Have you seen Bloozebury's Canadian project? He is modifying a Fiero, widening, lowering, changing suspension geometry, fitting a transverse V8. There are many drawings, including a rear suspension that was originally strut and has been considerably altered. His website is: http://bloozeown.weebly.com/
and there's even more detail on the Dutch Fiero site : http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum3/HTML/000116.html

chassis
 

Hi all

Right-does anyone have an accurate set of dimensions for a Dino 246? I have a couple of sets of measurements from searching through my huge collections of dino books, and then several from the internet, that although similar are not the same!!! I'm after wheelbase, front track and rear track please. Or if anyone can point me in the right direction!! cheers

ian

chassis
 

hi all

update--
just for reference I have - taken from the anthony curtis Ferrari Dino book which seems to be a definitive book on the dino written around 1990-
wheelbase 2343 mm (7 foot 8.25 inches)
front track 1416 mm (4 foot 7.75 inches)
rear track 1441 mm (4 foot 8.75 inches)
these tally (within 2/3 mm I guess from rounding up/down) with several other books on the dino. But I do have another book with a set giving a wider track? Could this be from the "chairs and flairs" car? or was it just wider tyres and flared wheel arches. The internet search gives varied dimensions so I've taken them as not to be an accurate account due to armchair writers giving their take on the car!!

cheers Ian

Hi Ian
I have a Brooklands "road test" book for the Dino which is basically a compilation of magazine road tests for the car.

There do seem to be several different figures quoted in the different articles but the consensus seems to agree with those quoted in the "Motor" road test No 30/71 which gives
Wheelbase 7' 8¼"
Front track 4' 7¾"
Rear track 4' 8¾"

I'm inclined to believe the above figures as the magazine article has gone to the trouble of detailing a lot of the car's facts and figures including such esoteric facts as the King pin inclination angle (9° 3’ in case you are interested lol)

Neil

Hi, the official factory 246GT manual lists:
1425mm the front track (carreggiata a terra)
1430mm the rear track (carreggiata a terra)
my Italian is pretty basic but I think this is the measurement from vehicle centre to centre of wheel AT GROUND LEVEL.

The Ferrari brochure lists it as:
wheel base 92.2" in English (2340mm in French)
front track 56.1" (1425mm)
rear track 56.5" (1430mm)
http://www.ferraristuff.com/contents...1973_04_fs.jpg

The 206 GT is listed at rear=1400mm by the way. And the 'chairs 'n flares' would only have a different track if it had different offset - otherwise the centre of the wheel would be in the same place.
:)
cheers
Ross in NZ

Ferrari would probably have measured in mm so the Imperial measurements are just approximate translations. I reckon the Factory manual and brochure are the best bet:
wb 2340mm
ft 1425mm
rt 1430mm
cheers
Ross in NZ

There is a part finished Minotaur kit on EBay at present. It comes with a link to lots of chassis and detail pictures. The chassis looks a bit heavy with 50x50mm box section (?). 6 litre Chev and Porsche 'box. This is what 10 years and 30,000GBP of parts gets you!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/clouddrive/...are_link_email

chassis
 

Hi all

My adaptor plate has finally arrived and been offered up to the cosworth V6.
After looking at several options for a suitable gearbox I've decided to go with a E53 gearbox from a mark 2 toyota mr2 turbo. Some of the turbo guys run upwards of 400bhp!! Now these are getting quite rare and when the do come up they are snapped up within minutes or are quite pricey still requiring a rebuild. So my next option was a complete car.
Well after searching for a few weeks a suitable donor car appeared and the deal done. Low 89,000 Kilometer jap import car (not miles) dry stored for the last 4 years. I'm not a big fan of stripping rare cars that should really be put back on the road but I will sell on what I don't need-everything else apart from the gearbox/drive and intermediate shafts/starter motor/flywheel/clutch and gear selector with all cables.:high5:

Ian

I had a bit of a look through the posts and I have built suspension from scratch.

This will give you some rules of thumb that may give you a guide or confuse you more.

My approach.

Start with the wheel offset that you want for the car that you are building.
The upright ,disk and caliper has to fit inside the chosen offset.
Once you place this on the ground you then know how long the arms need to be.

