Question for Keith where the answer ≠ Miata

OK, so the answer will most certainly include Miata parts, but not a Miata.

So the Q is simple. What's easier to build a Locost or a radical engine and re suspending of an existing car?? Simple Q right? HA HA

So Keith, you've built both a Locost and are in the midsts of the LS1 BGT with new suspension. I realize this is an almost impossible question, but assuming both cars built with similar goals in mind i.e. done correctly but built to a budget, what do you think is easier to accomplish, in terms of time, $'s and skills needed.

I was just wondering this myself actually so I am anxious to hear the answer.

It's a good question. I didn't build the frame for my Locost, but I have a fairly good idea of what would be involved there. I was also working with parts I knew, whereas I'm still learning more with the MG.

Here's a point-by-point comparison.

The Locost is basically a clean sheet when it comes to packaging, and the frame is built to accommodate whatever powertrain will go inside. Before the first piece of metal is cut, there are no constraints. This can cause a problem for some people, as design paralysis can kick in But it does side-step some problems right from the start.

The MG, on the other hand, is heavily constrained. The new drivetrain has to fit into an existing package. In my case, I'm making dramatic changes to the car to build what I want to build, but I still have to fit everything into the body and deal with things like the pre-determined position of the fuel tank or the steering column. Of course, this also means I don't have to deal with problems like trying to figure out where to place and how to mount the fuel tank. But just think of the exhaust - on a Locost, you stick it out the side of the car. With the MG, it's going to have to go under the car and thread through the suspension.

The Locost is very simple. It's a car, distilled. There's nothing there that isn't required. This makes life easy.

The MG, not so much. It's expected to be a real car with a heater, a certain amount of sound and noise insulation and the like. Of course, most of the hard work has already been done - the windows roll up and down, it's carpeted, it has a heater and ventilation plumbing, etc. Some care is required to retain all this.

The Locost is built out of clean steel. The MG has 40-year-old undercoating. Yuk.

With the Locost, you're responsible for everything. Need fenders mounted to your wheels? Make a bracket. Need seats? Figure 'em out. Need a steering column, a fuel filler, a scuttle, etc - it's all you. You've got some design freedom, but nothing comes for free. You have to solve every single problem involved in designing a car. This is the biggest part of the work.

With the MG, I only have to deal with the parts I'm changing. I don't need to figure out how to hang doors, mount the headlights or deal with airflow management behind the dash. That's been done for me. This helps. Of course, it would have helped more if I hadn't tossed the stock suspension away!

So which is harder? From a problem-solving point of view I'm going to say the MG, due to the existing constraints. For example, I'm not only going to have to figure out a steering column, but I have to figure out how to make it work with the existing firewall and column mounting. But it's a pretty close race, and if I'd decided to do a more traditional 302 or Rover swap into the B - which would have retained the suspension front and rear - then it would have been the other way around. My MG is a pretty extreme makeover. It helps that I have the knowledge that I gained during the Locost build, I suspect, but it's difficult to quantify that as I always assume when looking back that I knew then what I know now.

Time is hard. I didn't build the Locost frame, and I was single then. Instead of building in my own garage living on my own, I'm building in a garage that's attached to the house I share with my wife. This means no late-night grinding and hammering. It also takes me longer to do simple things like make dinner I'm going to estimate similar time overall.

Money? That's such a variable. I think it's actually going to be pretty close. I could have found a cheaper MG (heck, a free one found me recently that would have been a perfect starting point) but I also bought my Locost frame. I don't pay attention to the total costs, I don't want to know. I just try to do everything for the minimum cost to do it right.

In terms of skills, I'd put them at a wash. I'll have to do more fine bodywork on the MG (no rivets here) due to my need for flares, but overall the basic skillset of shaping and welding metal, wiring, plumbing and painting is the same. Had I found a different MG to start with, I expect rust repair would have been a new skill I'd have to learn. But it's just an application of the metal and body work.

Whew, there's a ramble for you.

Keith wrote: I expect rust repair would have been a new skill I'd have to learn. But it's just an application of the metal and body work.

