A what car tread: 2400# RWD racecar ideas?

In reply to Javelin:

Stock suspension: COST. besides have you seen what "stock suspension" can do lately???? Also ladder bars are VERY violent to the tires.

Also, I do NOT want a V8 or I would be doing a LSx or big bore 5.4 4v with a 98mm off the front.

Brian

What does it say about 2 engines?

ranger- I almost cringe when I say this, but I think you are going to have to make a spreadsheet of all of the coices vs. all of the requirements, and then give a score to each of the choices. the one with the highest score wins.

I may be wrong, but I see you having to compromise somewhere. Where that is and on what- well, that's up to you.

Okay. So still go 1st gen RX-7. Mini-tub it, flares, a 9", use the stock 4-link setup with coilovers. Add turbo rotary. Seems pretty simple.

Javelin wrote: Okay. So still go 1st gen RX-7. Mini-tub it, flares, a 9", use the stock 4-link setup with coilovers. Add turbo rotary. Seems pretty simple.

The 1st post says no minitubz...did I miss something inbetween?

Ranger50 wrote: Also ladder bars are VERY violent to the tires. Brian

This is interesting. Is it due to non-compliance of the rear suspension under the shock load of a hard lauch? I had thought the main reason one added ladder bars was to prevent axle tramp, so is that backwards thinking?

It's not no minitubs persay- if I'm reading the rules sort of correctly, there's a weight penalty for them. Seems that Ranger is trying to play the game with the lightest possible car, while incurring the fewest penalties.

I still say AWD DSM. They're deeeeeeep into the 7's for not a huge pile of cash. Won't need 10's either, but you will need slicks.

I think a TR7 would be baller.

Start with a Ranger or other mini truck. You like them, the engine bay will probably be big enough to drop in your non-V-8 of choice with associated plumbing for a turbo 4 or V-6 Relatively strong chassis to start with--no unibody connectors and associated reinforcing fabbing, and you're starting with a rear suspension that can be beefed up to absorb the punishment of 8 second runs all day long. Availability of part interchangability and support is there in droves. Though catching on, they are a bit different. To be different, do it with the Isuzu-badged Ranger....or jeep p/u.

triumph5 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: Also ladder bars are VERY violent to the tires. Brian

This is interesting. Is it due to non-compliance of the rear suspension under the shock load of a hard lauch? I had thought the main reason one added ladder bars was to prevent axle tramp, so is that backwards thinking?

If you compare the shock travel length and how fast it gets there, ladder bars are at least twice as fast as a 4link which is faster then leaf springs. That speed is transferred to the tires, which if that speed is applied too fast, breaks traction and if too slow, never get planted. So, to get the speed down, you play with the springs and shock settings, but then you get to the next extreme and aren't going anywhere to get the speeds down. You will never get down to the other styles of suspension in terms of speed, but you can get it manageable.

But that speed really beats up sidewalls, especially in "small" tires. The sidewalls have to absorb that speed loading and maintain the contact patch. I have seen speeds so high, the rim hits the ground!

But now, if you are using the bars as an additional bolt-on, it is nothing more then an anti-rotation device for the existing suspension, much like a slapper bar for leaf springs.

Brian

triumph5 wrote: Start with a Ranger or other mini truck. You like them, the engine bay will probably be big enough to drop in your non-V-8 of choice with associated plumbing for a turbo 4 or V-6 Relatively strong chassis to start with--no unibody connectors and associated reinforcing fabbing, and you're starting with a rear suspension that can be beefed up to absorb the punishment of 8 second runs all day long. Availability of part interchangability and support is there in droves. Though catching on, they are a bit different. To be different, do it with the Isuzu-badged Ranger....or jeep p/u.

Find mitsubishi d50. Use trans adapter plate from Buschur to hook to chev trans of choice. Place those items together along with a 4g63 and the biggest turbo you can find under the hood of said d50. Proceed to awesome.

