Work in progress shots: Intercooler, Fuel Tank & others

[Werner Van Loock]

looking good there rosco, is there enough ground clearance to put an exhaust that big under the car?, i though they had to be in the sill

Ground clearance has to be 100mm or 4" to pass ADRs for registration.
That means the chassis will be 8" up. Do not particularly like that, but the law says thats the minimum.
To go down thru the Sill requires one "hell of a job" as then clearing the Wheel & the back axle is impossible. The exhaust MUST exit the rear of the car ( be the last part to pass you ) to comply !!

Incidentally, it is now 4.15pm Sunday 30th. December & the outside temperature is 42.3 degrees centigrade. That is why I am sitting at the Computer & not in the shed working ! It's only 24 deg. in here !!

Regards, Rossco

I was just thinking Ross , that with 8 inches ground clearance the front geometry will be way out . Roadholding & handling also . (Especially with the bhp you have planned) One way to counteract that would be ---- 15 inch wheels and 55 or 60 profile OR any mix that will keep the lower wishbones approximately level , although I wouldn't recommend a profile below 45 . Jack up the car when fully built weight wise and rest the tyres/wheels on wood blocks to acheive your 8 inch chassis height/ground clearance. Check the wishbone angle then adjust wooden blocks to leave wishbones level. NOW you'll see what wheel , tyre mix will suit your circumstances AND keep geometry about right. To stop '' roll '' which at this height it will , I'd run quite high spring rates plus antirolbar up front . If you use an antirolbar at the rear it needs to be very weak . Spring & shock lengths will become obvious once you jack up to check as above so might have to disconnect. You may have to cut some F/Glass once sizes are decided.

Or just put 17" wheels on with the springs loaded for the registration/MOT or whatever it's called there. And 14" or 13" for driving with turned back springs. Says the same for sva actually regarding height of the indicators.

I have to meet 110mm ride height here in Belgium. But I'm going thru the sill with my exhaust.

[stylussprinter]

That's very low though Werner . Around 4.3 inches in fact , Ross is talking 8 inches =203.2 mm Not sure though if , like here , he'd get away with lowering it later in Australia.

[Werner Van Loock]

Ground clearance has to be 100mm or 4" to pass ADRs for registration.
That means the chassis will be 8" up. Do not particularly like that, but the law says thats the minimum.

4" he says, but with the exhaust under it it's 8" for the chassis.
So belgian legal limit is even tougher.

But wouldn't twin pipes up to the back be better? It's a turbo engine so exhaust after the turbo doesn't mean a lot. So splitting it would reduce pipe diameter and reduce ride height. And if possible even oval pipe would further reduce ride height.

[Antnicuk]

is your test like our SVA where you set it up for the test then get the car home and put everything back where you want, although with an exhaust that big, you would still be 5-6 inches off the ground

[rossco61]

Hi Guys, had nearly finished a long reply to all who had replied to my last posting, obviously clicked on the wrong button & lost the lot.
So here goes again !!
Happy to find that "Roo4" has caught up to my info & pics as he appears to be the only other builder using a Nissan 1.8 turbo. From comments, I guess I am way in front of his build, so I hope he can learn. Like to know a real name. Roo4 sounds like somebody from outback Northern Territory !
Rob wrote that 15" wheels would help the suspension setup. Note the first picture I put on this thread, --- Speedy 15 x 6.5 wheels shod with (at the moment) worn out 50 series rubber. Will be re-shod with new 195-55R15 just before registration tests. Brand not sure yet as the Yoko types noted by you are not available in OZ. Later on 2008 !!

With the worn Pirelli P5000 195-50 that is on the front, the bottom of the "tie-rod end" suspension joint is level with the underneath side of the chassis.
Rob, is this the correct height ? It still uses the original PP front springs as well as the low front tyres.

Werner quoted : Put 17" wheels on it for the SVA (ADR in OZ) tests then put 13 or 14s back on afterwards to get it lower. Firstly, my original build specifications quoted 15x6.5 wheels. I may be ably to change that to 17 inchers, but even a fair set of 17s cost A$1200 & a good set are A$2000 + & plus tyres. another A$500 to A$1000. The Speedy 15s will do.
Also, the 12" disks & caliper only just clear the 15" wheels, now!

Exhaust system clearance : again Werner quoted: using twin pipes of smaller diameter for more clearance, and as it was a turbo setup, the exhaust after the turbo doesn't mean a lot !!
Wrong, Werner !! Note what I said in an earlier post, --- the free flowing dump pipe is worth 40bhp. The free flowing Cat, pipe & exhaust box is worth just as much !!

I know of a 2.5 litre Nissan that went from just over 200 RWHP to almost 300 RWHP with a better intercooler & a free flowing exhaust. Neither, up to the level that I am fitting.
Then for twin pipes, one needs twin smaller Cats. A new split dump pipe to feed them. Twin smaller tail pipes & exhaust boxes. Calculate the area of my 3" pipes & see what diameter twin pipes are needed to equal this figure. A$1000 plus, for a lot more work AND MAYBE 1" more clearance !!!!!

Nearly forgot, --- If I put cheap 17" wheels & tyres on it for the ADR tests, it may not pass. Even if it does, then I change back to 15" & lower tyres, I run a great risk of being "defected". This means I have to put the original setup back on, then take it to the Adelaide testing station (460Km round trip) to prove it is now legal. AND they will find more things that are now also not legal !! So another trip to fix that, on a trailer as you cannot drive it !! AND you do not think this little exercise comes for cheap, do you ??