Spoken like someone whos never had to rebuild the bottom half of a car from scratch. Granted you can buy every last panel for an MGB, but thats not true of all cars. Besides, panel costs can add up fast once you discover that small hole in the corner involves repairing the floor, the inner rocker, the outer rocker, the seat mount, and the suspension mount. Rust repair is not only a huge time and money waster its also the least fun part of almost any car project. Imagine if you will spending an extra year or so fabbing and finding parts to get your MG to the condition it was before you even started the build.

Just something to think about before any project is started.

Sheesh Keith, why dont you just write a book about it or something...

Keith, How much of the complexity you assign to the MG project would go away if you had built it like the Miata powered one GRM did? Assuming that a significant suspension change would be included, rather than just "freshening up' the stock stuff. I've wondered about a Miata drive train and suspension in a BGT, just because building a fixed roof Miata GT would take metal working skills I don't possess.

In reply to Keith:

Wow, you type and think fast. Thanks for the amazingly detailed reply in a short space of time!

So the answer is really it's up to the builder.

I think what I'm taking away is the MG is probably the easier overall, but your making it hard on yourself.

Thanks

Don't call me Keith, but I'll put my two cents in.(Disclaimer;this is an opinion, and that makes it just like an A-hole-it smells) Modding an existing car is easier, for exactly the reason noted by the Mighty Keith. Design paralysis. I'm armpit deep in a build basically constrained by the (partially) existing shell. I don't suffer from too much design paralysis (I only had to study for 2 years before I was ready to tackle suspension design), but I just mounted the steering column for the fourth time. It seems the more I build, the more I know, and see how to build. All my educated guesses have a snowball effect, and many clash. By having things that basically are set in stone, you can concentrate on the important stuff. I found the same thing with houses-a remodeling job left tons of room for creative flourishes, wheras new construction could lead to a functional, but sometimes sterile design. In short, your weakness becomes your strength-witness the Kimini build. All that said, the total freedom to do exactly what you want is a fantastic thing.

It's no coincidence I've never had to rebuild the bottom half of a car from scratch :) Although I did have to change the frame on my Land Rover...

DeadSkunk wrote: Keith, How much of the complexity you assign to the MG project would go away if you had built it like the Miata powered one GRM did? Assuming that a significant suspension change would be included, rather than just "freshening up' the stock stuff. I've wondered about a Miata drive train and suspension in a BGT, just because building a fixed roof Miata GT would take metal working skills I don't possess.

If I was building the MG with a Miata drivetrain and suspension, it would be a bit easier. But not dramatically. The smaller engine would bypass a few potential problems such as interference between the steering column and the head bolts (!) and would probably let me use the existing MG radiator - but the suspension change is a fairly significant extra piece of work. In the front, there's nowhere for the shocks to mount once you've got the subframe installed, and in the rear you need to find some structure to mount the rear subframe to and you'll probably have to find a new home for your fuel tank.

This illustrates why it's difficult to compare the two projects, as well. The amount of modification has a huge effect - most Locosts are going to be similar in effort, but re-engineering an existing car will vary quite a bit depending on how much of the existing parts you have to throw out. In the case of my MG, I ramped up the scope of the project dramatically when I decided the car needed the really big engine and a totally different suspension.

Deadskunk, I like your thinking. I'm guessing that a Miata engined resuspended BGT would also be lighter than a stock BGT. I'm pulling that ASSumption out of where the sun don't shine but basing it on the following.

a) a BP engine even with a hairdryer on the side is going to be lighter than a B series.

b) I ASSume that the new front suspension (similar to what Keith's doing) would be lighter than the stock crossmemeber and more importantly provide a much stiffer front structure.

I just like the idea of a closed coupe ,with rear wheel drive. I absolutely love my Miata, but with the hardtop in place the noise and flexing are more intrusive. A Miata powered BGT was a way around that, although I've never driven one. It might be as noisy and flexible as the Miata, I've just assumed (there's that word again) that it isn't. I supposed an AW11 would fill my bill of requirements with a whole lot less effort.

