millenniumtree
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 06:04 PM |
|
|
7mgte (Toyota Supra Motor)
~260hp (450 with turbo and head bolt upgrades)
With some 10 inch wide tires on the back?
Hill-climber?
I want to do this so bad it hurts.
Give me a reason to try it, because I don't think I'm going to give up the idea.
I will call it the "Supra Seven"
|
|
|
|
|
emsfactory
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
Give me a reason to try it,
Ok, I bet you a pound you cant.
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 06:40 PM |
|
|
Anything _can_ be done.
If I ever do try this engine and somehow admit failure, I'll look you up and send a pound your way.
Reasons to try it?
Hillclimbing, drifting, drag racing, and maybe just circuit racing if you could figure out the weight distribution. Plus, all the oohs and aahs at
the car shows.
I dunno, there are more reasons not to try it than to try it, but I have never wanted something conventional. I want radical!
Plus, I don't think this engine has seen enough use in kit cars. It's a beautiful engine.
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
I think it is a great idea.
But, I would probably significantly redesign the car :
Generally bigger to allow for the larger engine.
Stronger, mainly to cope with the weight of the bigger engine and also to help with the huge torque.
Personally, I would be inspired by the styling of the Kougar Sport - I like the tall nose - more suitable for a tall engine
Jon
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 07:10 PM |
|
|
Yes! I was thinking a modified +442, or even a completely custom space frame using big tubes, but still in the general shape of a locost.
I personally think wide nosecones look hideous, but a taller _and_ wider one might not look so out of proportion.
My long term plan would be to pump the engine to 600 horses, so a significant strengthening would have to take place. Full welded rollcage, strut tie
jobbers, etc.
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
Big tubes sound good - not sure why but instinctively that seems right. If it's a bit heavy, who cares with all that torque.
My guess is it wouldn't be as fast on a track a a well sorted seven, but who cares, that much torque would be fun
This is the sort of nose I had in mind
 
Rescued attachment 22.jpg
Jon
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 08:10 PM |
|
|
That one looks better than the hot-dog-bun-colored one I found earlier. 
I had the idea, to save money, to not modify the supra axles or propshaft and just build a sevenesque body around that, it would mean a wheelbase of
100 inches and track width of 60 inches. That's a big car. Or I could extend the wheelbase even further by moving the front wheels forward.
This would mean a VERY long bonnet, but better weight distribution. I'm going to make some drawings of how it might be laid out.
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
Yea, the cars on the Kougar website are pretty bad. The site hasn't been updated for a while so I suspect they aren't pushing this
much.
What type of suspension does the Supra have at each end - any photos?
Jon
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
I think this is the rear suspension.
Looks like an A arm and some other bits.
http://mkiiisupra.homeip.net/albums/1jz_buildup_journal/27/p1010025.jpg
Found better pics here:
http://www.supras.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=35
Front
Rear
[Edited on 31/1/06 by millenniumtree]
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
the rear sub ass'y looks like this
tom
 
Rescued attachment supra rear subframe.jpg
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 09:12 PM |
|
|
and like this from underneath.
bear in mind that the front uprights on a supra weigh about twice that of even a sierra upright. they ain't light cars.
the engine will need some serious power just to shift itself. imho, everything's far too heavy and bulky to use in a locost.
each to their own
tom
 
