Twin-engined cars... (Looking at you, Ansonivan)

kb58 wrote: The actual "doing" of putting a second drivetrain in the back of a FWD car is a lot of work but straightforward. This is a classic case of good workmanship != good engineering. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it'll be good at anything. Then again, if it's all for show then it makes perfect sense...

Luckily, i have low expectations if this ever happens. My one and only expectation is for it to be obnoxiously fast in a straight line until something breaks.

Oh, and to sound outright ridiculous.

Then there's this, 1 in front and 2 behind, even has a passenger seat...

Oh god... that axle makes my brain hurt.

nderwater wrote: Thread makes me think of this: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/28/video-twin-small-block-v8-priaprism-is-enviable-hedonism/

Why you gotta be so nasty?

nderwater wrote: Thread makes me think of this: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/28/video-twin-small-block-v8-priaprism-is-enviable-hedonism/

I didn't find it in the link, do you have any idea of where he got the windshield and roof?

weedburner wrote: Then there's this, 1 in front and 2 behind, even has a passenger seat...

For some reason I thought of the three breasted lady in Total Recall when seeing that axle.

http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index.php?topic=28188.0

That thread says Karmann Ghia.

The hardest part of a basic installation would be the rear subframe mounting, the hardest part of a proper job would be everything. Making something like that safe, reliable and reasonably drivable is a lot of work.

Power distribution is not the reason twin engined cars suck, lots of extra weight and poor suspension design/implementation is what ruins the driving experience.

Using a front subframe/suspension in the rear is the most obvious choice and with proper installation and development it can handle acceptably well for screwing around. After altering the strut angles and rear subframe angle in Durocco the car is now livable. More work is needed to make the thing truly lively in the turns.

GM took the whole front sub frame and suspension from the Citation and put it in back of the Fiero. If GM can do it then any idiot shold be able too.

didn't that great big Japanese dude that looks like Jaws from James Bond win at Pikes Peak a couple years ago with a twin engine Suzuki car? What's his name? I think they call him the monster. IIRC he damn near broke the 10 min barrier too

Nobuhiro Tajima

Not sure if this particular one is twin engine but he campaigned one that was

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zaf3DsTaviw

Find a rear engine, RWD car that you really like. Then, find a front engine, FWD car that you really like. Get them all liquored up and leave them in the garage alone overnight, then hope it turns out with the best of both cars instead of the worst of both cars.

I'm pretty sure that's all there is to it.

Bryce

Nashco wrote: Find a rear engine, RWD car that you really like. Then, find a front engine, FWD car that you really like. Get them all liquored up and leave them in the garage alone overnight, then hope it turns out with the best of both cars instead of the worst of both cars. I'm pretty sure that's all there is to it. Bryce

I tried this. I poured 8 gallons of moonshine on a Ferrari 355 and a Malibu SS (with the LS4) and all I did was start a big fire.

a401cj wrote: Nobuhiro Tajima Not sure if this particular one is twin engine but he campaigned one that was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zaf3DsTaviw

Ahhh. The Escudo Pikes peak. Once that was obtained in Gran Turismo 2, the game was esentially over for the computer.

I recall a few cars that fit this description from reading SCC over the years. One was a twin engined Hyundai Tiburon that ran in the Ultimate Street Car Competition back around 2001. Had two stock engines, running methanol, turbocharged, about 650 hp between the two. That guy used a pair of auto transmissions and had both shifter cables routed to the same selector. Seamed like the easiest way to coordinate the two transmissions. Another USCC car was a mid-engined Acura Integra. What the guys in the mag described was that he'd basically rear ended an Integra with a Prelude, swapping the entire subframe and mounting the tie rods to the chassis to act as toe control rods. Between those two cars, that seams like pretty sound advice for how to pull off this kind of DIY madness.

canoe

I think you'll have a running and driving car way quicker to enjoy by just buying an awd turbo car and go the upgrade path to the power level you want/can afford. Adding lightness is the best approuch,adding another engine and trans is going backwards imo.If your willing and able to go to that much work than maybe simply converting the car you have to a turbo'd mid engine rwd will be good. I'm currently converting a '96 geo into awd with a mid mounted yamaha R1 for ice racing,drops a nice amount of weight and more importantly loses it off the nose.

So many posts and so few comments regarding how well it'll corner... shame on you.

