Metro-powered sports car project

[Frank Lee]

Absolutely, I enjoy driving a slow car "fast" more than driving a fast car slow.

That Spitfire was anything but "gentle" and "predictable" when cornering...

[Bicycle Bob]

Yeah, as Fred Puhn wrote, the early swing axle Spitfires had a bad jacking reaction that would raise the back end up like a stink bug. The bean counters often try to sell an IRS setup at minimum cost, but aim too low and spoil the car.

[JackMcCornack]

Thanks for the responses, I'll consider myself pep-talked. To respond to some responses:

jamesqf wasn't wowed by the Metro motor, suggested...
> ...maybe a Honda Civic or Fit

A Civic puts one into the high performance market, which I think is adequately covered (Atom etc) on the high bucks end and in the medium bucks, google <Midlana>. There's so much Civic hop-up and engine variety, the lure of serious fast pulls people away from my current obsession, which is economy--both fuel economy and build economy. A Fit? Eventually there will be enough of those on the used market, but not today. My do-not-exceed parameters are $5000 and 160 hours (4 weeks at 40 hours per) and I'm hoping for less of both.

RobertSmalls asked...
> ...what would it look like when you cut down a Metro to 2/3 its frontal area and 1100 lbs?

It's not going to be a cut down Metro, it'll be a tube frame sports car using a Metro engine and trans behind the driver and passenger. The body will be a removable hardtop coupe, simple curves wherever possible. Seats mounted directly to the belly pan to get the roof as low as practical. Imagine a short, small, Kammback MR2 with no cup holders and a bit of '60s small displacement Le Mans car styling in the mix.

Steve47 noted...
> He is talking about putting a metro engine in a Locost

No, while it's true that I'm putting a Metro engine in a Locost, that's not what I'm talking about here. Technology-wise it'll have a lot of Locost heritage (for example, square tubes to make the frame easier to make) but there'll be no confusing the two.

[Coyote X]

I say go for it. Building a car is not really that hard if you start with a square non wrecked donor front end and rebuild it in place before taking it out of the car and moving it to the new frame. My main priority would be to keep it strong and easy to work on and if that means it is a bit heavier than you wanted it is no big deal. It will be a daily driver that will have to be worked on in the future no matter how much new stuff you put on it. Also keep the random car parts to a minimum and try as hard as possible to use the parts off one or two cars only so 10 years later you can remember what parts to get for it when it breaks down. My kit car has parts off probably 25 different cars and it is easier to just rebuild it using a different part than try and figure out what the part on it came off of to get a replacement.

The only real issue you will have is making a reliable shifter. The clutch and all the other junk will work just fine. Drill a few holes in the thermostat to let more flow through to make up for the long distance the antifreeze has to travel to reach the radiator. A boat steering cable will do for a longer clutch cable. Most other stuff will fit without issue.

The best I can think of for the shifter is to get a dune buggy cable operated shifter setup. It probably wont last for years without adjustments but that is not that big of a deal really depending on how much you plan on driving it.

[JackMcCornack]

Frank Lee wrote...
> I had a slow sports car once

I've had several! I've got one now, a 32 horsepower Lotus 7 semi-replica painted up like the car in The Prisoner. It's set up for multifuel (petrodiesel, biodiesel, canola oil, Jet A, the list goes on...) and last year it won an over-the-road alternative fuel race from Berkeley to Vegas. It is huge fun to drive--to drive it fast you have to pay lots of attention and plan every pass, keep up momentum, take accurate lines through corners, and "fast" isn't really descriptive, the engine has a governor that stops it from accelerating at 71.5 mph so "fast" in this context means "as fast as possible." This spring I drove a more conventional Locost across the country (Miata powered, with about 5 times the horsepower of the Kubota) and I never drove it anywhere near its limit. As Frank alludes, it's more fun to drive an underpowered car hard than an overpowered car gingerly. But as Frank also alludes, that's no excuse for crummy handling, and an underpowered car with bad cornering habits doesn't sound like much fun on a mountain road.

From Bicycle Bob:
> I think that most light, streamlined cars should have front engines for crosswind stability

I think you're right, with the "most" qualifier thrown in there. Much of car design calls for compromise. My experience is that improving streamlining reduces yaw stability, and unless you're going to add fins, or a tail so long that the rear axle is in the middle of the car, a slippery car is going to be blown downwind by side gusts. This car will have the problem compounded by its light weight, but its small side area will help, and yaw stability is part of why it's getting a Kamm rather than notchback rear end. Time will tell.

The problem with a front engine sports car, from the standpoint of fuel economy, is the tallest part of the car (the roof over the driver) is set so far back, it's hard to do serious streamlining unless you're willing to accept an awfully long car.

Coyote X writes...
> ...keep the random car parts to a minimum and try as hard as possible to use the parts off one or two cars only so 10 years later you can remember what parts to get for it when it breaks down.

Right you are. I'm shooting for Metro parts only. For example, the front wheels are also Metro wheels (sans axles) with a bolt-on upper ball joint adapter. There will be a fair number of DIY-or-buy parts, but when you go to the wrecking yard, I hope you'll only have to visit the Metro/Swift section.

> The only real issue you will have is making a reliable shifter.

You're gonna love it! I'm using the Metro shifter with one funny-shaped tube and one machined fitting. Of course, I haven't actually driven it yet so I may be kidding myself, but dry shifting my mockup it works fine.

The streamlined body for MAX is taking precidence over this project for now, it'll be a while before I have anything to show y'all, but I'm no longer sitting on the fence and this is going to be Kinetic's next project post-MAX.

[ZeroFuel]

Frank Lee

I also had a 64' spit, was one of the best handling cars I ever drove (once I put a homemade camber compensator, Koni's & Pirelli's on it)

[ZeroFuel]

Jack, check out our web site & I maybe able to help you out with a 15:1 CR G10 late next year. Would be perfect for your project.

Home Page

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by ZeroFuel

Frank Lee

I also had a 64' spit, was one of the best handling cars I ever drove (once I put a homemade camber compensator, Koni's & Pirelli's on it)

So all you've ever driven was a Spit and maybe a gravel truck?

[pgfpro]

Sounds like a awesome build!!!

Keep us informed.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by JackMcCornack

jamesqf wasn't wowed by the Metro motor...

It's not so much anything negative about the Metro - I really only know anything about them from this site - as it is the positive experience I've always had with Hondas. The previous CRX was running fine at close to 300K miles, when it had an unfortunate encounter with water over the freeway (and on a sunny day in the Nevada summer, too!), and wound up going backwards down the road at about 60 mph. And the current Insight has had really zero problems that weren't caused by Bambi or tailgating Suburbans.

A Civic puts one into the high performance market, which I think is adequately covered (Atom etc) on the high bucks end and in the medium bucks, google <Midlana>. There's so much Civic hop-up and engine variety...

You'd know more about that than I do, but surely that variety of aftermarket stuff is a plus? And from what I've seen, it's aimed at pretty stock bodies, where I'd like a radical reshaping...