Engine choices

Which drivetrain to choose, so many choices, 4-cyl? 6-cyl? NA? Turbo?
Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 20 Dec 2013, 22:09

I tipped it forward to move the CG forward and down, but like the book says, it comes at the cost of messing with the oil pan angle and dip stick markings. Worse, it lessened the amount of access forward of the engine, which has been a nuisance when having to get in there.

bejones
Posts: 1
Joined: 05 Jan 2014, 17:11
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby bejones » 21 Jan 2014, 01:39

Regarding the hand sketch of the Subaru engine and trans axle, is there any benefit from fitting a reduced height sump which retains the same oil capacity as stock? I live in Australia and have seen some kits out that allow an approximate 85 mm reduction in sump height. Would that possible offer a lower CG for the entire assembly once mounted accordingly?

Although, in your book you mention that the output shaft of the trans axle dictates a lot of the drive line placement, which i see the Subaru has quite a large offset compared to one of the more classic mid mount trans axles like the G50. I believe there is also the practice of flipping the G50 upside down to lower the engine cg even more for Ultimas etc., which I imagine hasn't been attempted by the Subaru enthusiasts.

What about machined bell housing adapter plates to fit the Subaru trans axle to centrally locate a v6 (longitudinally), or am I just dreaming? Spent some time searching on the net for trailblazers but didn't result in anything meaningful. The good thing about your design is that it is very adaptable to suit a longer engine/drive-line combo. If people chose to use a larger higher torque engine, it might be beneficial to increase the wheelbase by 50 mm anyway. I have noticed that there might be 50 mm to spare in the foot well also.

I do like the idea of a smaller capacity V6. I have notice living in Australia though that some of the more juicier Honda (V6) Duratec (30+) and GM (LX9) engine options are limited or weren't sold in our market. I do have a slight preference for the Nissan VQ30de, due to cost and weight but it was almost always sold in auto Maximas.

Anyway, more of a bunch of thought processes than a question, nice book by the way.

Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 21 Jan 2014, 06:37

My approach to using an "interesting" drivetrain is to sit it on the chassis table and build the car around it.

About the sump, the real problem is the bellhousing, as shortening the sump is only half the problem - the bellhousing hangs down just as low. Modifying that could be a lot harder and more expensive if it includes a smaller flywheel, smaller clutch, and relocating the starter. Like I said, the real goal is to end up with the axle ports at about the same level above ground as the center of the tires, which dictates just about everything.

Do you have the VW VR6 there? It was originally designed to fit in four-cylinder engine bays, so it might work (I don't know how tall it is though). I've heard a few with good exhaust and they sound great! Also, the newer ones make enough power that they're good as-is, no need for extensive mods.

Regardless of the drivetrain you choose, keep an eye on weight. My turbo engine is probably 450 lbs complete (ready to run) and results in 70% rear weight bias. That should be considered a maximum value, as going higher only makes understeer on slow corner exits worse - if you care.

Best of luck - it's nice to have choices!

bgkast
Posts: 599
Joined: 17 Dec 2012, 11:33
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby bgkast » 13 Feb 2014, 10:32

It looks like the turbo GM ecotec would work well.

Image

The engine sits to the right of the transmission, the exhaust exits out the back, and the intake manifold looks compact.

Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 13 Feb 2014, 12:11

Having built two cars, one with the exhaust on the front, and the other with it toward the rear, I'll have to admit that having the intake on the rear is Much better for access. You'll hardly ever have to mess with the exhaust, but the intake, and all its various sensors, may need to be accessed after installation. Having them on the back side makes it so much easier to access. If it's on the front side, just be sure to design in access panels.

bgkast
Posts: 599
Joined: 17 Dec 2012, 11:33
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby bgkast » 13 Feb 2014, 12:21

I had the opposite thought: the Turbo will likely need some fiddling with, but there isn't much to go wrong on the intake. :lol: On my engine at least the throttle body is off to the side by the transmission, so it is easy to access. The only sensor on the intake manifold that might be hard to access is the MAP sensor, which I will not be using in my application. It will also be nice not to have to get the exhaust around the engine to the back.

Beardy
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 15:04
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby Beardy » 04 Jan 2015, 23:32

bump to an evergreen thread

A couple of other choices:
on the low weight end there is the 1.6 4 cylinder engine from the current Fiesta. Its getting a lot of popularity in the UK for a light weight option for locosts and other sevens. Known as the Zetec SE and/or Sigma engine. Typically with motor bike carbs you can see 140bhp, with cams, headwork and standalone ECU with ITBS it can give around 200bhp. Turbos have been built to >300bhp
Zetec-SE Height: 61cms/24”, Length: 47cms/18.5” 81Kg (bare long block)
Zetec SE ready to install 95Kg
IB5 manual gearbox ~38Kg
(Total 135Kg)

The Duratec is the next step up in Seven land in the UK (also Mazda MZR) available as 2, 2.3 and 2.5 variants (109-113kg) 145-~170bhp Mazda turbo 2.3 and Ecoboost ford are turbo versions.

MAzda KL V6 is an interesting one...
40.9cm (16.1”) from back of block to front of stock pulley (47.5?)
58cm (22.8”) across heads (53.5?)
56cm (22”) from top of heads to bottom of sump (Duratec 63.8cm tall, Sigma 62cm tall)
38cm from top of heads to crank center
108kg (flexplate, oil pan but no headers or ancilliaries).
alternator weighs 6kg. ITBS are available and get you 200bhp and get rid of much of the weight of the intake. Figure around 125kg plus tranny...
and a nice noise...

Lots of information on these smaller engines on Locostbuilders.co.uk
(Kurt, if posting this reference is inappropriate just delete it - thanks)
Beardy

steve
Posts: 37
Joined: 03 Apr 2014, 13:40
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Durham UK

Re: Engine choices

Postby steve » 20 May 2015, 02:48

I thought abut using a VAG 1.8t its been used right across all the Audi's VW's Seat's and Skoda's.

However all the top spec motors, good spec with good cranks forged pistons etc are in Audi TT's. These command a higher price or can be found with knocking big ends or smoking turbos.... Then there's the gearbox, its got the 4x4 unit bolted on in place of the cross block drive shaft and needs modification to work. Its a 6 speed unit and weighs 27kg more than the 5 speed!!

Looking at rebuild costs with original purchase cost I've decided to go with what I know and have secured a 2.0 zetec motor and gearbox from a 2000 Ford Mondeo.

I intend to rebuild the motor with wossner 8.0 comp ratio forged pistons, pec or eagle rods and a T3 hybrid looking for 350hp.

Only downside is the turbo is on the front of the engine so will need some thinking for placement in the chassis.

Steve

Alfalfameister
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Dec 2015, 16:35
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby Alfalfameister » 06 Aug 2016, 17:38

Quick question: Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine? (i.e., compatible engine for the Midlana?)

(did a search, only found one mention of this engine, and it didn't say much).

A wrecker has a half-cut Celica, 6 speed LSD, but can't check (to measure and all that) since he's an hour and a half away (but only a Facebook Messenger post away as well). I already have a Toyota 4A-GE 20V blacktop in my Locost (at 90% construction state, but it's always the last 10% that takes a while), so wanted to try something different for my future Midlana build.

So, 2ZZ-GE okay for Midlana?

Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 06 Aug 2016, 19:32

Someone else - or you - will have to come up with the dimensions as I know pretty much nothing about them. Assuming they're all about the same size for a given displacement though, I bet it'll fit fine - but confirm!


Return to “Drivetrain selection”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest