Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, just thought I would put up some pics of a fun project I am building. It is a exoskeleton-type chassis that will seat two and is mid-engined. The chassis is not yet complete in the photos, and I am busy adding triangulation and making changes as I go. Won't be using STI wheels, those were just for "full effect" ?

For now this is being built in mild steel as-is a prototype that needs changes made as issues arise during manufacture. Once i am happy with the final specifics and approved for road use, I will build another from much thinner wall 4130 chromoly. I am a Fabricator, so the welding shots were compulsory!

This car is running an Alfa Romeo 2.0 engine, which I have also developed a turbocharger setup for, and will make between 250-350hp boost-dependant. This will weigh about 550-580kg. I also have a 370z engine that I may twin-turbo and throw in the back, which would be quite hilarious.

Depending on my workload, I hope to have this thing running in the next few months, and if there is any interest I will keep it updated as things move along. Hope to do some roll racing and circuit racing in the future at SMSP and Wakefield

 

IMG_3061.JPG

IMG_3070.JPG

IMG_3147.JPG

IMG_3148.JPG

  • Like 2
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/474167-custom-tubeframe-ghetto-beast/
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leroy Peterson said:

Very nice.

What transaxle do you plan to use? Looks pretty tight in the back

There is plenty of room for transversal setups. The current engine as mentioned is Alfa Romeo using a FWD gearbox. When I do the next chassis with the VQ37 I will use a Maxima manual FWD gearbox and shafts, at least that is what I am planning 

Do you know if the RWD VQs will happily bolt to the FWD VQ gearboxen?

I was going to ask "since when has there ever been a VQ powered manual Maxima?" and then I looked on Wiki and was surprised to see that Nissan actually made some.  Seems totally out of character/market segment for a Maxima though.  I wonder how many are actually out there in the wild?

15 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Do you know if the RWD VQs will happily bolt to the FWD VQ gearboxen?

I was going to ask "since when has there ever been a VQ powered manual Maxima?" and then I looked on Wiki and was surprised to see that Nissan actually made some.  Seems totally out of character/market segment for a Maxima though.  I wonder how many are actually out there in the wild?

To be honest I would assume there would be some adaptation necessary, however the standard VQ bolt pattern should carry over without issues, then the "fun" would begin to make it all work. I feel the gearbox itself would be quite robust, as it is designed for the VQ engine and to carry a big car that would potentially be full of passengers and a big trailer hanging off the back. No idea how many were produced, but I will be beginning a search in the near future

  • 2 weeks later...

So I decided that the Alfa Romeo engine would be better served in my Formula 3 (as it was an engine originally used in the series) and have decided to install a Lexus 4GR-FSE engine, stroked to 3.5L and using a single turbo setup. The second chassis I make will probably be intended to look a lot more like the Ariel Atom and that will use the VQ37 engine that I have stored away.

I advanced with one of the manifolds today, using a narrow angle configuration for the runners, which will promote scavenging. The two banks of manifolds will merge together and the turbo will sit above the transmission. 

 

IMG_3268.JPG

IMG_3258.JPG

IMG_3264.JPG

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...