LocostUSA.com

I just aquired an 87 toyota supra (5 speed, IRS, straight 6)

My original ideas was a +4 V8 but 2 things have changed...

1) 2 cylinders longer

2) i saw my first 7 in person today... it was TINY (caterham). Im 6'3 so i need a bit more room regardless of a few extra lbs...

i dont really care for the looks of the +442, so im thinking a +4 everywhere but height... 4 wide, 4 long in the hood, maybe a couple inchs longer in the cabin if needed? and maybe an inch or so taller for foot/pedal room...

would this look terrible?

How about adding 10% to everything? (+4 wide, +3 longer cabin, +4 longer cabin forward, etc.

Im ok with a long nose. Donkervoort pulled it off nicely

The engine's going to dictate the height.

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://midlana.com/stuff/book/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains
Both available from https://www.lulu.com/

You are going to need the leg room, unless you are all torso. I'm 6'1", but most of that is legs, and with the book frame, I'm scrunched. If I were to rebuild, I'd widen it 2 inches, maybe 4 to keep a proportional appearance. I fit ok, but most people won't fit happily in a 14.5" wide seat. Also, the larger the transmission, the wider the tunnel. I have to take off the side plate on the shifter box to remove my transmission. It sucks, but because of the narrow cabin and the tranny I had no choice.

I'd lengthen the cabin by 4-6". I think 6" would be a nice number. I have to make cutouts on the scuttle for my knees to clear. It'd be nice to be able to stretch my legs out a bit.

I would also lengthen the engine bay by a few inches, 6-8" probably. Possibly not necessary; I found that the Miata engine has some clearance in front of it, however, a really snug engine bay makes pulling an engine a nightmare. I can take mine out by myself in about 5 minutes. It takes another 15 or so to drop it back in. An inline six, like the S54, is going to need a little more to easily fit.

And lastly, I'd lengthen the back end out by a foot. However, that would be for personal preference. If you plan on having a trunk, you will need to extend a bit. Maybe not as much if you are using a live axle, but with IRS, it takes up some space. The fact that I could not use book parts past the rear bulkhead probably doesn't help--I have a hunch I might be a tad shorter in the back than a book frame car; not sure. But as I said, I'd rather bring it out for aerodynamics and asthetic purposes. It would help a lot if planning on formed rear fenders and/or a hardtop.

wow, thats a lot of adding!

Yeah. It'd be going from 12-12.5' to 14+. However, small cars just aren't usually meant for tall people. My Mini's an exception at 11'9" long and I can stretch my legs all the way out.... although I removed the rear seats and slide the front all the way back to the rear.

Size tends to also be a sacrifice required when bigger engines are added. The Miata engine is pushing it... think what you'd have to do to get something like a Jag V12 in a Locost (well, more like Hicost at that point)

You might find this comparison of Donkervoort, Locost and Caterham 7 sizes helpful. The dimensions were arrived at by scaling up 3 different photos - so it won't be 100% accurate - but gives a good indication:

The comparitive wheelbases are:
Donkervoort=95"
Caterham=91"
Locost=92"

There is a fuller set of dimensions here:

http://groups.google.com/group/locost-cad-models/web/body-work




If any one has a good profile shot of a 442 chassis then I can create another photomontage of that versus a Caterham.

Cheers,
Puk

_________________
Before you judge a guy walk a mile in his shoes. Then when you judge him, you've got a mile head start and you've got his shoes on:)