Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Alfa Dedion vs Torque arm live axle in a light car


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 January 2015 - 10:46

I have been able to acquire a small Australian 1960's 'Special', or more specifically the body of one. When found it was sitting on a Triumph Herald Chassis, which happily has gone to a better home. The previous owner wanted to fit Alfa Romeo running gear and had acquired the rear transaxle and I was hoping to honor his desires by at least finding out whether this was a reasonable setup. His plan had been to use the who Alfa setup in a separate chassis, so how well does the Dedion work and is there any real advantage of something like a live axle and torque arm setup? Front suspension will be double wishbone - perhaps Triumph Spitfire or something period from the 1960's



Advertisement

#2 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 January 2015 - 17:24

of course you could just go back to the Triumph Herald/Spitfire, keep the chassis mtd diff and fit a Dedion tube instead of the De-doingg swing axle 



#3 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 January 2015 - 21:48

DeDion vs a decent live axle is basically going to test the great unsprung mass conundrum, and not a lot else. If you are driving round corners on bumpy roads, or kerb hopping, the deDion may pay off.



#4 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 January 2015 - 04:01

OK, thanks for the replies. It may come down to a mix of what needs to be done for registration and also historic motorsport use if any, plus cost and ease of manufacture.



#5 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 January 2015 - 04:20

OK, thanks for the replies. It may come down to a mix of what needs to be done for registration and also historic motorsport use if any, plus cost and ease of manufacture.

A simple  3 link [2 lower arms and a single top to the centre of the diff]  and panhard provided it will fit is really the go.all the fancy stuff is VERY hard to fabricate.

As you say you will have to use period stuff for historic racing. Though then you have to document the cars history. The fun bit! NOT.

Though if the car has history it is worth far more and far more kocher too.

Replicas, unknown road specials are possibly more fun. But not the same as the real thing.

It appears it could be a very pretty car again with a LOT of work. Though if it was a Herald chassis originally that is what it should stay.



#6 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:14

True the process has just started and may take a few years to simply identify. There is no guarantee that the Herald chassis was the original one, that is part of the 'fun', what could it have been originally. Australia does not have that rich a history of kits, so you think it could be easy to find. It appears to use an MGB windscreen so it must be post 1962.

These are images when it had a chassis:

Milano.4_zpseth7cgir.jpg

Milano.3_zpsuz3yvuze.jpg

Milano.2_zpsfzznab0k.jpg

Milano.1_zpsqebdflvm.jpg


Edited by NeilR, 24 January 2015 - 05:17.


#7 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2015 - 16:37

similar to a Rochdale GT but a bit nicer lines .

I'm sure there was a thread in the Nostalgia section on something Aus. very like this 



#8 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:38

I popped the images in the Milano thread. This is a lot bigger than the Rochdale, which I'm a little familiar with.



#9 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,638 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 January 2015 - 04:02

Very E-Type-ish at the back.  



#10 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 January 2015 - 11:06

yes it is and some touches at the front too. So far I know it's not a Buckle, Buckler, Buchanan, De Joux (NZ car), Mistral (NZ car), JWF (as far as we know), Tasman, Gilbern, Rochdale, Bolwell, TVR, not American as RHD, not a GSM, Jowett,



#11 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 27 January 2015 - 17:20

I'm going to side with Lee. In terms of performance, I think the difference between a DeDion and a Live is going to be pretty minimal. The DeDion basically has all the complexity of an independent with very little of performance advantage. What you can do with a DeDion is adjust camber and toe. You can do it on a Live as well, but it takes a torch. That can be problematic.

 

Honestly, for what you're doing, I think you'd be hard pressed to do better than a 3-link longitudinally (I'd offset the upper link) and a Watt's link laterally (although Panhard bar would work, too). Done properly, they work surprisingly well. They're reliable as an anvil and easy to tune. When in doubt, start out with minimal anti-squat and a low Watt's pivot. Work from there.

 

You'll be giving up a bit of performance to a sorted-out independent rear car, but probably less than you might suspect and perhaps none at all on a relatively smooth surface.



#12 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,877 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 27 January 2015 - 17:35

If you can try to get info. and photos/drawings of Mallock U2's.

