|
Ant,
I can't imagine where you got the idea I put a BB in my car? I'm pretty clear in my posts and pictures. Sounds like you want something more streetable. I'm sure you can get close to 500hp from a 331 with AFR heads (in-line valve), and hydraulic roller but you'll kind of be at the edge of the envelope. I think it's a good choice. Also would be more manageable than my beast. The best thing is that it will drop right into a JBL nicely. You could also build a nice 358. My motor is still asleep. It wants 2 more points of compression, bigger cam, and another 1000 rpm. I'm not sure I want to go there yet but the potential is there. The larger strokers are not my cup of tea either. The 4 cam motor would be cool. I like the idea and I know Richard has thought about it. I also know it would have a big impact on chassis design. I will get back to you via email. John Duane, Yes it goes POW when I have adequate fuel pressure. I still need to change to a larger return line. I'm workin my butt off. I've got a May deadline! Talk soon, John |
Engines to suit
John,
The 358 basically what is the config of that one? What would piss me off is if I purchased a chassis and in a few months they were uprated or changed to suit these newer multi-valve engines!!!! Then I would consider myself "behind the 8 ball again" |
Ant,
The 358 is the maximum displacement allowed by NASCAR. Can be a 302 or 351 base with canted valve cylinder head. Let me give you a tip. Although they could and it would be very cool, JBL won't be changing their basic platform any time soon. That's my bet. It's really a very big endeavor and I wouldn't worry too much about it. Barry Grant just came out with an aluminum 3 valve head for the Chevy sb and it's a bolt-on. It uses (2) 1.4" intakes that run off one push rod. That's 2.8" of intake valve. And, they are lighter so less spring pressure is required. As usual, not Ford....yet. John |
Ant,
Yes, in terms of chassis alterations, the power plant is probably not the issue, I mean really. What would be nice and worth exploring, as far as Richard is concerned, is a decent transmission. Maybe this is more of an issue. I think we both agree on this. I have eyeballed the Jerico Road Race 5 speed as well as the Richmond and wondered how difficult it would be to make these units fit. Having ratio options for the more experienced JBL'r sure would be nice. John |
Engine/Trans
John,
I dare say you can make anything fit, I think I would look at a 358 engine with about 500bhp, that way I can have a bit of grunt and a few revs as well! I have never used a Tremec they come out in different Holdens/Falcons, what put me off them is the posts on guys having problems on the track with them. I remember Coyled saying the syncos are made of "pot material" The Richmond road race five speed apparently is very strong and better ratios than the Tremec, but I have read where it isnt the slickest changing trans either - so I guess one can find fault with anything. Regarding engine bays, I guess Richard with building single seaters etc, they are built around the engine for obvious reasons and the engine being a stressed member of a lot of rear engined cars, it appears some of this sort of technology went into the JBL. |
Do the Americans have the six speed box in cars the same as coming attached to the new Falcon XR8 and XR6s now? Apparently there are aftermarket gear sets for these boxes now.
Potentially the new 4 cam XR8 motor and box would be quite cheap new from Australia for you Ant to put into a JBL (if it could be made to fit). Tho the height of the motor could almost be as much of a headache as the extra width couldnt it? |
Out of interest - has JBL ever considered a GT40 replica?
|
Bevin,
If JBL were to do a GT-40 it would have to be a modern design. I mean chassis dynamics and aero. JBL will never make a copy of the GT-40 as that is 40 year old stuff and there are plenty of folks in that space. Ant, JBL will certainly do a "next" generation car one of these days. (If we are still interested and the market is reasonable.) but it will be awhile and it will certainly be much more expensive then the current unit. John, You are correct. The gearbox is of interest. The Jerico is a pretty good unit and should fit without modification. (From dimensions that I have seen). The Richmond unit is too large and the external linkage is really a problem as the tunnel is not wide enough. Hewland makes a very nice unit as well. The MVE-STA . |
Agreed Richard. It would be interesting to see some race car oriented GT40s tho - most seem to be cruise only cars that I have seen (tho I havnt seen many).
The new Ford stuff being on the scene is a bit of a worry too I guess - they may try and protect their GT if anyone else starts up successfully making lots of similar cars. Ultimately tho a GT40 type looking car could be a much better handling car with your type of suspension etc couldnt it. |
Next generation car
Richard,
Thanks for information that has clarified direction a bit, I can either wait for the next generation car, and yep I wont hold my breath" or I can look at alternatives like the UK RAM SC with the Reynard designed chassis! |
Bevan,
A proper "GT-40" type design would certainly work better than the "Cobra" type design. The aero would be much better and the dynamics would be slightly different particularly from driver "feel" standpoint. Ant, Adrian Reynard certainly could have done a very fine chassis for the "Cobra" type of roadster. If the folks fabricating the car are good, then you cannot go wrong with that choice. (Plus it would already be RHD.) I would jump on this if I were you. If you have any info on that chassis, please give me a link as I can find nothing about the a Cobra from Realm Engineering, but there is plenty of info about Jaguar C-type, D-type, and XKSS replicas. (I am interested as I would like to see Adrians rendition.) |
Reynard chassis Cobra
Richard,
The Ram SC, I contacted Realm last night and they are going to email me pictures and information over the weekend, so will see what we can get, will request on the UK Cobra forum for some chassis pictures. Being RHD is good, and its also based around Jaguar uprights, which compared to Holden spindles (Almac) have a lot less king pin inclination, then I would seriously consider fitting my alloy T/bird IRS diffhead and fabricate double wishbone setup in the rear, am not keen on the Jaguar IRS for racing, I am keen to look at the chassis to see if thats feasible, and especially mounting the top wishbone. |
Ant,
I am surprised that Adrian would of used a standard upright in any design. He had quite definitive thoughts about scrub radii and KPI. The 8.8 is a good rear end unit and the uprights are quite good as well. We use the uprights currently, but will be going to in-house bits shortly. As the alloy center section is no longer available from Ford (At a reasonable price) we are probably going to be making our own as well. Make sure that you can get the front geometry drawings so that you can design the rear bits correctly. |
Suspension
Richard,
The Jaguar upright appears to have very little KPI about 2 degrees just looking at it, but has quite a large scrub radii, maybe almost 4" I am interested to know what the circumstances were when Adrian Reynard designed the chassis, and history of this car, maybe the constraint of 15" wheels, and the kit car being available for an englishman to go down to the local wreckers and procure Jaguar suspension parts to keep the costing competitive! Thanks for the good advice on getting the front geometry drawings, will ask for those! |
Suspension
Richard,
Apparently Realm Engineering have updated the Cobra SC with a Thunderbird rear end, so I am trying to obtain information on that and how it has been designed! |
Re: Suspension
Quote:
You have many more choices for ratios and lockers with the 8.8 and the halfshafts are better as well. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
The representations expressed are the representations and opinions of the clubcobra.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the site owners, moderators, Shelby American, any other replica manufacturer, Ford Motor Company. This website has been planned and developed by clubcobra.com and its forum members and should not be construed as being endorsed by Ford Motor Company, or Shelby American or any other manufacturer unless expressly noted by that entity. "Cobra" and the Cobra logo are registered trademarks for Ford Motor Co., Inc. clubcobra.com forum members agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is owned by you. Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). Thank you for visiting clubcobra.com. For full policy documentation refer to the following link: