Quote:
So, 28 lbs between 1850 and Rover V8 - and whatever between bell housing and gear boxes.
But given that the bulkhead is closer to the dissy in the TR7 Sprint than the Doly Sprint, it seems odd the V8 in the Doly can't be further back, in relation, than the V8 in the TR8.
Graham
You're looking at an incorrect datum, the distance from motor to bulkhead is irrelevant when the position of the bulkhead related to the length of the car and the position of the front axle line is different.
In a TR7/8 the engine sits considerably further back (about 2 cylinder widths) relative to the front axle centreline than in a Dolomite, thus the bulk of the engine/transmission weight is carried within the confines of the wheelbase. In a Dolomite, the engine is carried higher and further forward because of a) the Dolomite's less favourable rack mount position behind the axle line and above the subframe and b) the Dolomites complex and obstructive 3 bar front subframe. This results in the Dolomite carrying around 50% of the engine's weight AHEAD of the front axle - never a good idea and the heavier the engine, the worse an idea it is! It's a basic design flaw that Audi, with billions in development, have yet to solve the consequences of!
But these 2 considerations, rack position and subframe shape, along with a small side order of gearbox length, govern where the Slant engine fits in a Dolomite shell which looks and, from a balance perspective, IS, too far forward. Don't forget, the shell was never originally designed to accept the slant motor, (or it's power) it had to be adapted to fit the space available, evidence of the bodges committed to make it fit are still clear today, like the Sprint's horizontal offside mount. The TR7, on the other hand, was designed from first principals to accept the slant motor (and probably the V8 too) and it shows!
Steve
As a personal project, I'd like to modify a front subframe to carry the rack ahead of the axle line and a little lower in the subframe, i'm just not sure what reversing the balljoints side to side would do to the Ackermann angles inherent in the balljoints to make it work. It's obviously something the factory (cash strapped as always) didn't consider worth doing to make the car work better. To be fair, at the time they'd already built one of the quickest saloon cars of it's day, they probably didn't see the need that I do with the benefit of 50 years worth of engineering advances.