twin engines

Post by **superchargedfool** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:18 am

I presume it has been done before.

I am just thinking out loud,

Mgf rear subframe, rover 100 front subframe, two k series engines.

Main problem I can see is two rads.

4 wheel drive, 300 bhp, and I think not that difficult to build.

Go on what do we think to my mad idea.

Post by **Cam** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:03 pm

Go ahead and we'll give you an honest opinion.

I toyed with the idea a good few years ago but using 2.0L twin-cam FWD engines/drivetrains from either Honda, Vauxhall, etc which could be tuned to 250 - 300 BHP each. Worked out a bit expensive though.

Would like to see it done so you get my vote!

Post by **polo2k** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:04 pm

DO IT!

Post by **Matt** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:32 pm

Only thing is.... you can only use 1 engine at a time on the road (you could use front or rear but not both) both can be fitted but only 1 is allowed to be running

And before anyone questions - i read it in a mag like retro rides or similar, I have no idea about the actual legislation

Post by **luridhue** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:33 pm

Matt you are right. I know of a smart car with two engines and an Audi TT, both of which can only run one engine.

Has anyone any experience of the Twini Moke (same idea but based on a mini moke)? (I've had the opportunity to ride in one of the prototypes (I didn't drive it though)). It is supposedly a pig to drive and they continually had problems with keeping the two axles running at the same speed and it never reached production because of engineering problems.

Post by **jonathon** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:21 pm

There was a V12 Golf doing the rounds in Max Power and on telly. This had two V6 motors and was quicker than an R1 Yamaha. They used both engines in the road tests (legal?) I'd have thought the main problem would be to syncronise the engines and the gear linkages .

Post by **Peetee** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:18 pm

Isn't there a connection between the army and a twin engined Moke?
I seem to remember an rejected 4wd 2 engine early protoype vehicle for the army lead to a redesigned vehicle introduced to the public as the moke.

Post by **Cam** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:21 pm

There was also the 2CV Safari 4WD twin engine.

As I understand it, as has been said it's the linkages between the engines that is the problem. The road seems to take care of synchronising the axles.

One of the first modifications Citroen made was the 2CV Safari. Although it looks almost identical to a normal 2CV it is quite different underneath, as not only does it have an engine in the front, it has another one in the boot giving the car four wheel drive and double the power. The two engines/gearboxes could either operate together or separately so drive could be through the front wheels, the back, or all four.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:21 pm

One way is to use auto transmissions for both drive units. Where is the legislation that says only one engine ??
There certainly were twin engine Mokes - and some Minis have ben built with twin m/c engines - and I think there are Caterhams about also with twin m/c engines.

Post by **plastic_orange** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:04 pm

There was a twin engined mini pickup in daily use around here a few years ago.

Pete

Post by **les** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:08 pm

What is the attraction/point if I may ask? There are several cars that go very fast on one engine!

Post by **picky** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:13 pm

What is the attraction/point if I may ask? There are several cars that go very fast on one engine!

If you have to ask the question, then you would not understand the answer.

Picky

Post by **les** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:21 pm

Try me!

Post by **alainmoran** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:17 pm

OK, I'll bite!

How much work does it take to go from 100bhp to 150bhp with a single engine, compared to 50bhp to 75bhp twice?

What effect will raising that single engine to 150bhp have on the power curve, and what will happen to the two 50bhp engines?

In many ways its like computer processing power, you will notice that modern chips eschew the higher clock speed in favour of more cores since as you push a processor faster and faster it becomes more and more unreliable, if you add more cores you can keep the reliability but still have the extra power.

Post by **rayofleamington** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:31 pm

Double power trains = squared hassle factor, not to mention more weight.
performance = (roughly) the power to weight ratio

power = (roughly) number of cc's x level of tuning. Weight is not proportional to either, as a tuned rover V8 can be the same weight as a stock 1300 iron block lazy engine.

However I'm certainly not anti the idea. Twingines get fitted to #### like corsas (and minis), so it would be interesting to see it done in something more classy.
If you run a modern engine controller with only a mild tuned engine set up, this may help a lot - most ECU's now run torque control... Running a twin engine on Carbs may seem simple but if you know enough about high speed CAN and have the right knowledge on engine controllers, life can get easier (but certainly not cheap!!)

Post by **chrisd87** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:37 pm

I seem to remember reading somewhere that John Cooper crashed the original 'twini' at high speed and was pretty fortunate to survive!

Would make an interesting project but would require great skill for it to work.

Post by **superchargedfool** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:17 pm

I am a firm beleiver in power to weight ratio rather than just more power.

I currently have over 100bhp in 750kg roughly and it goes well.

What I am thinking about is that if I ran mgf rear subframe with all susp and brakes at the back that is that end fairly sorted.

If I ran rover 100 front subframe with its susp and brakes it would be fairly sorted.

Two standard vvc 160 engines running on standard ecu's would be reliable and unstressed.

with one engine running it would have 160bhp at 1250kg so reasonably reliable and drivable, and fairly economical.

with 2 engines running it would have a power to weight of 250bhp per ton which would be seriously quick!

Mgf wheel fitment all round would be good too and hydrospastic suspension when split and sorted is quite good.

Hydraulic clutches would make linking them easy. Twin throttlle cable where the front engine comes in just a fraction before the rear would be easy.

mgf gearlinkage shouldn't be too difficult to engineer cos it comes forward anyway and the rover 100 would come back. Its just a case of some bespoke engineering to make them go on 1 stick, shouldn't be too hard.

I really fancy the idea.

To get 250bhp per ton in a moggy with 1 engine would mean a serious engine. And I preffer to spend time making rather than money.

My only concern is about cooling the rear engine, because k series need that to be perfect.

I would keep the supercharged moggy and be looking for another one to do this to, to end up with a pair of mad moggies.

I thought about the supercharged project fo a long while before doing it but it has all been fairly plane sailing since doing it.

I wish I could stop thinking about twin engines but its been on my mind for a while.

Also if it worked well and you wanted more a k series is tuneable, imagine turbos and 200bhp each engine......

Post by **alainmoran** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:39 pm

If you used a 2 door, could you put vents in front of the rear wheel arches to pull in some air for cooling?

Post by **MortisMinor** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:39 pm

Like Nick Mans old minor( I think thats what his called). Very intresting project, and would be a seriously fast minor. Talking about fast minors. What is the fastest road legal minor?.

Post by **paulhumphries** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:43 pm

Doesen't it get to the point where it's easier to just fit a Rover 100 front subframe to a MGF shell and then adapt a Minor body to fit ?

Paul Humphries