 

They have used Panhard rods, Watts linkage and Mumford links over the years but Mallock spent 40 years optimising rigid rear axle location in  cars with a high power to weight ratio ( 450 bhp/tonne unladen) and low weight ( 400kg) which gives high unspung to sprung ratio.

 

They tried De Dion but could never convince themseles it gave any significant difference.

 

The trailing link locations on Mallocks are odd to cancel out live axle torque imbalances.

 

Also try to look at the rear axle of a Rover 3500/2600 its a torque tube and twin link sysem and rather simple at first glance but the spring/damper perches are cleverly postioned to enhance roll stiffness without hurting pitch stiffness - Spen King was very clever engineer.


Edited by mariner, 27 January 2015 - 17:38.


#13 fredeuce

fredeuce
  • Member

  • 407 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:10

Apart from the issue of sprung/unsprung weight mentioned by Greg, You will likely have a better balance with the fore and aft weight distribution. That might also translate to more foot room in the cabin since you are moving the transmission from directly behind the engine to the rear of the car. 

 

I fitted a transaxle to a speedway midget that I use for hillclimbing as there is not enough room in the cockpit for both feet and and a regular transmission bolted to the back of the engine. That in turn dictated the use of De Dion type rear axle. This has a torque tube joining the transaxle to the engine so no issues about axle housing wind up and torque arms etc. It is suspended on Morris Minor front torsion bars . See pic below.

 

 

gnn5.jpg



#14 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 27 January 2015 - 22:13

"but it takes a torch. That can be problematic."  I don't know if Falcon with a live axle ever made it into production with rear toe, but it was certainly a hot topic for a couple of years.

 

Spen King - during my apprenticeship I used to party hard. One day I woke up having had  a  nice snooze on the drawing board, surrounded by the entire staff of the drawing office, and Mr King. Oops.



#15 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 09:59

At the moment the car is a blank canvas simply because there is no chassis or identity. It's looking possible that some rascally person took a mould off an E-Type Jag and grafted it to the rear of an existing car. In my part of Australia we have the option of 'Club Registration' which allows an owner to use an old vehicle for a maximum of 90 days at a greatly reduced cost. To be able to do this I'm going to need to identify the original car ... and there's no chassis or VIN No, engine or anything really.

The images above do flatter it a bit. This is it's current state - fortunately I have some ability with fibreglass:

WP_20150123_030_zpsay49lkkk.jpg

WP_20150123_028_zpsovfsp6ih.jpg

WP_20150123_024_zpsf6vdcmtx.jpg

WP_20150123_020_zpst4dosa4s.jpg

WP_20150123_019_zpswefigaxc.jpg



#16 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:16

stick it back on a Vitesse MK2 chassis , lovely straight six motor , with the option of the 2.5i , overdrive g.box , great front suspension, and rear swing axle with lower wishbone location,

plenty of off shelf tuning parts and handling upgrades for the rear axle.

nice quick and civilised period stuff.



#17 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:38

I suspect almost impossible to get in Australia. Does a Vitesse share a chassis with a GT6 ... can't get one of those either, just interested!

It is almost automotive archeology!



#18 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 18:10

yes,  as Herald/spitfire , same chassis without the outriggers and cill rails .



#19 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 January 2015 - 18:15

"but it takes a torch. That can be problematic."  I don't know if Falcon with a live axle ever made it into production with rear toe, but it was certainly a hot topic for a couple of years.

 

 

 

Pretty much anywhere a live rear is raced, they put a certain amount of camber and toe in the housing. It generally doesn't do the axles any favors, but it makes the stopwatch go in the right direction. You gotta do what you gotta do.



Advertisement

#20 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 January 2015 - 21:31

Well the engine list with origins in the 50/60s suggested by others so far has included:
Daimler 2.5l v8
3.8l Jag six
Triumph 2.5
Holden 179/186
Alfa Romeo 1750 and 2600
BMC's b series (not likely)
Precrossflow Ford Kent
Rover 3.5l v8
Leyland 4.4l v8
BMW M30 (this one surprised me)
Of course the gearbox and rear axle are all part of the package. The engine choice is a little premature though given lack od identity and chassis, but some of those would be nice and the shell comes with a couple of Alfa engines from an Alfetta.

#21 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 30 January 2015 - 19:20

I like the idea of the Jag 6 visually, but going really odd-ball might be cool. Something like an air-cooled Porsche with a fabricated bell-housing. Maybe try to come up with an old Offy 4 or Hudson 262. With a car like this, you could get real kinky.



