
t.. that didn’t actually happen did it?! b
ks Monkeylegend said:
Way to ruin an interesting thread, well done guys.
Sorry, normally there’s an enjoyable conversation about the challenges faced and how I have or intend to overcome them, you get the odd person telling me I’m wasting my time and a few people wish they could do it.In this case we’ve just focused (lol) on something that might not happen even though I’ve explained that it is a hurdle capable of being overcome.
This place is rather difficult to update anyway amongst the picture upload being a pain and all my content being video links that I can’t link to so it probably won’t be updated that often.
Saves the preaching then too I suppose
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.I'll be watching the thread progress OP, you never know you might have it done before I finish mine!
Hoping to get it started and maybe moving by Xmas though so fingers crossed
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. 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?
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 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.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.
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
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. Monkeylegend said:
There are other ways of keeping a poster away who is disrupting an interesting thread.
I would have called him names previously if I had known it would be that successful. LOLI try to stay as friendly and non serious as possible on forums because in the grand scheme of things, tinkering in the garage is way down my list of priorities in life, just a little higher than telling people online about it.
I have a problem with people cherry picking information to suit themselves though, that is stooping quite low to try and save face on an anonymous forum
No I didn’t. You have made your mind up that I’m a rule breaker from the very start and have since tried to hammer home a really pointless argument that nobody but yourself cares about.
It really is entertaining to watch you argue with yourself and spend time cherry picking comments from this thread in an attempt to ensure you’re right. I’m happy to let that carry on.
I have no desire to update this thread with car progress because of you and your obsession with rules that you have somehow convinced yourself I won’t follow. So yes well done you have derailed this thread - pointlessly I might add as you seem to have an eye on the build elsewhere but only felt the requirement to pipe up on here (I suspect there’s a post count thing or a feeling of establishment going on here personally).
It really is entertaining to watch you argue with yourself and spend time cherry picking comments from this thread in an attempt to ensure you’re right. I’m happy to let that carry on.
I have no desire to update this thread with car progress because of you and your obsession with rules that you have somehow convinced yourself I won’t follow. So yes well done you have derailed this thread - pointlessly I might add as you seem to have an eye on the build elsewhere but only felt the requirement to pipe up on here (I suspect there’s a post count thing or a feeling of establishment going on here personally).
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff