Jim is correct.
It is the MEV Exocet.
I was browsing e-bay earlier today and found this....
The attached URL below shows the removal of the body from the MX5 and
fitting in to the space frame chassis.
http://www.mevowners.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=exocet&thread=1214&page=1
The guy has it as an unfinihsed project on e-bay......
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MEV-Exocet-kit-car-Part-finished-/330743743304?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item4d01dd0348
AJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hearne" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Quantum Owners] Re: Converting a 2+2 into rear wheel drive
I believe the MX5 has a complete separate chassis as at this years kit
car show there was a company doing an aerial atom style body conversion
for the MX56 and they pretty much just lifted off the MX5 body and used
the chassis complete.
If it's a suitable size you could maybe use it complete.
But then, why not just by an MX5.............
Jim
On 09/06/2012 22:40, Eddie wrote:
Hi Keith
I think the MX5 rear axel will be very close to fitting on width of
the 2+2
One of the advantages is that the axel from the MX5 is fitted into a
sub frame that will require the floor of the 2+2 to be altered. You
must watch this area VERY carefully as this area has a box section
above (between the boot and cabin) that is needed for structural
rigidity.
The tunnel down the centre of the car will be relatively easy to
enlarge to accept a drive shaft, however, the bulkhead is another area
that will need careful thought as it takes the loads from the frame at
the front.
I would recomend altering the shell in composite rather than making
metal frames to go in the car to accept the rea axel etc as you may
bolt these frames into areas that are not stressed for the loads that
will be applied.
You also need to check this, but I have been advised that the MX5 rear
axel will take upto 250BHP before needing upgrades. As I say, I have
been advised of that but I am not sure how accurate this is. Hopefully
someone here may know more.
Good luck with this project though. Sounds really good.
Eddie
On Jun 9, 2:24 pm, Keith Joseph<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I built my 2+2 back in 1998 and am now thinking of a major re-build.
Does anyone have any experience or know anyone who has attempted to
convert their 2+2 into rear wheel drive?
I remember many years ago someone converted theirs into 4wd, I think
using an old Fiat Panda but I am after something a bit more sporty as
a basis, possibly a Mazda MX5 or something like that.
If anyone can offer any advice, I would be most grateful.
Cheers,
Keith
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Quantum Owners Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/quantumowners?hl=en
IMPORTANT NOTE: All information presented herewith is provided on an "As Is"
basis, without warranty or the implication thereof. Neither the Quantum
Owners Club nor the individuals associated with the Quantum Owners Club or
in the preparation of the above information shall have any liability to any
person or entity with respect to liability, loss, or damage caused or
alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the instructions contained
within this or related message(s).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quantum
Owners Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/quantumowners?hl=en
IMPORTANT NOTE: All information presented herewith is provided on an "As Is"
basis, without warranty or the implication thereof. Neither the Quantum Owners Club nor
the individuals associated with the Quantum Owners Club or in the preparation of the
above information shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to
liability, loss, or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the
instructions contained within this or related message(s).
