Jump to content

2nd crx rwd


amadmotorman

Recommended Posts

i have a 90 crx and i am in the process of trying to find another crx i want to make it rwd. about 8 years ago i helped build a man named mike simons rwd crx with a 4g63 then went to a f20c and loved it now i want to build a street crx with a four linked tubed and chaged i am thinking about an rb25dett or a v6 honda motor tell me what you think i know this sounds crazy but i am tired of rwd domestics talking crap an i want to dig race more thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do it big, Euro style. Throw that Honda V6 in the trunk! Just compare the structural engineering of a Renault Clio 16v I-4 and the Renault Clio V6 Sport to get an idea of what needs to be done.

 

RWD, V6, transverse mounted, yeah baby!

 

renault_clio_v6_09.jpg

 

renault_clio_sport_v6_4.jpg

 

renault_clio_sport_v6_5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do it big, Euro style. Throw that Honda V6 in the trunk! Just compare the structural engineering of a Renault Clio 16v I-4 and the Renault Clio V6 Sport to get an idea of what needs to be done.

 

RWD, V6, transverse mounted, yeah baby!

 

renault_clio_v6_09.jpg

 

renault_clio_sport_v6_4.jpg

 

renault_clio_sport_v6_5.jpg

i like that idea i might put a b18 in rear and i could go big turbo and make a good 500 whp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful you don't bite off more than you can chew.

 

Check out the Renault Clio more carefully. The V6 model was a bane since the horespower gains were minimal considering the price paid in weight; mind you this is stock V6 vs stock I-4. When the two are compared in completely modified racing form, the mid-engine V6 wins hands down.

 

I have seen a few rear-engine CRXs on the internet, always the same mistakes. Pulling the engine from the front weakens the chassis in the front, reinforcing the rear adds too much weight.

 

You will end up with something that will draw stares but will not lay down good track times (1/4, SCCA Solo, NASA, etc.).

 

To do it right, you either need to have the funding and experience of the Renault racing team, or start from stock tube and build your own chassis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful you don't bite off more than you can chew.

 

Check out the Renault Clio more carefully. The V6 model was a bane since the horespower gains were minimal considering the price paid in weight; mind you this is stock V6 vs stock I-4. When the two are compared in completely modified racing form, the mid-engine V6 wins hands down.

 

I have seen a few rear-engine CRXs on the internet, always the same mistakes. Pulling the engine from the front weakens the chassis in the front, reinforcing the rear adds too much weight.

 

You will end up with something that will draw stares but will not lay down good track times (1/4, SCCA Solo, NASA, etc.).

 

To do it right, you either need to have the funding and experience of the Renault racing team, or start from stock tube and build your own chassis.

 

my first plan was to build a new front to back chassis that will have a 4 link, i was going to buy a already biult 4 link. then build tube a frame with a racing lower crossmember that is pre fabed that will take care of the rollin chassis then i was going to put a rb25dett out of a r33 skyline. about 6 years i work for a man named Mike Simon, i helped build his set up i can give you the link if you want to see it

 

long story we had dave bushar build our first motor and i cranked walked then idrc said you must run same make motor as body so we went to the f20c we were the first to f*ck with that motor what a bitch. bought a shop and money became a problem no sponcer a the last race we ran mike almost crashed, the motor blow and put colant on passenger tire and went up on side he said i cant do this i got kids and sold it to busher 1 month later so now iwant to build a street rwd crx. thanks and please throw more ideas this way all info helps

 

 

 

http://www.buschurracing.com/racing-alberthonda.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen a few rear-engine CRXs on the internet, always the same mistakes. Pulling the engine from the front weakens the chassis in the front, reinforcing the rear adds too much weight.

 

Put a bar in between the old motor mounts to regain the strength. Tie this in with crossmember to a beefy strut bar, and and a 15 gallon fuel cell in below the bar. Remove rear tank.

 

That way you'll take ~120lbs from the back, to the front.

 

Now, depending on the max angle of the stock cv's, you could push the engine and transmission as far front as it can go, without binding, and still have the wheels be in the correct position. No need to worry about compound bending like in the front to max out the cv's (turning, axle angle depression, and axle angle depression change during suspension travel.)

Every inch you can move that engine forward, the better.

 

by this point your probably approaching the 60/40 or better, weight distribution. Those look like decent numbers to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is it a waist of time. a motor in the back means i could hock up better

 

Hmmm, uh, no, no more than you can hook up in the front. See, when you have the center of gravity over the drive axle, the car has maximized the breakaway force between the asphalt and the tires. I don't see why it would matter where the drive axle is placed, as long as the center of gravity is going with it.

 

Furthermore, an engine in the front helps keep the vehicle pointed in the right direction, since it weights down the front. Unless of course you want to point the hood of the car into the sky, I assume this is not a good use of torque unless you are trying to launch the vehicle upward into the sky.

 

Look alittle deeper into the physics of drag racing and you will come to see that any movement that doesn't work to move the vehicle closer to the end of the track is wasted energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, uh, no, no more than you can hook up in the front. See, when you have the center of gravity over the drive axle, the car has maximized the breakaway force between the asphalt and the tires. I don't see why it would matter where the drive axle is placed, as long as the center of gravity is going with it.

 

... you forgot to take into consideration how the weight is thrown around during a launch... Weight is taken off the front, and placed upon the rear tires. More weight on the rear-> means more traction if those are the drive tires. THis is why front wheel drive isn't the best for drag racing, on a launch, the weight is placed upon the rear, taking it off of the front.

 

Furthermore, an engine in the front helps keep the vehicle pointed in the right direction, since it weights down the front. Unless of course you want to point the hood of the car into the sky, I assume this is not a good use of torque unless you are trying to launch the vehicle upward into the sky.

 

It would be a good use of torque, if you can't put the power to the ground. Front wheels are up, means ALL the weight is over the rear. Granted it takes power to lift the wheels, but that power can't be put into the pavement due to traction, so it might as well be used to help it to gain some more traction.

Edited by Pyrorocketeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...since theres not much of rwd rex's out there.

 

There are a few, some have posted their efforts on the web.

 

If u come up with a good desing....

 

I have yet to see a savy design. I had a professor who once said that any idiot with enough money can make just about anything, but it takes an engineer to make the same thing efficiently.

 

That said, I have see a few designs that lack sophistication. More or less the difference between a cathedral built in the 11th century and one built during the renaisance which incorporates flying butresses.

 

The Renault is clean, efficient, and strong. I am sure they designed it without a single kilogram of excess reinforcement weight within the rear of the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see a savy design. I had a professor who once said that any idiot with enough money can make just about anything, but it takes an engineer to make the same thing efficiently.

 

 

It took an amateur to build the ark, an engineer built the Titanic......

 

Also remember..... bumble bees don't fly on paper....

 

Just something to keep in mind when throwing around that E-word.... which I personally despise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just something to keep in mind when throwing around that E-word.... which I personally despise...

 

This may simply be the corporate culture of Johnson & Johnson Vistakon, but, why is it if I test an engineer's results I am a chemist, but if I tell the engineer how to improve their results they have to reclassify me as an engineer.

 

It is almost as if engineers can only live with themselves if they are being told what to do by other engineers.

Edited by James Matteu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.