You could blow 5 grand to get back to where I am now !!
15" wheels, single 3" exhaust & hopefully, enough ground clearance.

Cheers, Rossco

[stylussprinter]

Ross , if the car weight was around 600kgs and the wishbones are parallel to the ground , it's about right. Slightly lower at the wheel end is ok but not 2 inches ! or the geometry is messed about. If this turned out to be a problem using your chosen wheels/tyres then the shock/spring length and lbs can be altered to bring the wishbones parallel to the ground . By the way there is another Nissan crazed builder on this forum ---- nissanman Send him a PM and chat over your very similar projects.

[Werner Van Loock]

Ross,

I've been looking at your pictures and have you taken the chassis rail out going from the top right of the transmission tunnel to the side chassis rail?

If so, this is a structural rail, and for high powered cars like yours SSC normally adds one on the other side too!

The one in the picture is the additional one. The original one is on the other side, the one I'm missing in your pictures.

[stylussprinter]

Ross,

I've been looking at your pictures and have you taken the chassis rail out going from the top right of the transmission tunnel to the side chassis rail?

If so, this is a structural rail, and for high powered cars like yours SSC normally adds one on the other side too!

The one in the picture is the additional one. The original one is on the other side, the one I'm missing in your pictures.

He wont have taken it out because it was never there in early cars whatever bhp . Tim was the instigator of that after developing the RT , partially he thought it needed another ' tube ' anyway but mainly the fact that making a flip front reduced regidity . I don't have it and my car's been in a big shunt without any chassis dimensions changing so think it was wise but not essential

[Werner Van Loock]

Rob,

I know the early ones didn't have the one outlined on the picture, but I think Ross has cut the one on the drivers side too.

If so then there's only the middle chassis rail and the bottom chassis rail at the point between end of the footwell's and the engine mounts. Wich would make it the weakest point of the car between the 2 most heaviest points of the car (being people and engine)

[Antnicuk]

i had to cut the one on my driver side off as its where my turbo goes but once my engine is in a will get happy with a mig welder around it, i can put a couple of braces on the passenger side once the engine is fitted.

[stylussprinter]

Didn't notice he'd cut that one out --- hopefully he'll sort it after engine total fit ???

[rossco61]

Hi Werner, No as Rob said, I didn't cut that rail out, there never was one in the first place. Neither on the other side (drivers side)
I did think that such a rail might be useful (in the early stages of build) but now ---- imposible on the drivers side & very difficult on the passenger's side
As Rob said, its "lack of" does not appear to be a problem.
Also noticed on your pic, -- from the front of that rail/chassis point to the top of the suspension you have a double strut.
Mine came with only a single 3/4" x 1/8" strut. Does look a bit weak, but I guess there are plenty cars out there not bent !!

Chere, Rossco

[stylussprinter]

Hi Werner, No as Rob said, I didn't cut that rail out, there never was one in the first place. Neither on the other side (drivers side)
I did think that such a rail might be useful (in the early stages of build) but now ---- imposible on the drivers side & very difficult on the passenger's side
As Rob said, its "lack of" does not appear to be a problem.
Also noticed on your pic, -- from the front of that rail/chassis point to the top of the suspension you have a double strut.
Mine came with only a single 3/4" x 1/8" strut. Does look a bit weak, but I guess there are plenty cars out there not bent !!

Chere, Rossco

My chassis was supplied in 1997 and did have a '' pedal box top to 2x1 chassis rail'' small gauge tube . Perhaps P.Powell supplied yours without , knowing your intended engine It still might be possible to thread a small gauge tube through to the chassis somewhere If your engine was solid mounted you could run it to the cam cover then possibly even down to the front cross rail

[Werner Van Loock]

Hi Werner, No as Rob said, I didn't cut that rail out, there never was one in the first place. Neither on the other side (drivers side)
I did think that such a rail might be useful (in the early stages of build) but now ---- imposible on the drivers side & very difficult on the passenger's side
As Rob said, its "lack of" does not appear to be a problem.
Also noticed on your pic, -- from the front of that rail/chassis point to the top of the suspension you have a double strut.
Mine came with only a single 3/4" x 1/8" strut. Does look a bit weak, but I guess there are plenty cars out there not bent !!

Chere, Rossco

That's true, but most don't have the power you'll be using

I don't think it will bend but torsional stiffness is comprimised, but in case of a head on collision it might bend or buckle. I would try to get something in there, perhaps a bolted brace that you can remove when necessary.

Strange that you say that on the drivers side there wasn't one either. Was your car supplied with the regular steel footwell? I can see that yours is ally and shorter then normal.

[rossco61]

Hi Werner, Yes, torsional stiffness (lack of it) has been a possible problem right from when I did measurements for the Consulting Engineer. There was & still is, a 1/16th steel passenger side footwell front, --- nothing on the drivers side. The 6061 T6 Marine ally floor panels stiffened it somewhat but then I doubt that the Ally Pedal box will stiffen anything. (cos of its shape.)
You say that it is "shorter than normal" ??
I do not know what is "normal", Mine is 7" deep & the pedals sit about 2.5" rearward of the chassis rail, so there is plenty of clearance for full pedal travel !! When the weather (temperature) finally drops to 30 or below, I can get back to "doing something" --- most days lately are 40 C & above.

The bolted in brace idea is worth following up on. Will see what I can think of !!

Regards, Rossco