Had anybody ever thought about putting a second v6 at the back of a BA?
I have a friend here sharing my idea, but that involve alot of remaking,cutting and welding..
The basic idea is to make them pull with the closest to same torque to each other(knowingly that this is imposible to do 100%) but still, 99% is achieveable..
So, our intentions are to use a donor car(whole front axle with struts and engine+gearbox and shafts,brakes and stuff) and somehow to transplant it to the back of the other V6 F.
I have seen some clips of that kind of transplants in other brands but for mazda no.
It sertanly will have a hell of a start(if done right)
What do you guys think?
Maad or VERY very MAAD?

How are you going to reverse the drive for the rear engine and hang it out the rear, or are you going to have it on the back seat? In either case MAD is an understatement!

Mind you, see [url=http://mk1-performance-conversions.co.uk/downton_car_pics_twini.htm]the Twini from 1963[/url].

[b]Patrick[/b]

Lol, my thinking too, with fuel tank on back seat.

[quote="pitrack_1"]How are you going to reverse the drive for the rear engine and hang it out the rear, or are you going to have it on the back seat?
[b]Patrick[/b][/quote]
Why would i try to reverse it?The layout will be exactly like the front one is.
Don't really know how will the engine fit and will there be enough room behind the rear seats or they will perrish from the car
All advices are wellcome!
I thought about the rear engine overheating, the 2 engines will share their 2nd coolant circle with bigger and beefier radiator..(wow.. that's alot of water)

Think Patrick is getting at the point of the engine at the front is across the front wheels of course, in the rear it'll be the same so it'll be across the rear seats?
Reckon Google is your friend there, seen many Golfs with the same. Cooling wise you could always fabricate some scoops either side on the rear wings or even better on the roof
Either way I've got a 100,000 mile engine with no HLA noise with just a rusted body surrounding it that wil be scrapped soon

Just a left-field idea based on guessing you're actually after the extra power + "4 wheel drive" type effect:

I realise this is sacrilege but how about a transplant of an AWD drivetrain (say) Subaru WRX or even Impreza/Legacy/Liberty engine + drivetrain into the car? Use a mid 90's Subaru and shouldn't be too many electronics to worry about. Less weight than 2 drivetrains, no synchronising of anything (gearchanges, throttles, etc) necessary and still the AWD plus (if you use a larger engine, e.g. a 2.5 if it'll fit) the extra power/torque. You'd need a drive tunnel through the cabin though, hope the fuel tank + other bits aren't in the way, mounts, etc, etc...

Just an idea!

[b]Patrick[/b]

The whole idea is to remove the loses by the awd..
That way it will have better response and thorque..

a friend of mine did this with his vauxhall nova putting 2 2l 16v engines in. biggest waste of time and money ever. He spent a small fortune on it and long story short it something like .2 of a second quicker than single engine in the quarter mile. The placement of the engine etc is the easy bit, its the gearbox control that creates the problems, 2 auto boxes will never sync up, 2 manuals and you have linkages to fabricate and a pair of clutches to sort. all of which he and his brother managed to do after 2 years but after all of that hard work and a 2 tenths gain not to mention the 1000's spent doing it the body twisted and it ended up scrapped. Then other thing is there'd be a lot more bhp and torque from a single 4l v8 than a pair of 2l l4's so if its monster power you're after just stick a mitsubishi gto engine in the back and enlarge the turbo's. Personally I'd love to have the money to rotary turbo an f. 600 horses at the back while keeping under 1 tonne, it'd be awesome

Brucey, i get the idea that 2 candlles are not hotter than one.But they are 2 sources that produce heat and light and if done right they will help each other and the start of that thing will be far than better.
Also doing 2 sec on qarter mile is something that you consider it a small change?
Doing it from 20 sec to 18 is small up yes, but doing it from 10 to 8sec is something big!
The 2 are not comparable at all. It takes less to do it from 20 to 18.. it takes much more to do it from 10 to 8.You can easily see it at Tekkenfan's build,how much it takes to make a 10 sec car.
After all the v6 power 144hp is ment to drag a more that 1000kg body (1210kg. with the engine itself).But for 2 engines inside one body,the mass that they have to share is 1400 max.(with engine weight)So there is a significant benefit for both engines.Less weight means faster acceleration and top speed(top speed is not the goal)
Try to accelerate the car from 0 to 60 and you will probably hit 9sec. maybe the 8.5 that Mazda claims. but you have to know that this engine pulls a little more that 1000kg.-ALONE..
Put 2 engines wich have to pull one body and you distribute the weight to them by 500kg for each one..(not including engine weight here)
accelerating only with 500kg load for the 144hp will be alot faster that 1000kg. for qarter mile i assure you.Math,physics laws and stuff..
And going by that, you can easily make pneumatic shifting and clutch doing the work for you.Yes it's something that is hard work and needs alot of time but for now it's just a thought.That's why i made the topic.I got in mind your comment that is time eater and money thrower aswell, but that what you say about your friends car makes me think that they've got something very very wrong..

0.2 of a second quicker rather than 2.0 sec, you would also need to increase the size of the fuel tank too.

It would be a mammoth task and awesome engineering, it would also make one hell of a show car, don't get me wrong I would love to see it. Imagine your car has a flat battery and you need to bump start it. You can push your car up to your max running speed, add a couple of friends and the task becomes easier for the initial push off but max running speed is still the max achieved. Doing twin engines and getting them both working in perfect harmony will give an initial push but top end will remain about the same. Plus simply swapping in a klze and fuel management system costs a fraction without adding 200kg and adds nearly 100hp. Changing to the lsd gives more forward drive for acceleration but still only to the front wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhBr_odffSI , twin engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYUuRSC1yQ , single engine

Brucey you're right about that.Ith will have twice the power to go to max speed and it will be the same as 1 engine.But who says i can't play with gear ratios?
Changing them will allow me to do better start and i could go for 5-th longer gear..

A very long time ago I saw a racing sidecar outfit with two 500cc. Triumph speed twin engines. It was crap! Many years later I saw a twin engine VW Sirroco rally car win a road race at Oulton Park. A friend of mine has a petrol/electric Volvo where the diesel drives the front and electric the rears.

[quote="brucey76"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhBr_odffSI , twin engine[/quote]

Hardly a fair race, the Tractor is going the wrong way for a start!!!

John Cooper did this to a mini in the early 60's, called the Twini:

http://www.classicandsportscar.com/news ... ed-in-full

A real Mini (not that BMW 1/2 series) with almost 180bhp

[quote="Dark_Jon"]Hardly a fair race, the Tractor is going the wrong way for a start!!![/quote]

[quote="tickler"]A friend of mine has a petrol/electric Volvo where the diesel drives the front and electric the rears.[/quote]
Run that by me again... petrol/electric- [i]diesel[/i] front...???

If it's diesel/electric...truly loco, off the rails, train-wreck, the jokes could be endless. Although not strictly speaking a 'real' diesel-electric. Just imagine what Clarkson & Co could (would?!) do with a diesel-electric Volvo!

Twinning has also been performed (don't mean two engines, I mean push-pull or joining) in aircraft for quite some time. The Germals had the Do-335 Pfeil, apparently a pretty good qucik push-pull fighter, and the twinned-twin-engine Heinkel He 177 "Greif'' which, whilst it doesn't mean 'grief' in German is certainly appropriate in English given its propensity for bursting into fire, so much so it was nicknamed the "Luftwaffe's lighter" or "flaming coffin". Even Cessna had one, the 336/337 Cessna Skymaster/Super-Skymaster which became the US military O-2 as well.

So hopefully the BA twin v6 project will fly

[b]Patrick[/b]