Roadrace EGT Touring Car

[Krazyman]

Hea would you sell the white crossmember?
Or design a group buy for the custom tubular one if there was enough interest? Is there anything benefitial other then strength to the tubular ones?

Just an idea...

[SgtRauksauff]

strength is better, weight is lighter, and you can use some nice tubular TTLs (twin trapezoidal links) as well.

I always wanted to build one so the exhaust could go under it, straight out the middle, or with only a single 45° bend to a corner, but that would mean running a fuel cell and eliminating the spare tire well. It was part of my secret plan for having flames shoot out of my exhaust when the wastegate opens, lol!

The only thing keeping me back from crazy-awesome stuff like this is wanting to keep the wagon a street legal sleeper.


--sarge

[JPmotorsports]

On the crossmember the weight is just a bit less (like maybe a pound), it is quite a bit stronger but the main benefit is that we relocated the holes to correct the geometry for lowering the car. It raises up the roll centre to better match the front geometry, which will make the car more neutral in cornering and add mechanical grip to the front. The angle on this pic exagerates how much lower the hole is (it's around 20mm) but you can see the crossmember is lower in profile and the holes are moved out.

In other words the car will handle better at the track/autocross because of the geometry-

[FE3-323]

a stronger front cross member for the transmission would be nice

[JPmotorsports]

Rusty over at erdtonline also asked about a stronger trans crossmember. Are you guys breaking/bending them?? Is it a common problem? I weighed the thing and it's like 8.75 pounds and locates a couple of mounts so it's not easily reproduced and I don't think I can save any weight. I could make some gussets for it to stop it from flexing easier than reproducing it. I think it has pretty good ground clearance---I attach the front diffuser to it on the race car and it doesn't show any wear marks...let me know what you think-

[FE3-323]

i wish i had a custom one right now for my FE3 swap

[SPENONE]

i wish i had a custom one right now for my FE3 swap

Yeh i was gonna say "WTF!? since when are people bending these!?!"...lol

[SgtRauksauff]

I've never had any issues with my tranny support, other than it *looking* like a POS piece of factory-made crap. I think some extra welds holding the mounting plates on better might be a good thing to do, though. Different bends for different engines/transmissions might be kinda neat, though, but those will be one-off units for sure.


--sarge

[JPmotorsports]

Those one off parts (trans crossmember) are hard to build from sketches/diagrams---I almost need the motor/trans here at the shop so it's a no go...I've been working on the traction bar stuff (the white escort has a bent drvr's framerail so I can't do any mock up on it and the shell doesn't have crossmembers in it) and it looks like I can get a spreader bar between the actual tow hook hole (the actual place where the tie down goes!), having it bolt into the tow hook itself, with one center support coming forward to the bottom of the core support. From there I can get tabs in line with the LCA bolts/plane and run the links to the middle of the LCA. I was thinking about an "H" style bracket that would slip over the arm, require one hole to be drilled vertically through the bottom of the arm, and have the other hole forward for the link to bolt into. Does this make sense to anyone??? The tire clearance is close but should be good---as long as I don't get to far out towards the balljoint...

[therieldeal]

nice!!

i think of course everyone would prefer to use existing holes, like the holes for the ball joint... but if that causes tire clearance issues then bolting or welding on a bracket would probably be best. the only thing about an H bracket is it would have the rod end pivoting on the wrong axis...

[JPmotorsports]

I thought about the rod end on that axis as well, but the amount of travel is so limited (especially since it's not at the balljoint---it may move like 3") it won't be a factor---I've built like 40" travel desert trucks with the rodend sideways and we have to change them like once or twice a year---and they see tons of load and drive/stop the truck. I'm glad you read that post---I was about to PM it to you and see what you thought. I'll keep going that direction with it...

[therieldeal]

if possible i would (personally) prefer if the rod end were facing the correct way. couldnt you make the rod end side of the H turned 90*? i'll see if i can sketch something for you... i wish i still had solidworks

[JPmotorsports]

I might be able to get the inner most hole on the balljoint if guys have the right offset rim or maybe run a small spacer---you'd have to knock out the stud in the balljoint and run a longer bolt. Then I could just make a big "U" bracket and run it upside down off the bottom??? Have the rodend bolt underneath the arm and it would align/center the bracket itself...I'm afraid if I used the "H" bracket that it might be to close to the tire...

[therieldeal]

my original thought was to have some sort of bracket that utilized both bolts on the ball joint and situated the rod end as far inboard as possible. the farther out you mount it the less strain you'll have on the traction bar, and the more effective it will be. as long as its not hitting the tire when you turn sharply

[therieldeal]

delayed, but here's what i was kind of thinking for that bracket

http://www.wihandyman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=504879&postcount=38