I can only speak from the perspective of the engine swap, but am willing to throw in my pennies. A couple of things that haven't been mentioned: -A BGT or other production car is going to be easier to register and insure than a Locost. I'm sure the latter can be done, but you should already have a VIN, and both the DMV and Insurance companies like that.
-A production car based project is generally more "usable" than a locost. I don't think Keith is going to go rock-crawling or racing up canyons in the snow in the BGT, but I have commuted for 6 years daily in my MG Midget with toyota 4age.

The locost provides you the opportunity to go "clean sheet" with every aspect. The production based vehicle has a stack of problems that need to be resolved, but with the constraints of the body/frame that Keith mentioned. Mine was like building a ship in a bottle and I would equate it with any locost build, as I upgraded all systems to compensate for the new power: front suspension, rear suspension, front subframe, fuel system, drivetrain, electrical system. I think it some ways the build itself would have been easier for a locost, but the result with the production based vehicle is that it is more "practical" or usable, if those terms could possibly be used with a project like this.

My Locost and the MG are going to see very different duty. The MG is going to be, well, a GT. Quieter, cooler and with a road-biased suspension than the hyperactive Locost. It would be a much bigger challenge to make a Locost GT than to adapt a production car, definitely. However, it's also easier to make a ridiculously fast and fun track car out of a Locost than a production car. Even the mighty Elvis can't keep up with my little Seven around our track. Horses for courses, ya know?

If you're just looking for a closed coupe with some good handling abilities, consider an MGB GT with a Miata engine/transmission and the MG suspension. Sure, the design's a bit antique. But people have been tuning and racing these antique suspensions since the era when they were simply old-fashioned, and you can bolt on some fairly substantial improvements. That's going to be the easiest solution - the handling and look of the classic car with the go of a modern one.

Or get an FD and drop in an LS1

I'm just trying to figure out how to make my keyboard make a "does not equal" symbol, as I'd use it all the time.

In word you type 2260 then alt + x

Then cut and paste ;) There's probably an easier way but the forum doesnt seem to accept ascii codes in that format.

!= is the programming way, or if you want to be a purist ≠ is ≠

Keith:

Just curious, where did you buy the Locost frame

He got it at the now defunct CMC. you could try http://www.kineticvehicles.com/index.html#whatsnew though.

Yup, my car was a twin to the GRM Locost, warts and all. CMC stopped delivering parts a little while later, it wasn't a pretty thing. I'd second the recommendation for Kinetic.

I've got the Miata-powered MGB/GT from GRM and I love it. I built it when Miatas cost more and MGBs cost less, plus I really wanted to do the swap. It's on a basically stock MGB suspension. I picked the Miata drivetrain for the power, the fuel injection, and the 5 speed. I built the car more for driveability and comfort than for raw performance. It's as fast as a stock Miata and no faster.

Anyway, I haven't done another one and I probably wouldn't. Since I built it, the Moss supercharger came out. It's a much easier way to make power (and especially torque)--no FI, but driveability is very nice. I like the Nissan 5 speed conversions for MGB, which are way less work than the Miata engine swap. V6 and V8 swaps are probably easier for MGs if people really want to swap. Another option is a crossflow head or heavily breathed-on stock head--an MGB on a dual Weber crossflow head has nearly identical HP and Torque curves as a Miata and a ported stock head with some added CR and cam isn't too far off either.

I get a lot of e-mails and calls about Miata swaps and I talk most people out of them--I say buy a Miata or go with more traditional upgrades (supercharger, crossflow, V6, V8).

I may sound like a downer, but I've also seen and talked to way more people who've started and eventually abandoned engine swaps than who've finished them.
They are a lot of work.

I guess I took us off-topic, though, since the original question pretty much infers a lot of work is okay...

---Carl

Time is hard. I didn't build the Locost frame, and I was single then. Instead of building in my own garage living on my own, I'm building in a garage that's attached to the house I share with my wife. This means no late-night grinding and hammering. It also takes me longer to do simple things like make dinner I'm going to estimate similar time overall.

If you think marrage cuts into the time playing with cars wait til you have kids, that makes a huge reduction in the car fun.
sorry for the off topic. Chris Rummel