I'm a little bent on DSM's lately.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Javelin: Stock suspension: COST. besides have you seen what "stock suspension" can do lately???? Also ladder bars are VERY violent to the tires. Also, I do NOT want a V8 or I would be doing a LSx or big bore 5.4 4v with a 98mm off the front. Brian

If it's not violent to the tires, it's not going to run 8's. That's sorta the point, that's how those tires are intended to be hit.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: MKii Supra/3rd gen Celica GTS w/ a nasty 2jz? Before i throw out other examples, what's the budget like?

If you're building a drag car, I'd skip the IRS cars and go with a Celica GT/ST.

Good point, and they're cheaper, too. And uglier. Which is cool.

And I think you can fit 10 inch wheels on the rear. I know you can on the GTS, but it has larger wheel arches under the flares. So you might have to masage the sheet metal a bit. But it looks like they will fit. I'll know at some point...

It's a nice four link set up too which I would guess is pretty good for drag racing.

Ranger50 wrote:

triumph5 wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: Also ladder bars are VERY violent to the tires. Brian

This is interesting. Is it due to non-compliance of the rear suspension under the shock load of a hard lauch? I had thought the main reason one added ladder bars was to prevent axle tramp, so is that backwards thinking?

If you compare the shock travel length and how fast it gets there, ladder bars are at least twice as fast as a 4link which is faster then leaf springs. That speed is transferred to the tires, which if that speed is applied too fast, breaks traction and if too slow, never get planted. So, to get the speed down, you play with the springs and shock settings, but then you get to the next extreme and aren't going anywhere to get the speeds down. You will never get down to the other styles of suspension in terms of speed, but you can get it manageable. But that speed really beats up sidewalls, especially in "small" tires. The sidewalls have to absorb that speed loading and maintain the contact patch. I have seen speeds so high, the rim hits the ground! But now, if you are using the bars as an additional bolt-on, it is nothing more then an anti-rotation device for the existing suspension, much like a slapper bar for leaf springs. Brian

Makes sense, and I hadn't heard it explained before. Thanks for the info.

Car idea:

79-81 MKI Supra with a 2JZ-GTE and a ton of boost. That, I would think, to be the lightest Toyota to easliy fit a I6. An early Cressida would be fun too...quite the sleeper.

In reply to Ranger50:

It doesn't say anything about the firewall, so i would combine features from a couple of cars that I have experience with...

To not have a bellybutton engine, I'd start with the homemade 4 rotor engine from this car... http://grannys.tripod.com/4rotor.html

Install that into this RX-7 that fits a 275/60-15 drag radial in it's stock wheelwells... http://grannys.tripod.com/20102.html

http://grannys.tripod.com/GSSshopmule.html

Add alky, n2o and a powerglide.

At 2325lbs, the RX-7 still has non-gutted '85 doors and full window glass. Stock seats and front bumper, full exhaust, and an added torque arm / 8.5 10 bolt too. You wouldn't need all the rear weight that i have on a prep'd track (I can get to 43/57), but it would be easy to relocate things forward to get any distribution you want.

The RX-7 above has no cage, an iron block V8 and an iron 4 spd. I never weighed the 4 rotor in the dirt car by itself, but overall weight was around the same after i replaced the 4 rotor with a 406 sbc. Weight of a cage could mostly be offset by gutting the doors, lite seats, and adding plastic windows

tuna55 wrote: If it's not violent to the tires, it's not going to run 8's. That's sorta the point, that's how those tires are intended to be hit.

Define "hit"?

Is it a dead hook? Wheelstand? Both of those are the same in my book. A wheelstand is a violent dead hook. Very bad.

What I know is a little bit of SPIN is the key to "hooking up". You don't have to be violent to get to that point, but also you don't have to "overdrive" the tire to get there either. We are only taking about 10-20rpm of slip/spin, so a very, very small window.

If I had either a stiffer sidewall, different tire compound, or more tire height, I could get by with a harder "hit".

Brian

Here's an RX-7 thats been 7.96 @ 178 w/ a turbo sbf. bigger tires, tubs w/ ladders though, but stock rear rails are kinda there and a stock front suspension... http://grannys.tripod.com/102.htm

Ranger50 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: If it's not violent to the tires, it's not going to run 8's. That's sorta the point, that's how those tires are intended to be hit.