Scrub radius.
A line through the top ball joint passing through the lower ball makes contact at a point on the road.
This is part of an angle called KPI
With the wheel fitted it will land somewhere on the inside of the Tyre patch, this is the scrub radius ,zero SR is the centre of the tire this will make the car very vague at high speed, front wheel drives generally have a low SR as it cancels out torque steer but not good on RWD, I would not go any less than about 60mm inside the CL off the tire.
If you have to much ,lets say it lands not under the tire contact patch but inside that it will give heavy steering and high feed back on the wheel if you get ruts on pot holes on the road.
SR helps with self centring which is very handy if the car steps out you can just let go of the st wheel and the wheels will self centre then you just regrab the wheel and you are back in control.

The lower arm height location is all about the upright lower ball joint height of the road.
You need to have the lower arm running slightly uphill to the chassis pick up point.
This will help control the roll centre movement across the car and also in the vertical position when the car dives and turns in.
A car that has poor RC control is unpredictable, EG All the weight above the RC applies a load onto the tyre, the higher the RC the less load applied.
The lower the RC the more load because you have more weight above the RC.
If a car if cornering and it has X RC then you get on it harder and the RC changes dramatically then the attitude of the car can change sometimes for the worse.
The upper arm needs to run down hill from the upright to the chassis, changing the angle will change the RC height I have found on rear eng cars it likes to be lower say at about 60-30mm of the ground.
Reason being you have less weight over the front (no eng) so you use RC to get tire loading.
Steering arm.
I like a bolt on steering arm as it gives you a better chance of getting the bump steer correct.
Steering rack location.
If it’s a front steer you need to be careful that you can get a reasonable ackerman.
On rear eng cars I always run anti ackerman meaning it has neg toe out on turn because no weight in the front the front inside tire goes into slip very early so having less to out on turn will give more grip on entry but makes no difference after apexing.
Also having the rack forward of the steering arms on a front steer will give the same effect.
Upright
What ever you choose you need to know the KPI if it has 6 deg that is about the caster you will run as a starting point.
Knowing this will give you a point to start on upper arm length and setback for the upper ball joint.
Rear roll centre
Very important on a rear eng car as they generally have to much rear grip because of the weight on the back tire.
This will generally cause under steer issues because the rear just keeps overpowering the front tires.
To sort this you raise the rear RC and reduce the grip and it balances the car and allows you to get on the power early and get it to sit on the back tire at point of entry.
Hope this helps you make decisions on set up or what components to pick.
Bit hard to change RC on struts from memory ,probably easier to adjust the lower inner up or down.

One thing I have seen done and it was smart was a strut leg was cut down and a fitting welded in that had a 5/8 thread in it to accept a rose joint that was fitted in the upper arm, so the leg was turned into an upright.

That arm in your pics made to take a r/joint as a ball joint is fine but you cant do that on the loaded arm ( the one with the spring/shock attached) say the lower you cant use that idea it will break eventually, I know this because I have done it and it did break at 23.000km road and track miles.

Any r/joint if in single shear (upper lower b/joint, outer tie rod on steering arm) should have a washer larger than the joint so as it is still captive if the joint fails.


Jim

Once again your down-to-earth engineering knowledge amazes Jim. Thanks.

This thread has some very in-depth engineering and description of the suspension requirements. Unfortunately it is also pretty dense and takes a long time to digest. Someone might find it useful:
http://reversetrike.proboards.com/thread/343

I think hes an engineer, they love crunching numbers.
To many numbers to be honest ,he is over thinking it.
People can make it look like a black art, but its not complicated if you keep it simple.

If you guys want to start from scratch type or heavily modified projects buy Susprog3.
It is a great suspension program and it will punch out s/loads of data,I dont look at all off the data because it is what it is and there are things you cant change and there are things that make no difference.
I only use about 4 or 5 key things.

You have to spend the time inputting the data which can be overwhelming at first but it is worth it.

