Hello from the UK and my project

[60 Plymouth]

Thanks, glad you like it!

I'm familiar with the "Suddenly!" story - I often thought those moon disks and headlight pants might go someway to me improving my fuel economy.

I'd some day like to have a turn in a sonoramic commando powered 60 - there's somthing very raw about American horsepower.

[cleanspeed1]

A big ship like that with all that frontal area, well, what can I say, it'll be challenging, but not impossible. My thoughts would be belly pan, moon discs and lower the ride height.

What do you want to do engine and driveline wise? Are you keeping it original or are you open to making some changes?

[60 Plymouth]

It's not my big economy project to be honest. Want to keep it essentially stock with a few modifications here and there. If I can get it to average 30mpg(Imp) I'd be happy. The biggest differences to make are in driving style. If I was inclined, a four speed manual would be the next thing, but that push-button auto is too cool. Other options would be an lpg conversion - for when I get a second motor to play with. High compression and a feedback carb should certainley improve £pg, though maybe not mpg.

My economy rod project is the real mpg machine though, and the real reason I am here, still runing calculations and stuff at the moment, here's one of my initial sketches:



Fully enclosed wheel spats and maybe faired in headlamps are other considerations. Power will probably come from a Suzuki G10 1.0l motor hooked up to a Samurai transmission, driving a Honda/BMW shaft drive rear end.

Steel perimeter frame rails and roll cage coupled to a 0.8mm rivetted aluminium body and no doors should keep weight to under 450kgs. Soft top hood faired into the boat tail should also help.

Have a look at a Pembleton three wheeler. 2cv powered lightweight built in Britain that regularly attains 60-70mpg with very little done to the motor. My concept is very similar, but hopfully has better aero and avoids it being yet another Morgan replica.

[Frank Lee]

I'd consider fwding that thing; the cockpit will be cozy enough the way it is and besides, it's probably best to put the power down on the heavy end.

[cleanspeed1]

You know, one of the things I thought about when you put the sketch up ( really cool looking by the way! ) was what about a small turbodiesel? I mean, since you guys on the other side of the pond have access to all those cool engines, you could use one and go over 100 mpg easily, and then pop down to the fish and chips for a snack and a fill up for the car ( use the old cooking grease to run the ol' girl! ).

[60 Plymouth]

I haven't ruled out the small diesel option, mostly for the possibility of using bio diesel. The thing that's nice about the Suzuki motors though is that the 1.0l three cylinder engines bolt straight up to the samurai 4x4 gearbox. Since these have divorced transfer cases you get a simple, easy, light weight (under 200lbs for the motor and gearbox) five speed. I could also turbo charge it and fit it with an LPG conversion.

Also, front wheel drive is the best engineering solution. 2/3 weight up front, 1/3 weight at back is the idea distribution for a reverse trike, and the front wheel drive offers better traction. I am however quite hung up on the idea of RWD - the idea behind this machine is to provide me with a small exciting machine when I want to throw it around (hanging the back end out like a Morgan going up a VSCC Shelsley Walsh hillclimb), and returning very good fuel economy when I want to commute to work.

There are difficulties with a front wheel drive in this configuration however.I'm kind of limited to sticking the engine in front of the axle (Lomax, Pembleton etc), which limits powerplants. The other option of 'reversing' the set up and having a transaxle at the front with an inline engine pointing backwards makes shifter linkages difficult. I'm sure it's nothing insurmountable though. Also, transverse FWD does not lend itself to the open wheel arrangement I'm keen on having.

Those wheels will probably end up in spats for improved aerodynamics, and steer with the wheels. The other option is for spats that remain fixed, which allows the headlights to be mounted in them, but the spats would not be able to fully enclose the wheels in this case, so the aerodynamic benefit of 'removing' the headlights is kind of negated.

Still, it's only an excercise on paper first. I'd rather have a pretty good idea of what goes into its construction before I spend any money on it!

[wyatta4]

Awesome car! Ha. My dad is actually almost half way done restoring a 1974 plymouth satelite! (replica of the Dirty Harry car)

[blade]

welcome to em and love the car and the sketch cant wait for the build