BiTurbo228 Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Hi there, New to this forum, but an active member over at Club Triumph. I've been trying to find out what effect on the weight distribution moving a 6-cylinder backwards in the chassis has on a GT6 or Spitfire. I've heard at least one person here's done that to avoid fitting a bonnet bulge, and I was wondering if anyone's measured the distribution. Thanks Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AidanT Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Hi Can I ask why you don't want the GT6 power bulge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjit Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 The GT6 power bulge is only there because the cheapest/easiest way for Triumph to fit the 6-cylinder engine in to the Spitfire chassis meant a bulge was required. It's not there because the engine position gave a 50:50 weight distribution or a front/mid layout, or anything else that's meant to be benificial to the handling of a car, and I think that's where BiTurbo228's coming from. In general the less weight you have ahead of the front wheels the better turn-in should be but can you move it enough to make any noticable difference... No idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlubikey Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Simon, Triumph had to raise the engine 1" (or was it 1.5"?) to get it over the chassis cross member & steering rack. Moving the engine back 6.5" also allows you to lower it to the 4-cylinder position, hence lowering (improving) the c-of-g. Weight distribution? haven't the foggiest! Not much help answering your question, I know. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougbgt6 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Richard, Do you not have any "this is how I did it pics" of your most impressive 2.5 PI spitfire (No power bulge required!)? Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiTurbo228 Posted July 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Hi Can I ask why you don't want the GT6 power bulge? It's less that I don't want the power bulge (I actually rather like how it looks), more that I'm trying to figure out the effect of moving weight behind the front axle. It's a bit late to be changing things on my current Spit6 project, but it'd be useful info to know for future reference (and comparison as I'm trying to get the same weight distribution using lightweight parts rather than moving the engine). The GT6 power bulge is only there because the cheapest/easiest way for Triumph to fit the 6-cylinder engine in to the Spitfire chassis meant a bulge was required. It's not there because the engine position gave a 50:50 weight distribution or a front/mid layout, or anything else that's meant to be benificial to the handling of a car, and I think that's where BiTurbo228's coming from. In general the less weight you have ahead of the front wheels the better turn-in should be but can you move it enough to make any noticable difference... No idea! Yeah that's it Simon, Triumph had to raise the engine 1" (or was it 1.5"?) to get it over the chassis cross member & steering rack. Moving the engine back 6.5" also allows you to lower it to the 4-cylinder position, hence lowering (improving) the c-of-g. Weight distribution? haven't the foggiest! Not much help answering your question, I know. Richard Now that's interesting. I didn't know they'd raised the engine as well. No wonder the Spitfire and the GT6 placed poles apart in this handling test: http://michaeljay.tripod.com/spitfires/cdtest/ Distribution's one story, but CoG height and moment of inertia are another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Lindsay Posted July 11, 2015 Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 I know that late Spitfire turrets are slightly lower than earlier Herald ones, despite looking similar, but thought that was for bonnet clearance. I never knew they’d raised any of their engines; it’s always great to learn small details like this. Given the basic standard of engineering - advanced enough for its’ day, but not radical - I don’t think it was for any weight distribution or handling purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted July 12, 2015 Report Share Posted July 12, 2015 IIRC an almost perfect 50:50 distribution was mentioned. Picton sportscars have done a few, or steve attenborough's blog would be a useful resource, may take a while to get through it though! http://club.triumph.org.uk/cgi-bin/blogs/blogview.cgi?blog=492306#24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now