If you are not happy with something you adjust it in the program and run it in bump or roll and you recheck the dynamic figures.

http://www.susprog.com/

chassis
 

Hi
I'm in the middle of mocking up the adaptor plate. I've had a rough one cut to start with and I've made one up from the gearbox to place on top to see where bolts etc pass through. I think I'm going to have the final one made in alley as I need to have it 20mm thick to clear some bolt on the gearbox diff.
Anyone know of cuc guy's doing alley plates?
ian

adaptor plate
 

Hey, if you google turbonutter and his Stratos replica with Alfa V6 fitted to an MR2 Toyota gearbox you'll find photos and some advanced tips. He may even have CAD files that could be of some use in your MR2/FordV6 adaptor.
Cheers
Ross

chassis
 

Hi Ross

I've already been in touch with him. He had a local to him motorsport firm do all the measuring and manufacture. Said it wasn't cheap. They also have the files.

ian

chassis
 

Hi

I've drawn up my own adaptor plate and with a vernier measured the hole dimensions on the trail plate I had done. I have a friend who works with perspex and he has cnc'd me a trail jig.Fits onto the V6 crankcase perfect and all holes line up.
Next up is to measure the Mr2 gearbox and have another jig made up to check alignment of the two.He will load it onto a memory stick for me and then I'll have it machined in 20mm allet plate.

ian

Hi Ian, are you putting a spacer on the end of the crankshaft to push the flywheel/clutch out 20mm to match what the MR2 gearbox had with its Toyota engine?

chassis
 

Hi Ross

I will not be using a spacer on the flywheel. As I'll need a flywheel to go from the ford crank to toyota clutch I will have one made the 20mm or so thicker. A company here in the uk TTR racing do them from around £300.
I'm planning on using a stock format toyota clutch and release bearing so I can keep the toyota starter motor which is mounted on the gearbox. I'm trying to keep to stock equipment wherever possible and not go to over the top.

ian

adaptor plate
 

Thanks Ian, I'm trying to visualise this.
So you are having a new Flywheel made that will have it's friction face further out from the crank end to match the original position of the Toyota clutch/flywheel interface (and this is 20mm because that's the thickness you need for your adapter plate). And the new flywheel will also have its starter teeth/ring gear in a place to suit the original Toyota.This new flywheel will have a bolt PCD pattern to match your Ford V6 crankshaft. It will have a friction surface to match the original Toyota clutch you are going to use. The nose of the Toyota gearbox will be supported how? I guess either a bearing in the crank elongated by 20mm or by an extension of the transmission shaft. Or perhaps the transmission shaft is long enough anyway or isn't supported in the crank?

Wow - its a lot to get my head around and that's without even thinking about the clutch actuator!

Clairetoo's locost posts and her company Crap Engineering make an adapter to fit the Mazda V6 to the Mazda MX5 gearbox that looks like this:
http://crapengineering.weebly.com/up...799133.jpg?325
as you can see the position of the starter causes a few headaches in this setup. She chooses a spacer on the crank to avoid having a new flywheel made and because she wants a light flywheel.
cheers
Ross in NZ

chassis
 

Hi Ross

Yes. The flywheel will be made to bolt to the ford V6 crank then mate up to the toyota clutch. In theory it will need to be 20mm thicker but as the V6 originally came as a automatic only the flywheel will actually be thinner than the OE market one fitted to the V6.
As regards the starter this will be kept standard and in it's original position but using an upgraded unit. The clutch operation will either be kept as standard or I may use turbonutters idea of an hydraulic thrust bearing.Keeping things simple.
You mention that the gearbox input shaft will not engage in the crank. Transverse engines do not generally engage in the crank like inline set ups and there is no bearing nosing machined on the end of the gearbox input/drive shaft. See photo.

ian

chassis
 

Hi All

A bit quiet on here for a while. I've been messing with my adaptor plate for a few weeks. Using the one I'd had made I've started on work my own.Taking the measurements I've had one machined in hard clear acrylic and by using a centre machined to fit the crank it fitted onto the v6 perfectly.
Then by fitting the centre to the mr2 gearbox input shaft I've offered it up to the gearbox and aligned the two.Unfortunately one of the 2 bolts/dowels that align the adaptor plate to the v6 engine (used to align the gearbox usually) collides with the output cover plate on the gearbox. Also 3 of the 7 bolts on the cover plate will bind also. So this got me thinking!!
First up I removed the cover plate on the mr2 gearbox to have a look. My luck was in as it's just a flat 10mm alley plate so I can change the 3 offending bolts to either countersunk bolts or cap head bolts and counter bore the plate.To over come the alignment dowel I'm going to have to increase the thickness of the adaptor plate from 10mm to 20mm. Because of this I'm going to switch from steel to aluminium for the plate.
Now where the gearbox cover fits I'll remove 10mm of metal from the plate so keeping both alignment dowels in the plate. I can also remove some metal so I only have to counterbore one hole for the bolts.
Before I have the final plate made in alley I'm have another one machine in hard acrylic to check everything fits.