Define "hit"? Is it a dead hook? Wheelstand? Both of those are the same in my book. A wheelstand is a violent dead hook. Very bad. What I know is a little bit of SPIN is the key to "hooking up". You don't have to be violent to get to that point, but also you don't have to "overdrive" the tire to get there either. We are only taking about 10-20rpm of slip/spin, so a very, very small window. If I had either a stiffer sidewall, different tire compound, or more tire height, I could get by with a harder "hit". Brian

Technically, but it really depends on class. Pro Stock cars do slip like you describe, but are a bit faster. Go tell a Super Stock record holder that wheelstanding is bad and slow. Up to insane 60' times with some weirdo clutch package, hitting them hard enough to dead hook is the way to get the thing to move.

STS_ZX2 wrote: Car idea: 79-81 MKI Supra with a 2JZ-GTE and a ton of boost. That, I would think, to be the lightest Toyota to easliy fit a I6. An early Cressida would be fun too...quite the sleeper.

The Supras were all hatch backs. I think the coupe would be lighter. I don't know if it's accurate, but the toyota brochure says a 1980 ST weighs 2480lbs. My 1984 ST was 2400 before I started to reduce weight. Could be wrong, but I hope not. I really would have prefered an '82, but had to go with the numbers.

'85 corolla GTS? with your choice of drivetrain?

Mine, with full interior, weighs 2463 with driver (225) and 3/4 tank of gas. Front bumper is a jdmYO!!1 stock urethane piece, and stock weighing engine and transmission.

I imagine by taking the seats/carpet/sunroof out, and plopping in a nice rear that could take the power, maybe a *charged aluminum V6 or 4 since you wanna stay away from the 8's....

SgtRauksauff wrote: '85 corolla GTS? with your choice of drivetrain?

Sorry, don't mean to post whore on this thread. I just spent a lot of time researching some of these Toyotas for my own project. The Corolla is awesome, but you can't fit 10" wheels on the rear without cutting and I don't know how hard it is to fit the big Toyota sixes in one. I know it has been done, but I also know the Celica has a bigger engine bay. The sixes are tight, but they fit. The Supras actually had a longer front end, but the 2jz into Celica has been done several times.

Back to the weight thing (ug, seems like all I think about) the RA64 Celica coupe is a lot closer than I thought it would be to the AE86. I have to think a hunk of that is due to the 22RE lump vs the 4AGE. If you're doing an engine swap anyway, I'm not sure the Celica really has much of a weight penalty.

AND! Those Celicas are cool because they look so werid now. Very 80s. They're getting old enough now that it's starting to look cool, at least I think.

Oh, and best of all- RA64 = no drift tax.

Does it have to be rwd stock ? There are a couple zx2's modified to rwd with V8's that run the 1/4 in the 9's.

iceracer wrote: Does it have to be rwd stock ? There are a couple zx2's modified to rwd with V8's that run the 1/4 in the 9's.

No. But for the given budget, it kind of blows it out of the water with the extra fab needed for the steering, subframes, trans tunnel mods, and new rear suspension. Also if I was going to be that deep into something, it would be something like a Super Stock-style GrandAm/Monte Carlo. Plus those are right up there with minitubs and box flares, first to be written out if proven to be "better" or "unfair" to the rules. Trust me i would LOVE to use my burnt up and flooded 2k Monte SS sitting outside......

Brian

Jaguar XJS with the V12 and a pair of turbos with the N2O nozzle in a large by huge intercooler up front (I'm thinking rob one from an Iveco truck, you get the idea) to cool the charge down, channeling power through a worked TH350 (since that was a factory install anyway this shouldn't be too hard). The IRS is going to make tune & such more difficult but I have faith in you there, you seem to know what time it is with this stuff.

Megasquirt obviously because this is the GRM message board. Obviously hitting your weight target is going to be nearly impossible but I bet with your budget a full fiberglass front end can be built, and when you start pulling things like the power steering, A/C, a pair of racy bucket seats and all that jazz you'll be getting close. And think of the class this will exude on the track!