#22 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 30 January 2015 - 22:17

wow, never thought of Porsche! I LIKE that idea ... may not like the cost though.


Edited by NeilR, 30 January 2015 - 22:18.


#23 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 30 January 2015 - 22:18

In the Buckler Register we have DD2 with Mistral body and 2.5 Daimler , lovely motor, lovely car.

http://www.bucklerca...y 2013 (19).JPG

its the one at the rear [reg PMO]

http://www.bucklercars.com



#24 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 January 2015 - 03:17

"but it takes a torch. That can be problematic."  I don't know if Falcon with a live axle ever made it into production with rear toe, but it was certainly a hot topic for a couple of years.

 

Spen King - during my apprenticeship I used to party hard. One day I woke up having had  a  nice snooze on the drawing board, surrounded by the entire staff of the drawing office, and Mr King. Oops.

Over the decades I have tried both toe and camber on live axles. A bit of toe made the cross ply Dunlops live a little better but with Avons seemed counter productive.With Dunlop radials camber helped [no toe] I was conservative as to make the axles live with 1 degree. No faster just a bit more consistent. When we were allowed wider rims I was surprised, no faster but even more consistent.

Floating axles allow a bit more ofcourse.



#25 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 January 2015 - 03:23

wow, never thought of Porsche! I LIKE that idea ... may not like the cost though.

For club rego in any state it will have to be close to the original registered,, eg If grey Holden must have a grey holden. If it used a MG chassis it must use a MG chassis. That is not to say that it cannot be built better than it was. The trans tunnel does look rather skinny, a limitation in itself.

With a body made like that it does limit the options too. 

You need the history and original specs. And the original chassis number will be important too for registration. Other wise it is a new reg and they may require all 2015 specs on brakes, seats, engines etc. Which will be against the origin of the car.



#26 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 31 January 2015 - 05:19

I vote, with a bonnet like that , for a small straight six. Or if you can, a lovely little V8.



#27 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 January 2015 - 06:25

I vote, with a bonnet like that , for a small straight six. Or if you can, a lovely little V8.

Chev or Ford Windsor.



#28 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 08:26

Little not small.



#29 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 09:23

Car now sits in my driveway. It came with three Alfa engines, one Alfetta transaxle and rear suspension A arm (De Dion), spare gearset, spare camshafts, glass front and rear screens that are not laminated or toughened (dating evidence?) and of course the body as below.

Note the following:  Odd shape transmission tunnel. Channels in sill for chassis, rectangular boxes on bottom of bulkhead presumably to rest on top of chassis, chassis shape can be estimated to a point with the floor design:

_DSC0569_zpszm3cefmt.jpg

 

_DSC0585_zpsuizmjlhz.jpg

 

_DSC0591_zps61sxajbh.jpg

 

_DSC0598_zpsvasnwmlt.jpg

 

_DSC0602_zps4roaynuy.jpg

 

_DSC0608_zpszyxpzlek.jpg

 

_DSC0618_zps7wcruugn.jpg



#30 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 13:42

the floor/diff cover plate looks identical to Triumph [herald,spitfire,etc]

chassis mounting points and cill channels look like Herald/Vitesse chassis mounts

Front bulkhead looks like a copy of Herald/Vitesse . Triumph pedal box and steering will probably bolt straight in.

I assembled my first car [Herald] from 2 scrapped cars aged 15 , they are just like big Meccano kits



#31 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 21:28

Thanks for your thoughts and I will follow up the leads on the bulkhead. It was found sitting on a herald chassis which did not fit the channels for the chassis - there were holes drilled through the floor to mount that chassis, which was too narrow by around 10 inches.



#32 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 21:34

the floor/diff cover plate looks identical to Triumph [herald,spitfire,etc]

chassis mounting points and cill channels look like Herald/Vitesse chassis mounts

Front bulkhead looks like a copy of Herald/Vitesse . Triumph pedal box and steering will probably bolt straight in.

I assembled my first car [Herald] from 2 scrapped cars aged 15 , they are just like big Meccano kits

 

 

Well spotted that man!!

Looks very much like they used the floorpan to make a mould.