If it's for cruising, fine. If it's for car shows, fine. If it's for drag-racing, great. But take it on an autocross or road course and its lap times will be laughable (compared to an AWD single-engine car of equivalant power), with the perk of it trying to also kill you.

Think about being on a sweeper during maximum cornering. Step on the gas just slightly, and one end of the car or the other will start to pull slighly earlier than the other due one or several of about a dozen reasons. Instant understeer or oversteer every time you're on or off the gas.

The only way to "fix it" is to combine the power of the two engines, then distributing said power to the four wheels. May as well then just use one engine, and nevermind that the car weighs MUCH more than a single-engine car of equivalent power.

Show me a twin-engine car that is faster round a road course then an AWD equivalent-hp single-engine car and I'll take it all back.

Kurt, who built a mid-engine Mini with a Honda H22, and is now building a mid-engine "Seven" with a turbo Honda K24. Sorry, just one engine.

You guys got sucked in by the canoe.

The only goal for the car would have been for gross displays of power and straight line acceleration that would have ripped your face off.

Luckily, i came to my senses when i realized how rusty the car was, and i scrapped it.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You guys got sucked in by the canoe...

I prefer to look at it as providing helpful informative answers to what turned out to a non-serious question.

kb58 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You guys got sucked in by the canoe...

I prefer to look at it as providing helpful informative answers to what turned out to a non-serious question.

Fair enough... but notice you gave the same answers post-canoe as you did pre-canoe.

I kid, i kid. I like helpful answers either way!

when someone mentions twin engine I have to double check aarons build progress

http://www.aaronreedbaker.com/ratrod.html

or the 2.2 turbo up front and v8 in the rear of the yugo build http://www.modifiedcars.com/cars/24677/modified-yugo-twin-m-sport-1999-pictures

when I had my yugo I really wanted to use the fiero setup... plenty of engine options and suspension upgrades.

check out "Lou Fageol" Here's a link to his twin engined Porsche http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/07/11/lou-fageols-twin-engine-porsche/

Hey guys, sorry for the late bump but I keep finding twin engine threads I want a piece of.

This is our solution to the 2x problem. Chopped a Corolla AE92 behind the firewall and welded it to the cab back of an MR2 AW11:

Splicing a FF to an MR eliminated all suspension and engine transplant issues. Obviously a FF can be transplanted to the back of a car, but much more work. If I were to do it again I'd go with that FX16/MR2 suggestion. The engine bay should fit right under the skin of the FX.

kb58 wrote: So many posts and so few comments regarding how well it'll corner... shame on you. ... Think about being on a sweeper during maximum cornering. Step on the gas just slightly, and one end of the car or the other will start to pull slighly earlier than the other due one or several of about a dozen reasons. Instant understeer or oversteer every time you're on or off the gas. The only way to "fix it" is to combine the power of the two engines, then distributing said power to the four wheels. May as well then just use one engine, and nevermind that the car weighs MUCH more than a single-engine car of equivalent power. Show me a twin-engine car that is faster round a road course then an AWD equivalent-hp single-engine car and I'll take it all back.

This is a myth that comes from applying 4WD issues to 2x2WD. Unless you have one end in reverse, both engines just help each other. Like a 100 HP tailwind. 2x2WD is actually a traction advantage over the power distribution problems of 4WD. There is not wild under/oversteer under acceleration, in fact this car is nearly idiot proof in corners.

Weight, yes is more, but our example is 2800 pounds vs 2400 pounds of a stock MR2 or Corolla. Not exactly fat for 200 hp, and 400 pounds is not a bad cost for double HP. (Our engines are stock so we're not even approaching power limits).

Probably true that a 200 HP AWD is going to be a better sports car that a 2x equivalent, but the the 2x is a viable budget race car. We placed 25 of 171 at the 24 Hours Of Lemons this spring at Sear Point. Probably a top 10 if we were better drivers and error free.

Check out our blog and Farcebook:

http://beater-car.blogspot.com/2011/05/mrolla.html

http://www.facebook.com/TheMRolla

Random_tox wrote: Hey guys, sorry for the late bump but I keep finding twin engine threads I want a piece of. This is our solution to the 2x problem. Chopped a Corolla AE92 behind the firewall and welded it to the cab back of an MR2 AW11:

That falls under the category of "ideas so brilliant and simple I can't berkeleying believe I never thought of it before."