LocostUSA.com

The conditions you're describing do indeed seem to require 4WD... in addition to good ground clearance. What's kind of road surfaces will this car be driven on? How deep are the potholes and ruts. It almost sounds like the real solution is what's used in the Baja single-seat racers. 4WD, a lot of power and suspension travel.

_________________
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/

Not sure why anyone would even consider 80" but you will find all the successful AWD rallycars are around 95" to 100" - and that includes clean sheet Group B cars, front or mid engined.

FireStorm005....

You still out there???? I hope you're just taking a break due to Christmas.....

JustDreamin

Yea, I'm still here, Solidworks is proving difficult to learn by myself. Also, does anyone have any input about my goals for suspension. I knew that the drivetrain would get some talk, but I'm really needing some help with the suspension design, as that will define the handling of the car. Are my thoughts on Camber gain and Track width ideal or should I be looking to do something else? Does anyone have input as to my angles, Caster, Camber, SAI(KPI), Scrub radius. What is the usual track width for a locost (I don't have any plans to go on). I keep looking for books on this stuff, but reviewers keep saying that they all have a lot of errors or they are out of date.

I've been doing more digging, trying to find hubs that will work with the Ford axle shafts, have the bolt pattern I want, and bolt on to the spindle, and I just found that the Explorer has the bolt pattern I want factory, just without bolt on Hub unit bearings. I do have a copy of the Timken bearing catalog on PDF, free from their website, which shows that they do sell bolt on bearing units without hubs, so I now have to find out the OD on the explorer hubs and the and bearing unit that matches it.

Two reasons- I looked at what would make a Volvo 122/544 more ideal for my uses- and taking a foot out in front of the rear wheel would put together the proportions I want. Maybe fair to say I'd like it wider, but not to the point of a 'modern car'

Second reason is I got looking at the packaging of a lowered Suzuki Sidekick, as at least a couple components I plan to use come from those. They have an 86.6" wheelbase.

I do know there are compromises when looking this short, but I really think the AWD can compensate for the tendency to act like a toy "top". I guess I could note here that DPR came up with AWD as maybe an answer to making the task of driving something suitable for mere mortals. Actually I don't ever remember reading anywhere where he really let himself go on about his logic in choosing AWD.

I'm not sure the Group B stuff was ever clean sheet- they had production "connections"- powerplants often, transmissions occasionally, body shell semblance more often than not.

Yeah, living.

Glad you read the whole post.

I would say building the way I am planning- front engine, rear live axle with a deliberate emphasis on well, what you could call high polar moment of inertia of major component placement, I'm fairly sure you wouldn't notice 20" of wheelbase out in comparison to say a Volvo 140. Frankly I consider those to be a perfect handling car- maybe a little too much roll to work with modern tires, but final progressive roll oversteer. The 140 Volvo and the Rover 2000TC both are better handling cars than anything sold today... with the choices of over aggressive anti roll bar specs and way, way too fast steering ratios.