Rescued attachment supra rear subframe underside.jpg
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 31/1/06 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
This would be a completely different type of car. A sort of lightweight cobra, not a Chapmanesque seven.
If I ever get the big garage I dream of, I plan to build three cars - A seven, a heavyweight like the Kougar and a midengined car, perhaps like a
Lotus 23
Jon
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 03:25 AM |
|
|
Well, I would prefer it to be roughly seven-shaped, but it will obviously not be a book build, and may even be a quite heavily modified +442 or
something completely different. Supras put out huge power, but because they are so heavy, they rarely make good times in races. If I could just chop
off the big heavy body and leather seats and all the other fancy gagetry... get the beast down to a minimum, I think I'd have a brutally fast
car that handles pretty decently. Plus, it will be unique. I give big points to unique, even if it will be a bit harder to find help when I need
it.
If it _can_ be done, I would like to think that I _will_ do it some day. Time, budget, and garage space will dictate. 
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
If you have the space (a garage), some spare cash and the desire, then go for it.
The worst that can happen is that you balls it up, learn a lot then do it right next time.
A Supra would make a great doner for this type of car
Jon
|
|
|
Dillinger1977
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 09:53 AM |
|
|
i had a 7mgte supe and it was monstrously big.
barely just fitted in the garage i have.
i cant imaging a seven with a wheelbase that size, and the length and size of the straight six would make for an odd nose.
considering the amount of new bodywork fettling, it might be nice to choose a different body shape entirely.
but, thats what this site is about isnt it. doing something different 
-Rog
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I figure I'll have to at _least_ cut the axles and propshaft. More likely, I'll need an expanded frame similar to a hillclimber. I
know ultimas are mid-engined, but something similar to that body style would be nice.
Maybe something like this: Seven-like, but more racey. http://www.seight.com/tom_green.html
|
|
|
Wadders
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
Check out the pictures in the 5th post on here:http://www.ukstreetracers.co.uk/msgforum/viewtopic.php?t=2553
he's using a chevy V8 rather than a supra, but iit gives you some idea of what a pumped up seven could be like.
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 1/2/06 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
That doesn't look too bad, except I think I'd do the rollcage a bit differently.
I went to the junkyard today and took some measurements of a few '87-92 supras.
Here they all are!
All dimensions are a pretty good approximation unless stated otherwise. All were meansured as best I could with a metal tape measure.
7M-GE/7M-GTE
EXACT Block Dimensions at head gasket:
Length: 23 inches, width: 5.25 inches
EXACT Valve cover dimensions:
Length: 23.5 inches, width: 3.25 inches
Approximate head/manifold dimensions
head: 26 inches long, 8 inches wide
intake manifold 9 inches wide
exhaust manifold 4 inches wide
total head/intake/exhaust width: 21 inches
overall length of engine with cooling fan: approx 32 inches
overall width of engine from cooling fan tips on left to compressor on right: 24 inches
Cooling fan dimensions: 7 inches proud of block, 16 inches in diameter
Approx bell housing width at engine block: 14 inches
Bell housing front to shift knob: about 21 inches (+/- 3 inches!) Measurement was "rough"
Rear wheel center to shift knob (very approx) 58 inches
Bell housing/Engine block mating to rear axle center (very approx) 85 inches
Outside of wheel to outside of wheel in the rear: (very approx) 64 inches
Approx Rear axle hub-to-hub: 61 inches (probably slightly less)
The left side half-shaft from threaded/splined end to the CV joint gubbins: 26 inches (it was sitting on the drivers side seat of one of the cars)
Radiator dimensions for turbo model!
Intercooler: 12x21x3 inches
Oil Radiator: 4x10x1 inches mounted with 10 inch dimension vertical
Radiator: 15x25x1 inch
I'm glad I wore boots because the yard was EXTREMELY muddy. I should have brought my regular shoes as well because I had to drive home with
just my socks on.
I had a great time though!
[Edited on 2/2/06 by millenniumtree]
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 2/2/06 at 08:07 AM |
|
|
I'd like to keep the car weight under 1800 pounds. This would give me dodge viper-like power to weight ratio right from the start, and that
could be improved to mclaren F1 range with nothing more than a big turbo.
How feasible is keeping it under 1800 pounds though?
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 2/2/06 at 08:11 AM |
|
|
it should be fine as most v8 kitcars of a similar size seem to be around 750kg/1650pounds so it cant weigh much more than those.
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 2/2/06 at 02:46 PM |
|
|
My guess would be that making a stronger chassis might add say 100lb to the end weight.
I suspect that the weight of the Supra engine / transmission would be more of an issue - any idea how much they weigh?
Jon
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 2/2/06 at 04:07 PM |
|
|
100 pounds is alot (doubling the weight of the chassis roughly) you could get away with alot less if you were careful about where you put the extra
material.
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 3/2/06 at 03:23 AM |
|
|
I have yet to find a definitive weight for the engine and/or transmission, but shipping weights for said items always come in around 5-600 pounds.
This may be an exaggerated figure to cover bases with whomever they ship with though... I called a JDM engine importer and he said 600 pounds before
I told him an engine. When I asked about the 7MGTE, he said "We don't weigh every engine!" I wish someone would.
Anyone have tips on making things lighter up front in the engine bay? What don't I need up there?
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 3/2/06 at 08:44 AM |
|
|
This might help
http://locost7.info/files/engine/EngineWeights2000.htm
They don't seem to list your engine but if you assume that your engine is one of the heavier engines say like a jag 3.8 or BMW 3.5 then compare
this with a small Ford engine say a 1.6 CVH then you'll get a rough idea
Jon
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 3/2/06 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
That is a huge help, THANKS!!
Though not the 7M, I did find these in the list:
Toyota 1G-EU 2.6 L6 = 340
Toyota 1G-GEU 2.0 L6 = 355
Toyota 4M Hemi L6 = 400
I already knew that the 2.6 liter 4M was a predecessor to the 7M. There are 2 major generation changes between the engines. If we figure an
additional 30-40 pounds per generation, we should be right around 460-480 pounds. The 6M was basically a bored out 5M, so I won't count it as a
generation.
The 1G engines were specifically designed to be light-weight, so the low weight makes sense.
When we add in the 100.1 pound R154 transmission into the equation, plus a bit of wiggle-room, we get around 550-600 pounds for the whole thing...
Heavy, but workable.
I think this engine is a good choice for me. It's got the power I want, the bullet-proof reliability (once you retorque the head), and in the
future when the MKIV supra engines come down in price, I can drop one of those into it and get 900 hp with a stock bottom end. (and lighter, to boot)
[Edited on 5/2/06 by millenniumtree]
|
|
|
