There is a book detailing an IRS build written by Chris Gibbs published by Haynes but it is based on a Merkur XR4Ti / Ford Sierra which is a relatively rare car over on this side of the pond. They have a forum:
http://www.haynes.co.uk/forums/index.php
I bought the book directly from the Haynes UK forum after Amazon wasn't able to come up with a copy. Shipping wasn't cheap, but not that much compared to the time and effort to build a Locost.
Thomas
exST165 wrote: I bought the book directly from the Haynes UK forum after Amazon wasn't able to come up with a copy.
Thanks. I provided an Amazon link for it earlier in this thread, but didn't know you couldn't purchase it.....
you can try from Amazon but I didn't have any luck. After two or three weeks they returned my money and said they didn't have it in stock and couldn't get it. I wasn't impressed, but that isn't important as that was then, this is now. I would hope that if they are still listing it for sale they have figured out on how to deliver.
Thomas
About the McSorley +442 - it's a popular chassis, but it's enormous. The Locost chassis is already oversized for a Seven, and adding the extra 4" of width and length along with 2" of height makes it huge. Your weight goes up and your structural integrity drops. I would recommend staying with a normal Locost frame it at all possible.
I think one of the biggest benefits of building your own frame is that you make visible progress fairly early on. That plus the satisfaction of saying "I built it myself" when someone asks you if it's a kit car.
As for the potential uses of Miata subframes, a few folks have stuffed them under other cars. There's a Morris Minor in the UK getting an altered set, the Kokopelli Lotus 11-style car uses them (or at least one has), I'm pretty sure Ginetta went that way for a while and Mark Rivera is building a car intended to drop on to a Miata setup. They're not Locosts, but it's an interesting way to sidestep the hardest part of the frame design with some very well-proven components.
The Focus, Escort, Contour engine is good and you can mount a holly or weber on the intake to bypass all the complexity. Fox body 4 cylinder trannys give you a 5 speed. Chebby 2.6 V6's also work and came with carb's and a 5 speed.
Roar
Roar wrote: The Focus, Escort, Contour engine is good and you can mount a holly or weber on the intake to bypass all the complexity. Fox body 4 cylinder trannys give you a 5 speed. Chebby 2.6 V6's also work and came with carb's and a 5 speed.
I could be wrong, but I think the Ford engines won't mount up to a rwd trans w/o a $$$ adapter.
-James
The zetec can bolt up using straight ford parts, but those parts are getting rare in this country. I think I have a trans and bell to do it; possibly two. People use the 2.3 out of rwd cars, too. The SHO engine will bolt right up to a trans from a ranger with the apporiate equiped V6, but the shifter will be in a "crappy" position for a car. (You can relocate the shifter, though). The Duratec/MZR comes in both fwd and rwd so if you'd like to buy Miata trans or a ranger trans and relocate/extend the shifter, you wouldnt need an adapter. (They do sell adapters for the zetec and duratec to a T-5 or Type 9)
Thanks for all of the comments so far. I have been following this type of car for some time, and am interested. What really peaked my interest was a review of Caterhams on Top Gear. They looked really sleek and The Stig set darn near the fastest time in one.
The one thing I have observed is that how large some of the homebuilt Locosts really turn out to be when the constructor is done with them. The original Lotus Sevens were rather compact, and having a large replica of that car seems to defeat the purpose of the car in general.
After looking at the Brunton Stalker kit, that seems to have the most common availability of parts (being Chevy based) and seems to be a smaller version of the car. What are the thoughts of the Brunton kit? Looking at the parts list/cost breakdown, it is not a cheap Locost, but seems to be a decent package.
Another thought regarding the Brunton, can you put a small block chevy in one? Why not? Is it too much for the car? By the time you spend building up a Chevy V6, you can build a SBC just as cheap and make more power.
Thanks all... HRFB
Nobody who regularly attends our autocrosses drives a locost-type car, but I have seen a Brunton Stalker and a couple Superperformance S1's. A well driven stalker will usually get FTD....even with the solid rear truck axle.
hotrodfatboy wrote: The one thing I have observed is that how large some of the homebuilt Locosts really turn out to be when the constructor is done with them.
Look at the size of the builder....that has a lot to do with it. I have a lot more girth than Colin Chapman, and would not fit in an original lotus seven. (Food for thought: I barely fit in a stock Model A, either. There's no leg room for me, and I have short legs.)
Mine is "book" size, with the scuttle (cowl) moved back 3". The "book" size is 3" wider than a Lotus or S3 Caterham, although narrower than a Caterham SV (SVelte?).
I think the size of the nose cone makes a huge difference on appearances. I bought a taller S2 nose from Curtis Unlimited and I'm pretty happy with the look.
I have a smaller "Lotus" size chassis in the works, as I'm only 5'9" and 155lbs - the "Locost" size is too roomy....
I have been considering taking my Miata out of service to transform it into a locost this spring as it is getting rusty and generally worn out. I will probably make it "Lotus sized" since I am only 5'7" and 150#.
I am seriously contemplating starting a locost build and the frame sizes is something I have been considering. From reading on Keith's site and seeing SkinnyG's car I know I want the scuttle moved back, but "lotus size" vs "book size"... I am 6'2" 150lbs and wonder which way I should go with it. Also are there plans for the Lotus size knocking around?
I at least intend to use Miata suspension bits and the IRS to make it a roller for simplicity's sake (been done so many times its known to work well). I'm still not sure what motor direction I want to go in, but it seems that if I get to the roller stage I can go whatever direction I want (within size reason). contenders right now for the motor/trans are Miata (older and less power, but cheaper), Sky/Solstice (newer, more power, more $), rotary (can someone shut up that exhaust? will it be durable?)