Ian

chassis
 

hi all

Been looking at various chassis and designs I've come across a dax cobra one. some on here have a said a basic platform type chassis are not ideal but this gets good reviews and the cobra boys use big powered v8's. I also like the front camber compensation idea.

ian

Aeon GT with duratec V6
 

Here is a link to a guy with images of his Aeon GT chassis fitted with the Duratec V6. It is quite an interesting chassis design and the Ford V6 front wheel drive unit is transposed readily to the mid engine position.
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/phot...folder=Chassis

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/gallery/IMG_1354.jpg

chassis
 

Hi

Had a look at this build. The chassis uses a De dion type rear setup with trailing rear arms. In the photo the engine and box sit quite high and he mentions this in his notes and how he has lowered it in the chassis to get the drive shafts more horizontal.
This got me thinking. A car I have followed over the years was the phantom gt which became the vortex gt. The designer called it a modern day dino!! So I've posted on there for spec's etc and to see if their chassis could be used of can be altered and used.

ian

This is Ricolas rebuild of a Phantom GT chasis (Rover V6 if I remember correctly)
http://www.ricola.co.uk/images/gtr_images/chassis.JPG

http://www.ricola.co.uk/gtr_rebuild_2.htm


http://www.vortex-auto.co.uk/images/...crc=3887770802
Phantom (Vortex) history page. http://www.vortex-auto.co.uk/vortex--our-history.html

But the engines in the wrong end! Why not look at a Pie Valley chassis?

chassis
 

HI

Yes the dax chassis would have the engine the 'wrong end'. It was just an example of a simple ladder type chassis similar to the dino one. What I liked was dax's camber compensation arrangement at the front instead of an anti roll bar.
The other chassis with the 'engine the right' end was from a vortex. I was mulling over adapting one of these as I know where there is one for sale.
I had looked at pie valley chassis's after they were featured in which kit magazine but they use either beetle donor parts or mg and neither fits in with my design.
The original chassis I have is built from small 25 x 25 and 40 x 40 box section with 1mm flat plate. It has high cills and a huge centre /back bone which I want to remove as I want a more authentic cockpit. see attached

ian

DGT / Deon chassis
 

Hi Ian,
that looks like the original John Hurst (DGT / Deon) chassis to me. My guess would be that unless custom axles were specced it would have the same rear track as the front track of the donor Lancia Beta. One site I googled put that at 1410mm front Beta Coupe track - pretty close to a genuine Dino.

As for removing the central tunnel - my uneducated guess would be that you'd have to compensate with other high beams or beef up the beam's section at low level. I've been thinking of three longitudinal 25x25mm rails. Two as high and wide as possible under the top of the sill and one as low as possible. short upright tubes join all three with triangulation in all planes.
Attachment 4697

Attachment 4698

and here's a genuine 206GT - see how broad and high the sills are
Attachment 4699

cheers
Ross (in NZ)

chassis
 

Hi

The chassis rails on the dino are oval shaped and at the tallest are 75mm or 3 inches high by 40mm or 1.5 inches.
The deon uses very small 40mm x 20mm tubes for perimeter of the centre section beef up with 1mm steel sheet for the cills. This then has a small 20mm x 20mm sq tube top rail welded to it. It is sparsely with more braced with 20mm x 20mm sq tube.
The centre tunnel is again 40mm x 20mm tube beefed up with 1mm steel sheet and 20mm x 20mm steel tube along its top edge.
My Idea is to use 75mm x50mm tube for the perimeter with 2 x 50mm x 25mm rails for the centre tunnel.I will weld in cross bracing into the floor with additional steel to bolt in the seats and seat belt anchors.
Deon used 40mm x 40mm for the rear/engine section and I'll copy this with the same. The front section used a mix of 50mm x 20mm / 40mm x 40mm / 20mm x 20mm. I'll probably use 40mm x 40mm and cross brace with 25mm x 25mm.
I've attached a few more photo's showing how little the deon centre section has cross bracing.I've also tried to show how small some of the rails are.

ian

chassis
 

Yes Ross that is a deon gt chassis. It was just to show the tubes they used.
ian

Hi Ian, the route of putting in larger section tubes and plate strengthening is very sound and of course there is the option of increasing the gauge of the steel as well. It does make for extra weight but its a pretty light car anyway. When I said 'how broad and high the sills are' I was meaning that within the body lines of the sill there is room for a differently-shaped and stronger chassis side member than the Deon has. It relies on height over the original Ferrari chassis's 3" oval tube. I'm following your build avidly
cheers
Ross

