dream project

[320 CLK]

For me a 1970 Hemi Dodge Challenger. And just polish it. I would really like to put a E55 engine into a W124 CE as a good project.

 

[Bellow]

It would be nice to think that an R1 would last for 2000 hours at 80% power but it probably won't. In an R1, that would translate to about 250,000 miles. You would also need to add in around 15 Kg for the redrive necessary to get the speed down to about 2,500 RPM to drive a propeller.

In its own first gear 8500 at the crank gives 2150rpm at the output shaft and 335lb.ft of torque. Probably not for 2000 hours though. Cheap enough to throw and replace regularly at a three figure sum. For aircraft use I don't suppose the offset from centre shaft would aid any installation intent on minimising frontal area. The (small scale) aviation industry is still in search of its ideal engine then - will it ever get one?

As for old tech, I love the stuff. The 1700cc Turbodiesel from PSA is durable, simple and damn' near unbreakable (The old 90BHP 2.5 turbodiesel used in the CX is unbreakable and nobody has ever worn one out but it is very heavy, compared to, say, Stonehenge.
It did however waft me from Amsterdam to Brittany one night at 48 MPG.)

Simpler than that - quite a bit simpler. And a lot lot lighter - is what I'm after.

 

[tron]

Well, we did have the Olympus 593 but there needed to be four of them and suitable airframes are scarce and, alas, no longer airworthy! The requirements for aero engines mean that it is hard to use a motorcycle's output shaft as the propeller thrust needs to be taken into account. Single seaters are now using a modified Briggs and Stratton that is capable of doing 100 MPH at 100 MPG in a tiny and somewhat unforgiving little machine called a Luciole. Easy to get 35 BHP out of, it would push a Lotus 7 lookalike around slowly, simply and cheaply but Kubota's 3 cylinder diesel gave 140 MPG in a Reliant I saw at the factory. Trouble is it ate drivetrains and brakes, being capable of speeds that were quite unlike Robin speeds.
I always wanted to put that one into an Ami.

 

[Bellow]

I've not heard of the Olympus 593 (I'll Google it later) but fair point re thrust with bike engine. I suspect that they also rotate in the wrong direction for a prop. A lot of weight could be gutted from the transmission though - only the one gear pair is required (ditch the other five) and the clutch can be binned and merely bolted solid. Replace the gear pair with a chain and the direction issue is addressed and while it is apart investigate the possibility of a taper thrust bearing(s).
Much of this is already done by Yamaha for fitment of the engine to a sled. That engine superseded by a three cylinder unit (I think). Sled motors are really quite sophisticated nowadays - lightness (and reliability) always high on the priority list. The more plentiful firing strokes would be a lot kinder to a drivetrain than any diesel can ever be. The need for certification must be a bind....

 

[Bellow]

Well, we did have the Olympus 593 .

Hardly the 100hp motor you called for....

 

[tron]

Not 100 HP but for my money, the ideal aviation engine.
0-250 Knots in17 seconds is pretty good and once it gets off the floor, it is even more wild. By contrast
My own aircraft has a Rotax sled engine. 40 HP @6800 rpm, 300 hour crank life at £1300 a throw away.

 

[Bellow]

Isn't Rotax shorthand for 'extortionate pricing'? It's a pity you are tied to certification as there are any amount of jetski engines that would do what the Rotax does at a fraction of the price, and the 2-stroke sled motors are light years ahead of the Rotax for tech. A 75-80hp outboard marine engine would give you 40hp at your preferred 2500 rpm prop speed and be unstressed - and uncertified.

 

[tron]

We don't call them Long John Rotax for nothing. The quality of the two strokes is pretty average but the deregulated category (single seat landplanes up to 300 Kg maximum take-off weight) does not need a certified engine but fuel is weight and two strokes like a drink. Rotax have a huge percentage of the light aircraft market. The 912 series are reliable. I spe t the morning behind one on 3700 hours which would still lift my equally rotund passenger and I at 70 knots and 1000 FPM without drama. The alternative is the Australian Jabiru engine, widely considered to be a pinless grenade.

 

[stwat]

This looks like a lorra fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsbfzmPCYX4&feature=em-uploademail
[YOUTUBE HD]UsbfzmPCYX4[/YOUTUBE HD]

 

[John Jones Jr]

Ah, a Honda with old & new combined, just brilliant.

 

[stwat]

It needs a small turbo to help with the low down revs in my view.

 

[Bellow]

I have a question.
If a car is presented for IVA testing and has had any structural modifications applied to the chassis (read bodyshell/monocoque) then the original registration number of that chassis will be denied and a Q-plate issued.
So, how come structural chassis modifications are permitted outwith IVA? I thought that for MOT purposes only chassis repairs were permissible. Or is that wrong?
Do these people rely on the MOT tester merely not noticing?
Enlighten me please!

Does anyone have a definitive answer to the above question?
Some of you must have had to cut and shut a section of shell to squeeze in an engine, gearbox or diff - surely?
Moonloops: what about your Audi V8 into a space barely large enough for a four cylinder - without chassis surgery? How will you approach the MOT?