The Stalker is fairly large. I'm going to guess it's between a book frame and a 442.
Tony Weale's Lotus Seven book has some frame information for all of the various Lotus and Caterham (which is what you really want) variations. No dimensions, but the general tubing layout. Read up on the Aussie mods as well to get some more stiffness without much extra weight.
If you're going to use a Miata IRS, you're going to need a bigger car than a classic Lotus. For one thing, the track is wider. Don't even think about using the front arms of course.
With regards to the scuttle location - the Lotus/Caterham location does look better. Keep in mind that the location of the Locost scuttle coincides with the transition from the parallel sides of the cockpit (in plan view) to the tapering nose. If you move it back from there, you're going to find that your hood has to do some very interesting things. Or you can make your scuttle very long. From an ergonomics standpoint, the Lotus/Caterham scuttle puts the shifter pretty much under the scuttle and the dash very close to your hands on the wheel.
EvanB wrote: I have been considering taking my Miata out of service to transform it into a locost this spring as it is getting rusty and generally worn out. I will probably make it "Lotus sized" since I am only 5'7" and 150#.
It might be difficult. The Caterham or Seven Series 3 chassis is only 39" wide at the hips and very tight in the pedalbox.The Caterhams these days use a custom bellhousing that allows for a larger pedalbox.
I would recommend a new Caterham SV sized chassis, which is pretty much the same size as the original Locost. BUT as Keith says don't go any bigger.
(In the interest of full disclosure I have been working on a Seven that is built to Caterham Dimensions, bike engined though)
T
Like just about everybody else that reads GRM I have the Ron Champion book and would like to build a locost one day.
The thing that bugs me is how bad a lot of these cars look when they are finished. I know most are built to be under a certain budget and fit the builder's bottom sides, but the changes to the proportions make them look just wrong. SkinnyG's car and the black/silver 3TC powered car (mainlandboy's ride) seen on this forum are notable exceptions.
The Caterhams really do look really sleek and awesome, but I guess big $$$ always buys you a lot of sleek and awesome. I wonder if anyone has a list of the major differences between the average locost and Caterham? Seems like minor adjustments to proportions and a whole lot of attention to detail on fit and finish would get you pretty close to the Caterham look for not much more cash.
EDIT- I re-read this post and it's a little harsh. Sorry to any locost owners/builders who may have taken offense. I'd love to start on my own "7" one day, but for me I'd have to take a long, hard look at what makes those Caterhams look so cool and duplicate that look.
Hey mblommel, regarding the average cost, I ended up putting about $7500 CDN into my Locost, which seems to be about average.
Mark
Keith wrote: If you move (the scuttle) back from there, you're going to find that your hood has to do some very interesting things.
I took everything at the scuttle point of the entire chassis and smudged the works of it back. This made fitting the clamshells a lot easier too.
Side profile:
Mine cost me $5700 CDN ($5000US at the time) start to finish, including everything (every paint can, fastener, clip, etc.). I've since put more into it, but start to finish was fairly cheap.
If you're wanting resources to clone a Lotus/Caterham, look here: www.patiencecorner.org
A big key to the look of the car is the nose cone shape. The Lotus/Cats also have an angled side to the cockpit, like SkinnyG's car. Headlight placement varies quite a bit, Caterhams have them high on stalks and a lot of Locosts put them low and beside the nose. Square or undersize headlights also make a Locost look dramatically different.
G, what does your car look like in plan view? When you say you "smudged everything back", does this mean the transition between the cockpit sides and the engine bay sides is still at the leading edge of the scuttle?
The transition is still at the leading edge of the scuttle. The crease down the sides has been moved back too. Maybe this picture will help? It's a subtle change, but a significant one - the cockpit on the locost looks way too long and the front way too stubby. Moving this transition back puts things into better proportion.
Skinny I think you're really on to something with the placement of the scuttle further back. You can really see it in this picture from Keith's site:
You can really see how much longer the Caterham hood is.
I also think that painting the whole car the same color really improves the aesthetics. The headlight placement also seems to play a big part, as does the wheel/tire combo. The all black trim, carbon fenders and other bits also make a difference.
BTW I've always thought Keith's car is pretty sweet too.
I just checked the Book locost drawing, and a Lotus Series 2 drawing, and the cockpit sides (seat back to scuttle) are about 10" shorter on the Lotus! Gasp!
Yeah, I'd never noticed the scuttle difference until I parked beside that SV. It's fairly dramatic. My car looks okay in isolation though 
It's also improved since that picture was taken, I built another windshield that was about 1" lower and it made a huge difference. I also put a tonneau over the "trunk" and that had a big effect. Little things.
I need to check on the Westfields. They're very closely related to a Locost in design (VERY closely, based on the look of the bare frame), and I'm wondering where the scuttle is on those. I'll have a look on Monday. I seem to recall it's about halfway between a Locost and a Lotus.
Thanks, Skinny. That's what I thought you meant. You'll have less footwell room in your car than in a Locost. Maybe not a problem for you, but it's always the tightest part of fitting into a Seven.
Now that I think about it, the scuttle on my Locost is at the back of the engine compartment, not at the front of the cockpit. The body sides are tapered there - see picture below. So I could feasibly build a new scuttle that starts where my current one ends, and get the long nose look. If I do another round of modifications, maybe I'll give that a shot. I have some plans that may involve a new hood, and that would be the time to do it.
Polished vs painted sides depend on personal opinion. I like the raw metal - obviously. That's just how a Seven looks in my head.
Not exactly low cost, but if you are needing inspiration on making a seven rep look better, then check out these guys - Donkervoort D8 GT
In reply to Rusnak_322:
You'll need to log in to post.
