So then my question to you, the experienced of this tactic, is how do you feel about my ideas applied to the G-body as far as two TII engines go? Any input you'd like to give? I'd be especially interested in your comments about the work involved (and any issues you ran into) with rear mounting.
-J Southern California Forced Induction 1989 Dodge Daytona Shelby Turbo II 1986 Chrysler Laser XE Turbo 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo 1991 Mitsu Eclispe GSX Turbo(for sale) 1990 VW Corrado G60 Supercharged (possibly revived?) 1984 Nissan 200SX Turbo 1985 Nissan 200SX Turbo 1983 Datsun 280ZX Turbo -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chad Brown Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:49 PM To: sdml Subject: Re: SD> awd daytona Two engines is the way to go. People who were at SDAC this year probably saw the monstrosity that we (ExtremePSI) built. For those of you who didn't see the link below you should be able to get a few ideas. http://www.extremepsi.dns2go.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=MI ckey-The-2-engine-Shadow! We used 2 worn out bone stock TI log motors with autos because we had them. We ran a best of 13.4 with no tuning. The car launches great and actually drives pretty decent. AWD, 8 cylinder twin turbo 4 dr shadow. :-D Chad B http://www.extremepsi.dns2go.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Arroyo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "sdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:11 PM Subject: RE: SD> awd daytona > Stefan, I dearly want to win you over to the idea of retaining the > front and adding the rear drivetrain. I will try to explain why. > > The MAIN advantages of a twin-driveline setup: > > - mild powered engines yield a large overall power output > - twin transmissions reduce wear and improve overall strength of > driveline(s) since neither is carrying the entire burden of weight > individually, and both are designed to. > - AWD traction/launch advantage not only improves launches but gives > the cornering advantage of AWD (why would you NOT want that?) > - Based on my proposed configuration, you still have OEM rear seating > if you wanted to stuff two more people OR junk in the car, so why > would you need a huge trunk area? This isn't a four door anyways ;) > And my edgewise fuel tank idea could work. At which point, cooling > needs could still allow for you to retain the front engine. > > There would certainly be a weight gain issue, but again the 2.2/2.5L > SOHC engine isn't all that large, and what's more, the front/rear > weight ratio would be improved. Tune them both to 200hp (easy) and you > should have more than enough to bolt down a dragstrip despite this > weight gain. As it is, you should be able to keep the car well under 5 > tons in any case. I would imagine it somewhere around 4,500 lbs. > Average musclecar weight. It wouldn't handle like a nimble sport > compact, but when did the G-body do that, anyways? The addition of IRS > and AWD would allow for superior rear suspension that would be of some > use over the solid axle setup, and allow for more controlled > cornering. Perhaps even superior slide control. Who knows. > > All in all, I see no reason why an MR G-body would be better than a > FF/MR G-body. > > Just think, twin 2.2's = 4.4L, and 2.5's = 5.0L. Like a twin turbo V8 > AWD weight-balanced coupe, with gobs of brute strength, and the grip > of tiger's claws. And the growl of a lion. > > Maybe I should be on the lookout for another '89 Turbo II engine/trans > <pondering some more> > > -J Southern California Forced Induction > 1989 Dodge Daytona Shelby Turbo II > 1986 Chrysler Laser XE Turbo > 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo > 1991 Mitsu Eclispe GSX Turbo(for sale) > 1990 VW Corrado G60 Supercharged (possibly revived?) > 1984 Nissan 200SX Turbo > 1985 Nissan 200SX Turbo > 1983 Datsun 280ZX Turbo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mullikin, Stefan P [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Well, I'd not bother with keeping the front engine. Reclaim that area > for luggage, fuel tank, cooling, etc. Otherwise our thoughts parallel > each other. > > Though I think I'd probably not bother and build a GT40 kit with a > more modern V-8 (Toyota, Ferd 4.6?) mated to a Porsche transaxle. > Similar amount of effort with better aesthetics (my opinion here) and > better overall package from an engineering standpoint. > > A guy here in Portland actually started building a rear engined Omni > GLH-T but I don't think he's gotten very far with it as he works on it > when the mood strikes him. He might have even scrapped it by now as > the project started because of the car's rust issues (it was imported > from elsewhere in the country). One thing he did say was that the > drivetrain seemed to fit just fine behind the rear seat/gas tank in > the Omni. Of course the Daytona has a shorter wheelbase so that > probably wouldn't be true for the 'tona. > > Dual throttle cables have been done before using the stock pedal. > This was for the dual downdraft Weber/Holley using the MP manifold. > The shift linkage would be a bit more involved and expensive since > you'd need to make sure the cables are routed and adjusted properly. > In that case a single engine or two automatics would be an easier > solution to implement. > > Mid-engined conversions have been done with the Fiat X-1/9 platform, > so anything is possible. > > S > > -----------------------REMOVE-FOOTER-WHEN-REPLYING-------------------- > ---- ---- > Questions? Visit http://www.sdml.org/ > > To be removed, visit http://www.sdml.org/pages/leave.html > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/21/2004 -----------------------REMOVE-FOOTER-WHEN-REPLYING---------------------- ------ Questions? Visit http://www.sdml.org/ To be removed, visit http://www.sdml.org/pages/leave.html -----------------------REMOVE-FOOTER-WHEN-REPLYING---------------------------- Questions? Visit http://www.sdml.org/ To be removed, visit http://www.sdml.org/pages/leave.html