2"x3"x.125 wall mild steel is plenty for the major tubes in the sills.
A combination of 2"x2"x.125 and 1"x1"x.125 located properly could do well.

chassis
 

Hi

Attached are a few measurements of the deon cockpit to show just how high the centre tunnel and cills are.
The centre tunnel carries two coolant pipes to the front mounted radiator/brake pipes and several wires. It's far oversized for this.
The high cills also ruin the look of the cockpit. My car also has the later type lower floor said to give more room,but resulted in deon removing alot of the cross bracing to allow for it.
ian

chassis
 

Hi all

another shot with the door open showing how obtrusive the high cill actually is.

Ian

chassis
 

Hi all

Been looking for a while for the deon's front track size as I'd dismantled my front suspension.As no one seems able to help I've bolted it all back on as per deon's initial set up info.
I've used a laser to set up some datum/centre lines and using the laser and an engineers square I've managed to get an accurate front track measurement from the brake disc/wheel mount face. This is 1460mm. I know the front track on a 246 gt is 1425mm so the deon is on a wider track.
So does anyone know if the deon/jhclassic dino body is wider than the actual dino body? Or does the dino used a different wheel offset? I know the deon/jhclassic uses 0mm wheel offset.

ian

chassis
 

hi all

Sorry a bit confused! I should have put the deon uses an 8mm offset. Now I'm not sure if this is a plus+ or minus- offset. I'm guessing it's a minus offset as this would bring the overall track width down by 16mm.So if the same size rims were used an overall track would be 19mm wider at the tyre.
I also know from deon's I've seen that the front wheels always looked like they were a little to wide for the car-sticking out from the front arches slightly.
The cromodora wheels are 0mm offset.

ian

Deon track
 

Hey Ian,
how does 1460 come about? Is it not a Lancia Beta engine, gearbox with Beta driveshafts and hubs? The Beta at1410 is narrower than 1460 by 50mm (2 inches). No matter what Deon do with the wishbones they'd be stuck with the same measurement hub to hub as the Beta wouldn't they? Unless I'm missing something.

Lancia HPE 2000i.e.
http://www.italian-cars-club.com/Squ...-hpe2000ie.jpg

chassis
 

Hi Ross

My car is the later deon with the ford 2.9 v6 which I've uprated to the 24v cosworth engine. It uses all new design upper and lower wishbones at the back with custom made drive shafts but to the standard lancia upright and lancia hubs at the rear. I've not actually measured the rear yet.
The size I've come up with is for the front. I've measured from disc face to disc face and this is the said size of 1460. The track is wheel centre to wheel centre and I'm assuming deon used a minus -8mm wheel offset so this gives an overall track of 1444. The 246 was 1425 so the deon was 19 mm oversize!
As I will be using cromadora wheels with a 0 offset I need to reduce the track by 35mm. This could be easily achieved on the deon by screwing in the bush holders as there is 22mm at the bottom and 19mm at the top. To keep bump steer to 0 the steering arm adaptors could also be wound by the same amount.
But I think I'll reduce the chassis here in width by probably 30mm and keep the deon set up as is.

ian

chassis
 

Hi all

I've checked the measurement at the back of the deon and have 1480mm disc face to disc face. Giving a rear track assuming the deon wheel offset is -8 per side of 1464mm. Again wider than the 246 by 34mm and again this is possible to reduce on the bottom pair of wishbones but later spec deon's had fixed upper wishbones so narrowing of the chassis is needed.

ian

That is very interesting Ian! Perhaps the later Deon chassis that you have is wider to cope with the Ford engine? I guess that narrowing the track but keeping the same driveshafts would need checking to see that the shafts still had enough travel, lengthwise, so they don't bind. Given that the Deon body shell was originally moulded from a 206 Dino the 206 tracks are what you want to replicate? To my eyes the way the wheel/tyre combo fills the arch on the 246 looks better on the 246 than the 206.
The Ferrari Dino 206 was:
track front: 1425mm. (246GT is 1425)
track rear: 1400mm. (246GT is 1430)

here are a few images - the 206 was originally specced with narrower 185 tyres as well as having a narrower track in the rear:

Attachment 4763

Attachment 4764

Attachment 4765