#33 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 31 January 2015 - 22:45

Thanks for your thoughts and I will follow up the leads on the bulkhead. It was found sitting on a herald chassis which did not fit the channels for the chassis - there were holes drilled through the floor to mount that chassis, which was too narrow by around 10 inches.

are you sure it wasn't on a spitfire chassis which shares the same backbone rails but has short outriggers and no cill rails



#34 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 February 2015 - 00:59

frankly no, I never got to see the chassis and there are no photo's of it - very frustrating. The bulkhead looks more Herald/Vitesse than Spitfire as does the floor. I'm going to try to chase down the original chassis, eve if just to get the VIN No.



#35 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 February 2015 - 01:57

It rained overnight here and I just went out and closely inspected the body again and I think I have a better idea of what it is. We all said 'it looks like an E-type - well it appears that it is/was/could've been an E-Type!

There is a crack in the top gelcoat running along the top of the rear guards and a fibreglass taped joint under the crack. The sill channels I thought were for chassis look like they could be used for this, but possibly not. Not knowing a Herald chassis it's hard to say. Anyway the door shape, sill height and shut lines all seemed to point to an E-Type. There is also a joint/dip where the E-type door panel gap would have been. The windscreen surround is steel and there is a double fibreglass panel  joint, somewhat badly done running around the screen. The screen is more Triumph Spitfire that anything else, but will have to check. Finally the scuttle shape and side pod extensions from the bulkhead forward are very much like an E-Type. The bonnet/hood runs smoothly forwards to a point and then seems to take a sharper profile. It is very evenly shaped and the intake is also very even. There is some evidence that moulding was done over interior card paneling - the rain loosened it.

So I suspect that what I have is a special made from the Triumph floorpan and chassis/screen with an E-Type body copy cut and shut to fit the Triumph floorpan/screen/chassis. The body has been cleverly made to fit and the bonnet is very well proportioned, but NOT a JWF/Milano.

I am very reluctant to consider using the Herald rear suspension and I'll need to modify the floorpan shape to get more room.



#36 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 February 2015 - 19:55

the later spitfire MK4 on and GT6/Vitesse MK2 rear suspension is not that bad , an evolution of the Herald, hung off the same chassis 

there are some quick and successful race cars with versions of this rear end



#37 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 02 February 2015 - 20:25

yes the Rotoflex rear suspension. The quick ones I have seen have been modified to different driveshafts and different diffs.



#38 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 08:20

This is the chassis the body was designed for ... this is as good as stock gets in the Triumph Vitesse. What could be done to improve the stiffness of such a chassis apart from a roll cage?

The rear suspension goes from +3 to -3 degree in camber - yuk!

 

triumph-herald_key_3_zpsszhmstzc.jpg


Edited by NeilR, 03 February 2015 - 08:22.


#39 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 08:30

Best bet is to maximise the effect of the cage with appropriate triangulation and connection through to your suspension load paths - especially the shock mounts on the pictured chassis.

 

That one seems to be set up for a speedway with right hand turns.



Advertisement

#40 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 February 2015 - 10:01

This is the chassis the body was designed for ... this is as good as stock gets in the Triumph Vitesse. What could be done to improve the stiffness of such a chassis apart from a roll cage?

The rear suspension goes from +3 to -3 degree in camber - yuk!

 

triumph-herald_key_3_zpsszhmstzc.jpg

The body is supposed to give the torsional rigidity. I guess that depends on how well it attaches to the chassis. The Triumphs themselves are about as stiff as a sheet of newspaper. The doors pop open on rough roads or spirited? driving..

Though if that is the chassis it was built with that is what you use.

Lots of Brit sporties are similar



#41 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 10:39

the old fibreglass will add no torsional rigidity - it flexes as you would expect a 4mm thick piece of 45 year old fibreglass body would. I thought that I could do away with the current outriggers and use some decent RHS steel. Sheet the floor and cut away most of the fibreglass floor. Perhaps 'backbone the tunnel and cage it with tunnel and cage linked to F/R shock mounts. Much heavier though ... over the top?


Edited by NeilR, 03 February 2015 - 11:47.


#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 12:58

Stiffer outriggers won't help the torsional rigidity much so only upgrade them if necessary for other reasons.



#43 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 17:31

Build the cage to create a space frame - think maguire Imps etc -

something like these http://forum.theimpc...14171&start=120   ?

