Engine Position

[ianashdown]

Has anyone here mover their engine rearward from the standard position?

 

My ‘61 appears to have some ‘extra’ holes in the lower chassis side rails about 7”-8” rear of the original pair.  Was this a mod done on competition cars?  Is it considered that the weight distribution is too much forward weight as standard?  I even have a short driveshaft so this seems be a real mod!  
 

Im just having trouble understanding the motivation.

 

Ill be very interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Ian

[MV8]

I've seen some early cars where the nose actually covered part of the valve cover. Further back is usually better but the tunnel width can conflict with the bell width and fork/slave.

 

Too bad they never built a cat that was only wider down the center by a couple inches. It would make it easier to fit common radiators, add cooling capacity, and allow more engine/trans/shifter set back.

[wdb]

The front crossover section of my twink engine valve cover is under the nosepiece. Before I redid the oil pan I had to remove the nose to check the oil.

[MV8]

Here is a pic of the same engine with two different engine positions.

[Croc]

On 11/1/2023 at 12:32 AM, ianashdown said:

 Is it considered that the weight distribution is too much forward weight as standard? 

 

I have heard this said before on the S2 and S3 but not seen any evidence to support it.  I know when I weighed my Lotus 7 S2 several decades ago it was pretty much on the money for front/rear balance.  This was with a BMC A series engine which is not your normally found power plant.  Given those are relatively lighter compared with the usual Ford engines, maybe that is why I did not see it?

 

I have seen references to a modern Caterhams being around F46%/R54% but that is sensitive to the rake setting (and individual corner weighting) which you can use to fine tune the front rear balance.  Most race drivers I know seem to prefer a slightly heavier rear bias anyway. 

 

Have you checked your weight distribution on your car?  Would be interesting to see the result.

[ianashdown]

6 hours ago, Croc said:

Have you checked your weight distribution on your car?  Would be interesting to see the result.

If this question was directed to me, I’m not able as my car is a bare frame and a pile of parts. 
 

Hopefully others will contribute.

 

The Caterham balance you mention seems like a good target. 
 

Ian

[fastg]

I agree that there is some option on engine placement, but the original post stated  7”-8”! I don't think there is that much room for adjustment. I might be wrong.

 

Graham  

[ianashdown]

I am only going by the holed drilled in the chassis side rails. I’ve never seen this car assembled. Also, just for information purposes, this is a 105E car and it is a pretty small engine. 
 

Ian

[toldfield]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:28 AM, wdb said:

The front crossover section of my twink engine valve cover is under the nosepiece. Before I redid the oil pan I had to remove the nose to check the oil.

What did you do to the oil pan?

 

Thanks

[CarlB]

7 or 8 inches seems a lot. You might look and see if Lotus used a different engine, and the frames were made for both engines.

[SENC]

I wouldn't think it could be shifted that far back without a modification to the tunnel and/or a different transmission.  Mine is in the forward position pictured above (120e cosworth) and I have to remove the nose to check the oil. The gearbox is a pretty tight fit into the tunnel - not with it right now to check, but I doubt it could move back more than an inch without hitting.  Whatever amount I could move it, it would require a shorter propshaft and relocating the gearbox mount.