so my crazy mind is thinking of selling off my locost chassis and buying an astro to strip it's body off of and make into a sports carish vehicle. Either that or an S10.
if not then the project (#2) gets pushed off until august when I get back a couple hundred square feet of my warehouse.
And you expect what from this post?
Do them both
Do it.
I have dreams of an S10 with independent suspension at all four corners, with a mid-mounted LS1.
I don't know if this factors into your plans, but be aware that lots of people would rather trust their own welds (build their own locost chassis) than buy one. The exception to this, of course, is professionally a made chassis.
the mid engined s10 idea still haunts me... lol...a fwd drivetrain of some sort... if you want massive CID you could do a caddy 500 with an eldorado front setup (longitudily mounted FWD)... I still think a 3800sc drivetrain could be a hoot :)
I would go s10 as its full frame... unless you plan on fabbing your own complete chassis... in which case stick with the locost
sor some fun ideas... http://www.aaronreedbaker.com/hotrod.html
years ago, we were thinking of swapping a toronado drivetrain into an 84/5 voyager. Never did do it though
z31maniac wrote: I have dreams of an S10 with independent suspension at all four corners, with a mid-mounted LS1.
I actually saw this exact thing with an LT1. The guy that built it described the C4 independent rear as almost a bolt-in. the mount ears slide right between the frame rails. He just welded some tabs on the frame and bolted it in.
The front of the engine was in the extended cab and he had to add about 8" worth of frame/bed to get it to fit, but it can be done. I'm thinking a regular bellhousing on a T56 transaxle from a C5/C6 would make it fit without the extension.
I have a friend who put the whole Toronado sub frame and all in the back of a Falcon. Then he ice raced it.
internetautomart wrote: so my crazy mind is thinking of selling off my locost chassis and buying an astro to strip it's body off of and make into a sports carish vehicle. Either that or an S10. if not then the project (#2) gets pushed off until august when I get back a couple hundred square feet of my warehouse.
the AWD astro is basically an S10 chassis with the Astro body on it. They all share a remarkable amount of chassis bits with A/G bodies, F-bodies, and B-bodies.
Do it.
transgender experiments are an abomination.
Do you date a real female, or a blow-up doll?
Get a real car. (or is this an abomination or GRM?)
Just my opinion . . . .
Dude you are either joking or way off your targeted audience... lol this is the very description of GRM
David may be trolling. If not, he doesn't know about:
- Jim's rear engined Subie/VW powered Wartburg with the Porsche suspension
- Dan's big block VW batvan
- Sean's RX-7 powered issetta
(the list goes on. David, we like odd stuff around here.)
curtis73 wrote:internetautomart wrote: so my crazy mind is thinking of selling off my locost chassis and buying an astro to strip it's body off of and make into a sports carish vehicle. Either that or an S10. if not then the project (#2) gets pushed off until august when I get back a couple hundred square feet of my warehouse.the AWD astro is basically an S10 chassis with the Astro body on it. They all share a remarkable amount of chassis bits with A/G bodies, F-bodies, and B-bodies. Do it.
other than the dinky 7.5" rear axle and 5X5 wheel bolt pattern on the early models, the AWD Astro chassis actually more closely resembles the full size 4X4 pickups.
An AWD Astro with a turbo 231 adapted to fit the trans is something I thought about before. Same thing put into the S-10 as well, but I feel both would be too tall/high off ground for real fast fun.
AquaHusky wrote: An AWD Astro with a turbo 231 adapted to fit the trans is something I thought about before. Same thing put into the S-10 as well, but I feel both would be too tall/high off ground for real fast fun.
i think there might be some Syclone owners out there that would disagree with you on the "too tall/high " thing..
In reply to novaderrik:
Didn't they do this on the now-defunct show Ultimate Car Buildoff?
In reply to gamby:
Yes they did something like it.
DavidinDurango wrote: transgender experiments are an abomination. Do you date a real female, or a blow-up doll? Get a real car. (or is this an abomination or GRM?) Just my opinion . . . .
Welcome to GRM. You'll see these types of threads on a daily basis, and some of them will actually be built and driven. 
The thing I don't understand about the S-10/Astro as a basis for a sports car is that you're starting with truck ladder chassis (right?) which is built heavily enough to be a truck, but is the wrong sort of construction for rigidity...
So, either you add cage-esque tubes and wind up with a really, really heavy sports car, or you don't add anything and you wind up with a moderately overweight sports car with a flexi-flyer chassis...
I mean, it is a very simple answer for a basic chassis that you can stuff any old engine into and hang any old body on, but it seems like if I was going to build that much of a car, I'd rather build a semi-"proper" locost, or other DIY chassis...
I could be wrong about the above; I'm not speaking from experience and I don't know the weights, but it seems like the basics of geometry and chassis design ensure that the ladder chassis stout enough to be a truck is going to be way overweight for this duty, and I'd be surprised to learn that it was very torsionally rigid.
The Astro is a unibody and I wouldn't think it would take well to being cut up. If I were going to try and build anything from either the S10 or Astro, I'd lean to the S10
ransom wrote: [...] the wrong sort of construction for rigidity... [...] a really, really heavy sports car, [....] a moderately overweight sports car with a flexi-flyer chassis...[...] is going to be way overweight for this duty, and I'd be surprised to learn that it was very torsionally rigid.
Some things get done around here just because they are awesome.
They can be cool without being great cars. Remember, the magazine devoted a lot of ink to the berzerkely, and it didn't turn out to be that competitive when they were done with it. We didn't care.
gamby wrote: In reply to novaderrik: Didn't they do this on the now-defunct show Ultimate Car Buildoff?
did they do what? i never saw that show..
just because i mentioned it before- and in case anyone somehow has never seen or heard of the GMC Syclone and thinks the 4X4 S truck chassis doesn't have potential- i hotlink this image of a thing that was built and sold with a full warranty:
JoeyM wrote:ransom wrote: [...] the wrong sort of construction for rigidity... [...] a really, really heavy sports car, [....] a moderately overweight sports car with a flexi-flyer chassis...[...] is going to be way overweight for this duty, and I'd be surprised to learn that it was very torsionally rigid.Some things get done around here just because they are awesome. They can be cool without being great cars. Remember, the magazine devoted a lot of ink to the berzerkely, and it didn't turn out to be that competitive when they were done with it. We didn't care.
Fair points, to be sure. I guess I'm just wondering how much effort is saved by starting with an S-10 chassis. Awesome is awesome, and I'm not about to tell anybody to do nothing or (shudder) drive a Camry rather than play with an S-10 chassis; just thinking that you've taken on a Pretty Big Project by that time, and thinking that the DIY chassis approach might provide a significant increase in the awsomenesses quotient at a modest increase in effort...
It is also entirely possible that I'm hung up on function. I thought the Berzerkeley was powerfully cool, but I was deeply bummed that it didn't work very well.
It's only my intent to advocate for opting for optimal awesomeness with open eyes, and not to tell anybody that they shouldn't do something if they think it'll provide a level of awesomeness that'll make them grin during design, construction, and/or driving. 
ransom wrote: Fair points, to be sure. I guess I'm just wondering how much effort is saved by starting with an S-10 chassis.
Yes, I'm quoting myself. In order to argue with myself. Or just point out that I recognize where I may be all kinds of wrong... 
The fact that the S-10 provides a rolling, steering, stopping chassis clearly replaces a lot of hours of planning, designing, and building over the simplest DIY chassis. I'm still conflicted, but I didn't mean to gloss over that distinction so carelessly.
This don't need much more cow bell
You'll need to log in to post.
