Wednesday, 20 June 2018

MG TF remodel (blue)

Second attempt:



My latest blogpost: MG TF remodel (blue)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 21:17

Labels: ,

26 comments:

AVI said...

Much prefer the re-model.
The back end in particular gives the car a Jag-like feel, IMO.

20 June 2018 at 21:58
Mark Wadsworth said...

A, thanks. It's supposed to be a bit like every roadster ever, including Jaguar.

20 June 2018 at 22:25
Frank said...

Now you've got the engine at the front, what is the vent in front of the rear wheel arch for?

Yeah, I'm nit picking. ;-)

I actually like the MG TF as it is, there are much uglier cars you could attack with your cut and paste tool.

21 June 2018 at 12:43
Mark Wadsworth said...

F, the vent is there because I couldn't be bothered covering it up. I started with mg tf because it's *nearly* good looking and just needs a few tweaks. I can't do anything with a Ford Ka!

21 June 2018 at 13:03
Frank said...

The Ford Ka is designed to appeal to people who like cute things, in other words, women. You aren't the target audience.

I was thinking of the original Fiat Multipla. That seems to have been designed, if that's the correct word, by two separate teams, one for the bottom half, one for the top half. And they weren't talking to each other.

21 June 2018 at 13:22
Mark Wadsworth said...

F, haha I googled it, I see what you mean!

21 June 2018 at 14:27
Lola said...

You could probably keep it mid engine. But you'd need a small power pack. How about a transverse mounted two rotor wankel engine? That would then make sense with the existing air intakes.

You could fit one of those in fairly easily with either a gear drive or chain drive to the gearbox input shaft, or perhaps mounted in line with the engine. Then you'd have to think about the fuel tank. I reckon you could get a wedge shaped tank between the motor and the bulkhead behind the seats, especially if you moved the rear axle centreline rearwards (see below).

If you want a boot at the front then you'll need to think about the front suspension and pedal box area. Will you be forced to use McPherson (Chapman) struts as opposed to a wishbone/multi link set up? The latter is much the best for handling etc.

Also I cut the rear overhang. Get the wheels as near as possible to each corner.

BTW I also reckon you could achieve a lowering of the rear deck on the MG TF by lowering the engine. You could do that if you made it dry sump...

(Shall I stop now...?)

21 June 2018 at 17:08
Dinero said...

I just saw a BMW Z4 .

21 June 2018 at 17:11
benj said...

Wot more overhang? Noooo!

21 June 2018 at 18:05
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, sorry, not going to agree on rear-mid engine.

This is a pastiche of all roadsters ever, and the majority are/were front-mid engine, RWD. Handily, if you base it on the actual MG TF (2002 on model!) , you can leave the transmission where it is and just move the engine forwards (for even weight distribution). Then play around with fuel tank, battery and spare tyre to get it close to 50/50.

As to overhang, yes, long wheelbase is good for stability, but there's a downside if the rear wheels are too far back (like on my MR2), namely, you tend to clip the pavement when turning left, unless you inch out much further into the road before touching the steering wheel.

BJ, I moved the wheels forward a few inches. Saves kerb clipping at rear plus it's easier to guess where the front is when parking. And it gets closer to 50/50 weight distribution with a front engine car (like my MX5).

21 June 2018 at 18:22
Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, those things are fucking horrible. From the side they look like a slightly squashed loaf of bread. The Z3 looks like a normal car which melted while parked pointing uphill.

21 June 2018 at 18:23
Lola said...

MW. Erm the 2002 MG TF is transverse rear engine. How you gonna couple that to longitudinal front engine? But i agree to put transmission on back axle is good. Like porshe 944 say

21 June 2018 at 20:33
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, turn something round 90 degrees, sorted.

21 June 2018 at 20:40
Lola said...

MW. Riiiiight.
Did you know that the original Hewland racing gearbox for mid rear engine cars was based on an upside down VW transmission? And that Lotus used a Renault 16 gearbox in their original Europa?

21 June 2018 at 21:44
Mark Wadsworth said...

... or have a transverse front engine and a chain drive instead of a torque tube?

21 June 2018 at 21:45
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, no I knew neither of those things :-)

21 June 2018 at 21:46
Lola said...

MW. That'd be novel...

21 June 2018 at 21:57
Lola said...

MW Have you looked at Gordon Murray's istream concept? That is a novel way of making cars and is ideally suited to your concept. http://istreamtechnology.co.uk/

21 June 2018 at 21:59
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, one thing we have learned from a century and a quarter of car innovation is that most original idea either fail immediately, or have merit but lose the originator money and need several decades of incremental refinements by competitors who learn from the originator's mistakes.

Lesson: just go with the flow, copy the herd, and never try to incorporate more than 1% new stuff into any model. So, front-mid engine, RWD it is.

What you can't beat is a nice looking car on tried and tested mechanics, which makes the world a better place. Such as the X1-9, which was just a Fiat 128 pointed backwards, but with a cool shape.

21 June 2018 at 23:04
Lola said...

MW. You said that you had the ambition to be a mid - sized sports car manufacturer. Murray's iStream technology - which isn't that innovative at all really, it's just a form of space-frame using materials like aluminium extrusions (or carbon-fibre mouldings) and glue and rivets - allows you to do this at relatively modest money. All you have to do is to get the design right and find an engine and transmission and a big shed to build it in.

And the funding, obviously.

And I am with you on the iterative design thing. The MX5 is absolute proof of that. BTW the MX5 was inspired by the 1960's Lotus Elan - small size, light weight, small engine great road holding and handling. And that is still the core of a great sports car. IMHO getting the weight out is key as then everything else become lighter too. You can have smaller brakes, smaller wheels and tyres, smaller fuel tank smaller gearbox. Aiming for light weight has great knock on benefits.

22 June 2018 at 10:54
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, "the MX5 was inspired by the 1960's Lotus Elan"

The actual designer cheerfully admitted it was an updated copy of the original Elan.

22 June 2018 at 12:42
Mark Wadsworth said...

Also, I agree on the istream thing for body panels and assembly, I thought we were discussing merits of different engine and transmissuon layouts, on which case, keep it simple and adopt something that works.

22 June 2018 at 12:44
Lola said...

The 'Stream thingy is not just body panels - it's the fundamental 'platform' or structure. That's the really important bi as it is what everything else hangs.

22 June 2018 at 13:36
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, true. But our disagreement is on choice and location of engine and transmission, not on how the frame or panels are constructed :-)

22 June 2018 at 15:02
Lola said...

MW. No. I have no preference as to engine / transmission location. Either configuration can be effective and each has its merits and de-merits (you should see the gymnastics Porsche went through to try and resolve a decent suspension geometry for the 911, or my mate for his Alfa Sud engined - rear mid engine - special).

IMHO probably the best compromise for an affordable road sports car is mid FE RWD, like the Elan or the MX5.

And if you want an elegant shape with practicality this is one of my favourites
https://www.jdclassics.com/Cars/Sold/1960-Lotus-Elite-Type-14-Series-1/1047dab9-99f4-4390-f564-08d526a380ce

22 June 2018 at 15:25
Mark Wadsworth said...

L, those are cute, but TVR has already run endless copies of it

22 June 2018 at 22:41

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)