|
|
|
Jun 28, 2023 11:29:30 GMT
|
It's not a massively wide piece afaik, but yeah, I don't doubt they're expensive. The subframe mounts that stick out are towards the front of the car, not under the motor. The engine sits behind that metal loop. The 944/968 rear end is also a nice unit that ought to be a lot easier to fit and to narrow if need be. It's just a tube with stuff bolted to it. Probably does all the same things as the 964 rear, but in a simple to fit form. Thanks for correcting my assumption about the orientation of the 993 rear end. Its a lovely looking piece of kit but it would need a major revamp to suit my chassis. I am severely restricted on track width so I expect it would need to be narrowed by about 10cm. I'm pretty familiar with the 944 rear setup, but the 964 rear end beats it for simplicity, weight and cost. No need for the torsion tube; once the trailing arms have been mounted there is an infinite number of coilover choices, ranging from cheap as chips Chinese budget affairs to full on Ohlins remote reservoir works of art.... hubba hubba! Ive noticed that Mid nineties spec Honda Fireblade Ohlins would fit beautifully and come with remote in-car adjusters and reservoirs. Would adapting a pair of these to cope with an 800kg car be as simple as installing the correct rate springs? More research needed I think. One big advantage of the 964 set up over the 944 is the absence of the torsion tube. I can mount the engine as far forward as required to optimise the angle of axle deflection at the rear hubs. This means that I don't have to compromise, having the engine too far back leading to less than perfect solutions for the axle angles and engine weight positioning. Due to the much lighter weight expected of this car when compared to a regular Porsche, plus the further forward mounting of the engine/gearbox, I'm hoping that the lever /pendulum action affecting yaw will be reduced and make it a little less likely to snap away in spirited corners. Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2023 16:10:08 GMT
|
|
the trailing arms will make the snap oversteer more likely than the new 911 double wishbone/multilink setup
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2023 18:47:25 GMT
|
the trailing arms will make the snap oversteer more likely than the new 911 double wishbone/multilink setup Perhaps, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Looking at cost vs benefit, I can live with the 964 arrangements. A well sorted pukka 964 was still streets ahead of the equivalent 911sc or 930 and could be made to handle very nicely. If it is still scary I’ll get my son to teach me how to drift :-) If I do another Porsche style project it will likely be midengined and will use a modified version of the donor car’s suspension. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm scheming up a mid engined 356, but every time i scrape together some cash some other bill turns up and derails it all
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2023 10:25:03 GMT
|
I'm scheming up a mid engined 356, but every time i scrape together some cash some other bill turns up and derails it all see if you can find the 356 build with the audi v8 on the internet |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2023 11:39:55 GMT
|
|
Grant is building that but it's largely stalled of late. the audi V8 is a bit much, but the audi V6 is tiny and the OB3 gearbox makes things easy to fit within the wheelbase...kinda
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 After a long think I may have found a way of retaining the original (albeit modified) suspension rather than go for 964 stuff. I need the rearmost wishbone pick up points to be relocated 8cm further forward to allow the gearbox to sit further forward to get a good alignment on the driveshafts. This means Ill need to fit wishbones with a narrower spacing between the mounts. Is this likely to be a major problem? Ill also be converting the rear to single coilovers rather than the doubles currently fitted. Ive finally removed the rear bodywork from the chassis to allow for rustproofing, chassis mods and roll cage install. Ill also be making up engine and gearbox crossmembers.   |
| |
|
|
Darkspeed
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,878
Club RR Member Number: 39
|
|
|
|
|
That suspension layout looks interesting. If staying with that geo I would advise Brown Cords before running around roads with bends in them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the lower wishbone is really wide, so having the pickups closer together isn't an issue, but what's controlling toe at the moment?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2023 10:34:09 GMT
|
|
do you have a shot from the rear? the top and bottom wishbones look like they are the same length?
|
| |
Last Edit: Aug 10, 2023 11:05:45 GMT by legend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2023 11:02:39 GMT
|
|
as above I'd look at making the top wishbone shorter and moving the inboard attachment out, if you are cutting one link on the lower one you might want to weld an turnbuckle in so you can adjust toe as well.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2023 11:29:43 GMT
|
From the front:  From the back:  The toe in adjuster is at the front of the lower wishbone. When I first got the project I was bemused by the fact the wishbones were similar lengths. They are, however, not parallel, which means that camber change is not too much of an issue. The car will be set up with firm suspension and I only expect a total wheel travel of around 50mm or so. The tyres have pretty deep soft sidewalls as was the norm in the 70s too. Altering the relative lengths of the wishbones is an option but I have a bit more research to do first. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2023 13:57:49 GMT
|
|
I can't help thinking you might be better off throwing the whole lot away and positioning the arm mounting brackets so you can fit the arms, uprights and even spring/dampers off an Mx5 on there. (obviously springs / dampers would need rates/ lengths changed)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2024 23:14:00 GMT
|
 Quick update; doing a bit of engine related work. These will add to the growl 😊 |
| |
|
|
Tazzy
Part of things
Posts: 114
|
|
Jan 17, 2024 12:24:43 GMT
|
|
Bring on the porn!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