 

Thats pictur above is a Herald /Vitesse MK1

The Vitesse MK2 is a far better rear set up with lower wishbone location http://www.bing.com/...selectedIndex=5

The Triumph rear seems to work when extremely lowered so you only work from around 0deg camber at full droop .

if your circuit racing and the suspension travel can be seriously restricted anyway it seems to work well

if you are allowed to do away with the transverse leaf and fit coil overs mounted off your new cage with a top suspension link of a more suitable length to control camber change, then you laughing.

 

some ideas

http://auskellian.co...nhancements.htm

http://retrorides.pr...om/thread/94101


Edited by carlt, 03 February 2015 - 17:32.


#44 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 February 2015 - 19:18

This is the chassis the body was designed for ... this is as good as stock gets in the Triumph Vitesse. What could be done to improve the stiffness of such a chassis apart from a roll cage?

 

Ummmm, anything? It's pretty much just about as flimsy as you could make it. Box the channel sections. Put diagonals in the large rectangular sections so you've got a big 'X' through the floor. Connect the two sides of the frame any way you can. If you can weld a long, thin sheet over the top of the 2 inner longitudinal rails, that's a good start.

 

As far as the rear suspension goes, my advice would be a wholesale change (probably live, but it's certainly not going to be plug-and-play) or an affinity to opposite lock. A zero droop setup similar to a Formula Vee might be a band-aid?



#45 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2015 - 09:26

Unfortunately there is no room to put in diagonals as my bum will have to be on the floor to fit in this thing.



#46 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 04 February 2015 - 10:49

Triangulate from the rear ladder out to the crossmembers that run out to the sills, this'll help get them working in torsion. if it is practical do the same at the front. Replace C sections in the ladders by square section tube, or cap the C to turn it into a box.

 

 

Frankly, you are going to be adding weight with no sure guarantee of a detectable difference in stiffness. On the Esprit we found injecting foam into the glassfibre body was useful, for instance it stopped the gel coat cracking over the front wheel arch. Bolting the body to the chassis at the extreme front was worth about 30% stiffness from memory.



#47 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 February 2015 - 17:49

Unfortunately there is no room to put in diagonals as my bum will have to be on the floor to fit in this thing.

 

Keep in mind, the diagonal doesn't need to be some massive structure. A 2" x 1" bit of square tubing will go a long way. The other option is taking a large sheet of aluminum and bonding/riveting it to the bottom of the chassis. This will make the make each open rectangle much stiffer, but it can be difficult to keep those rectangle in-plane. Putting in the diagonal tubing is much more forgiving. It really doesn't matter if it raises you seating position a bit. You're going to be much happier with a stiffer chassis that gives you more consistent handling than you will be with lowering the C.G. of the driver an inch.



#48 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 February 2015 - 00:25

Actually I was more concerned about fitting than CoG issues. I had thought of cutting the fibreglass floor away and using a steel floor, the idea of sitting on such thin old glass is not appealing

Edited by NeilR, 05 February 2015 - 00:25.


#49 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 February 2015 - 05:11

Actually I was more concerned about fitting than CoG issues. I had thought of cutting the fibreglass floor away and using a steel floor, the idea of sitting on such thin old glass is not appealing

 

I would share your concern of keeping nothing more that a bit of 50 year old fiberglass between you and the ground. In all fairness, 4mm AL would work just fine, but I'd want _something_ substantial there.

 

I had another thought on that rear suspension. Would it be completely out of the question to put the rear suspension out of an either an older Datsun 'Z' car or older Mazda RX-7? Maybe I'm completely off base, but it might be a way to get driveline, suspension arms, reasonable geometry, etc. all in one fell swoop. If you were going to use period tires for the car (i.e. tall and skinny), then a Mazda MX-5 rear end might work also.



#50 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,166 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 February 2015 - 22:27

Actually I was more concerned about fitting than CoG issues. I had thought of cutting the fibreglass floor away and using a steel floor, the idea of sitting on such thin old glass is not appealing

The moulded fibreglass floor will be stronger than trying to bodge in a steel floor.

Though until you get a identity and rego number for the car I doubt you will ever register it. otherwise a new reg with all the current rules applicable for limited volume cars.

And too race you will need alll the research for a historic log book. That may be even harder!