Quote from v4forlife :

.eg, the 2006 r6. has next to no torque, but a cracking top end. makes it useless on the road, but very good on track.

Corrected post

@Gentlefoot, I tried to google it, but I can't find it, I believe it was a one off though

Quote from danowat :

Corrected post

@Gentlefoot, I tried to google it, but I can't find it, I believe it was a one off though

Thanks for trying mate.

Can't remember the name of the car but I know there's one out there with two ZX9R engines joined together on a single crank. Now thats a V8 I would be interested in!!

gentle, yea, thats the one that did 0-60 in like, 2.9 seconds, and tiff needel broke it.

and dan, if you add an can and a PCIII to play with the fueling a bit, it can be used. Kar managed to salvage it for the road.

Quote from v4forlife :

http://images.google.co.uk/img ... Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

Wasn't the one I was thinking of. Think it was called a Gemini or something. A bit like the Renault Spider thing.

Thats got two Gixer thou engines each with 145bhp!! Mental

Quote from JTbo :

Some modern straight 6 is not much longer than older 4 pot, but would be quite tight if there is only couple inches room, what takes all that space in it, can't radiator be moved more forward or what comes to limiting factor?

The limiting factor from my quick look around seems to be the chassis bars and front suspension gets in the way.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

The 2 litre 4-pot in the Westy is the Vauxhall red top jobby. Its not the smallest of engines.

My mates got a 2 litre seirra engine in it. I suppose alot of engines fit in the car though.

Quote from Greboth :

The limiting factor from my quick look around seems to be the chassis bars and front suspension gets in the way.



My mates got a 2 litre seirra engine in it. I suppose alot of engines fit in the car though.

Yeah - they used to use the crossflows but things moved on.

Edit - actually that's the CVH engine I think. Used them too.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

Torque is a nightmare on track because it just causes the wheels to break traction. Power is the way on track IMO.

Sorry but that's just twoddle really.

If you have two engines with the same peak power, one that revs low with tons of torque, and one that has little torque but revs forever, then the cars need to be geared to reach the same top speed. Thus the torque at the wheels will be equal.

Of course there are many other factors (mass + inertia, shape of torque curve, reliability) but basically reducing torque while increasing revs (while power remains constant) makes no difference to the tyres.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Sorry but that's just twoddle really.

If you have two engines with the same peak power, one that revs low with tons of torque, and one that has little torque but revs forever, then the cars need to be geared to reach the same top speed. Thus the torque at the wheels will be equal.

Of course there are many other factors (mass + inertia, shape of torque curve, reliability) but basically reducing torque while increasing revs (while power remains constant) makes no difference to the tyres.

Not from my experience of driving a high revving low torque golf mkII and comparing that to a turbo charged, low revving high torque mkII. In the latter the wheels just spun up the whole time. The lower torque NA golf was quicker point to point. OK its not a scientific test but still.

Quote from Gentlefoot :

Edit - actually that's the CVH engine I think. Used them too.

The 1.8 Sierras were CVH (yuk!), 2 litre were Pintos (yay!).

A torquey setup is only good if you can get traction, or have a heavy body - hence these bike powered kit cars are so damn quick on the track!

Look at the right rear tire on the pic, its deforming just like lfs, and doesnt look as odd as some people make it seem.

Quote from stjuart :

Look at the right rear tire on the pic, its deforming just like lfs, and doesnt look as odd as some people make it seem.

I do believe that is the left rear tire that is deforming in the pic in the first post.

LX6 is just a standard car, a lot like this one

Does LFS give anybody else an unreasonable urge to go out and buy a super seven?

Lots of people build these kinds of cars (LX4, LX6) from scratch. Search the web for "locost".

You don't need a dry sump on a BEC (bike engined car). They work fine with the stock oil pumps. Here in the states there are lots of sports-racer prototypes using 1-liter motorcycle engines without dry sumps. They race in the SCCA DSR class.

There's no doubt in my mind that somewhere there is a locost with an inline 6 engine.

Quote from slepyhed :

Lots of people build these kinds of cars (LX4, LX6) from scratch. Search the web for "locost".

You don't need a dry sump on a BEC (bike engined car). They work fine with the stock oil pumps. Here in the states there are lots of sports-racer prototypes using 1-liter motorcycle engines without dry sumps. They race in the SCCA DSR class.

There's no doubt in my mind that somewhere there is a locost with an inline 6 engine.

My dad's currently building a Locost, it runs, instruments work. All it needs is the seats properly fitted, seatbelts, a windscreen and a roof.

Quote from slepyhed :

Lots of people build these kinds of cars (LX4, LX6) from scratch. Search the web for "locost".

Yes and everywhere else, they're all based on the lotus 7 (or is it super seven) Cateram is the most famous in the uk i reckon, followed by westfield.

I'm building a locost, but it will be a while before I can drive it:

http://slepyhed.home.comcast.net/blog.html

That's what got me into LFS. I thought I could get a taste for what it would be like to drive this kind of car.

Now playing LFS interferes with the time I should be building my car!