 

[ItalianTuneUp]

...How will you approach the MOT?

Angle grinder?

 

[nb_racing]

Does anyone have a definitive answer to the above question?
Some of you must have had to cut and shut a section of shell to squeeze in an engine, gearbox or diff - surely?
Moonloops: what about your Audi V8 into a space barely large enough for a four cylinder - without chassis surgery? How will you approach the MOT?

As far as I know you don't need to put a car on a q plate just for structural changes.
I think Q plates are only for cars whos year of manufacture is unkown, or if the car is a one off home brew job.
m4s06000101

An example that springs to mind would be a Z-cars mini with a spaceframe rear end with a bike engine. The car carries the same reg number, and so long as it is all safe and structurally sound, and the V5 is updated for engine capacity and location, then it is still essentially the same car.

The MOT is all about safety. They don't really care if you've chopped your car around, so long as the work that has been done is safe. Also I don't think they are bothered about registrations, so long as the VIN number is present, and all the numbers match up to identify the car.

An mot tester has the power and right to fail a car on anything, specificed in the guidelines or not, that he deems unsafe.

This is my understanding having worked with MOT testers back in my day, but I'm not and never was a tester myself so am happy to be corrected!

Edit:
I just re-read your question and it relates more to IVA test. Is that the same and SVA? Single vehical approval? (just googled, yes I think we are talking about the same thing. Has SVA been changed to IVA??)
I don't really know for sure.
I think that you only need an IVA/SVA if the car has no identity, ie registration number. So if you were building a home brew job, kit car etc.
But in the case of a "project" car with a different engine fitted as relevant to this thread, I don't think you need an SVA as it is already registered with the DVLA. You'd just need to MOT it, but that said, as an annual test could you not MOT it until its due..?? I don't really know!

 

[developer]

My project is would be to package 4 wheel drive to what I've got, to hit those 3.6sec 0-60mph that our USA cousins enjoy.

4.2secs is so British .

 

[John Jones Jr]

My project is would be to package 4 wheel drive to what I've got, to hit those 3.6sec 0-60mph that our USA cousins enjoy.

4.2secs is so British .

Oh, you better sell it. Point six is liking having an extra two inches I'd imagine

 

[Bellow]

As far as I know you don't need to put a car on a q plate just for structural changes.
I think Q plates are only for cars whos year of manufacture is unkown, or if the car is a one off home brew job.
m4s06000101

An example that springs to mind would be a Z-cars mini with a spaceframe rear end with a bike engine. The car carries the same reg number, and so long as it is all safe and structurally sound, and the V5 is updated for engine capacity and location, then it is still essentially the same car.

The MOT is all about safety. They don't really care if you've chopped your car around, so long as the work that has been done is safe. Also I don't think they are bothered about registrations, so long as the VIN number is present, and all the numbers match up to identify the car.

An mot tester has the power and right to fail a car on anything, specificed in the guidelines or not, that he deems unsafe.

This is my understanding having worked with MOT testers back in my day, but I'm not and never was a tester myself so am happy to be corrected!

Edit:
I just re-read your question and it relates more to IVA test. Is that the same and SVA? Single vehical approval? (just googled, yes I think we are talking about the same thing. Has SVA been changed to IVA??)
I don't really know for sure.
I think that you only need an IVA/SVA if the car has no identity, ie registration number. So if you were building a home brew job, kit car etc.
But in the case of a "project" car with a different engine fitted as relevant to this thread, I don't think you need an SVA as it is already registered with the DVLA. You'd just need to MOT it, but that said, as an annual test could you not MOT it until its due..?? I don't really know!

Thanks NBR. From the document:

'' figures 1 to 4 in Appendix C, where the shaded portions indicate the important load-bearing parts. Note: The prescribed areas are those specifically detailed in Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Manual''

What are the ''prescribed areas''? (I've looked through the complete document and can't find any reference to them eg, Section 2 is steering and suspension, 3 is brakes, 5 seatbelts.

For MOT purposes though: ''Any deliberate modification''...''not within a prescribed area'' is permitted providing it does not: ''adversely affects braking or steering by severely reducing the strength or continuity of a main load bearing structural member''.

This appears different from IVA (for Radically Altered Vehicles) where along with a certain amount of the original vehicle must be retained (points tally = 8 or more) and must not have ''altered chassis'' to avoid being issued with a Q-plate.
Presumably the only reason to go down the IVA route is when an MOT cannot be passed on the homologated emission levels. It does seem though that IVA prohibits the use of the existing registration number if there has been any chassis alteration.

file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Project%20BK%20general%20research/IVA%20'Radically%20Altered%20Vehicles'..html

 

[Bellow]

I posted post#57 before I saw the edit of post#54. Yes, IVA is the new SVA and one look at the linked page leves me wondering just how the hell Z-cars can hack lumps out of a Mini shell, replace engine, transmission, axle and still retain the original reg#. Possibly they merely MOT at the Mini's lax emission level?