If you were to build a kart based off a fairly readily available production vehicle, what would you chose and why?
If you were to build a kart based off a fairly readily available production vehicle, what would you chose and why?
MR2 spyder because weight distribution. Still needs a horsepower bump.
In reply to Lof8 - Andy :
I'm not sure I can beat this answer. Though I am interested in how light one could make a cast-off XJR.
C4 corvette. Cheap and no power adder needed just tubing and lights.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
Where the concept is interesting to me is that starting with something like an MR-S, it's already light. Obviously mid-engine is a huge balance advantage, as was pointed out, but 986 boxsters are plentiful as well with excellent aftermarket support.
There's so many different angles you can go with this. Stripping roughly a thousand pounds out of almost anything will make it featherweight. You can also get into what chassis are lighter than others and what amenities you can shed a higher percentage of weight out of different platforms versus others. Then there's the raw power and noise factor.
In reply to wearymicrobe :
I agree, except XJRs and c4s are similar in price and XJR > C4 performance stock for stock in almost every way.
Lof8 - Andy said:MR2 spyder because weight distribution. Still needs a horsepower bump.
986 boxster. Same weight distribution, stiffer chassis, power bump mostly taken care of in stock form, and enough space in the engine bay that the sky is basically the limit to go further, rather than being limited to fwd layout engines.
One thing we should remember is that when you start stripping weight off of a car, where is it coming from? Some vehicles can lose a lot of weight from the middle, or the back. So you could take a car that has close to 50-50 weight distribution, and ruin it. It's just something to consider. Most people don't give this a second thought, they just randomly start tearing out everything they can. Good luck corner weighting a car like that.
In reply to Vajingo :
That's where I love this thought exercise going.
One example I'd consider is a K24 swapped RX-8, but the K24 swap would add over 200lb to a platform that was already nearly 3200lb, before the subsequent diet of course. However the weight gain from the swap would obviously be in the front, whereas most of the weight loss would be between the wheels and towards the rear. So balance-wise it may retain closer to an optimal weight distribution than other platforms when given a similar treatment, even though it may be one that's difficult or impossible to get to featherweight status.
The idea of an Audi A8 and get a manual transmission swap from a B6 or B7 S4 to swap behind the 4.2L would also be interesting, a whole lot of stuff aluminum chassis and a relatively stout V8 if you keep up on the timing chain guides and tensioners. Copious amounts of mechanical grip until lack of aero causes a struggle
Clearly the answer is Q45, just because it is not finished, doesn't mean its not a contender.
And for weight distribution, just move the engine back
In reply to Fladiver64 (Forum Supporter) :
Well... if you're willing to destroy the fire wall... at that point, may as well make a whole tube frame chassis.
Weary has it right. The cheapest running C4 Vette you can find. I'd add C5 to that as well. Sell off whatever you can to help pay for the cage.
I remember Hotrod's Vette Hack having suspension issues with the springs and shocks being tuned for much more weight, so I'd spend money on modifying the leaf's, or getting a coilover conversion to make it perfect.
Vajingo said:In reply to Fladiver64 (Forum Supporter) :
Well... if you're willing to destroy the fire wall... at that point, may as well make a whole tube frame chassis.
That wholly depends on your goals and the ruleset you are building to
Is it cheating if I start with a car that Body on Frame?
C-4 is cheap and easy.
In reply to pimpm3 (Forum Supporter) :
I never remember to look at your build thread from a computer that will "see" the pictures. My work computer will not. But I skimmed through it again, and had a thought while looking at it. I have not been able to convince my wife to let me cut up the 97 Formula I have setting around for an autocross race car... but for a Gambler car - I might have to try harder! A set of off road tires on the stock 16" rims... no overhang in the back, and lift the radiator etc. up in the front...
Now I just need a DIY solution to the heavy stock windshield.
In reply to lotusseven7 (Forum Supporter) :
I do like the final look of the C-4 builds better, but I already have two 97 F body I haven't been able to sell. Not that many years ago the LT 1 / T56 would have been the cool button also, but now the LS is the tried and true route. Makes the LT 1 a bit of a red headded step child.
In reply to buzzboy :
The only other B O F car I could do cheap, is the Panthers, and that's not the optimum in performance suspensions! 
The answer is obvious. Start with a 1959 Zamboni.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
THAT is BadAzz!
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to wearymicrobe :
I agree, except XJRs and c4s are similar in price and XJR > C4 performance stock for stock in almost every way.
Except for parts cost , avilability, reliability and well everything that makes a used jag a used jag.
This? I'm fearless, but don't have the stones to drive this one. Probably could be bought for Challenge money if you show up with cash.
In reply to lotusseven7 (Forum Supporter) :
Uh... look how low that front bumper bar is. Holy hell. No thanks.
What about an Elise w/o the body?
That would be more of a cost not an option, but it's designed w/o roof, and the body just adds weight. And it starts with a weight advantage.
You'll need to log in to post.
