Hi Darren, Thanks for the advice - Sounds like you've performed major surgery to your 2+2 - Hope it's all working as it should. As for an M3 powered quantum, now that does sound tempting but I think its a bit out of my price range! Sounds like a massive undertaking but one which would be well worth the challenge.
Cheers again, Keith On Jun 11, 10:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > having made some pretty serious cuts into the body of my 2+2 in the > process of fitting the 4x4 i can only agree with eddie on > caution.during the cutting processi had the whole body mounted on a > surface plate to keep it true! > I went with a seperate backbone chassis for my conversion with the > body attaching only where there was original mounting points(eg the > rear trailing arm brackets at the end of the sill tubes) or direct > into the steel side tubes. > Width is the biggest problem ,the 2+2 is REALLY narrow compared to > pretty much anything more modern. > if i ever manage to get my rwd coupe project under way then i plan to > widen the shell(straight down the middle)! and use bmw 3 series > running gear .they too use nice compact subframes,as well as the > choice of some fab engines(M3 powered coupe anyone?).This time i would > go fully composite ,only adding steel to reinforce just as the > existing cars are. > > Darren > > On Jun 9, 10:40 pm, Eddie <[email protected]> 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).
