4wd GT40?

Bill Bayard · 04-27-03, 06:25 PM

The Aston Martins and Jags used in the most recent 007 flick, were converted to 4WD.
All it would take is an unlimited budget, some high paid engineers, and a gang of mechanics! [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

Ron Earp · 04-27-03, 06:49 PM

Doing a front engine car all wheel drive is easier than the mid-engine concept. For the Astons they used ford components - standard transfer case etc. since the car is front engine. Also used 351s according to a recent Car and Driver article on the cars which would also make life easier.

R

Bill Bayard · 04-27-03, 07:02 PM

Ron,

They cheated by using front engined cars, but at least they used Ford parts!
An all wheel drive GT40 would be a very tough project, but to what end, a rally car?

Bill

Howard Jones · 04-27-03, 11:48 PM

My guess is you could buy a real GT40 for what it would cost to do a 4X440. How about a twin engine 40 say with two focus 4 bangers and transaxles. I remember a golf done like this a few years ago. Now that I have your attention, think about the gear selection problem. Automatics? Drive by wire engine controls. Sure it COULD be done, the question would be why?

Knighton · 04-28-03, 01:33 AM

Has there been discussion on a 4wd GT40?

Is this a reality? And if it is, what kind of structural changes are needed and would it be a MAJOR undertaking? [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Gary Gibbs · 04-28-03, 01:37 AM

I have not seen a discussion on this. I think some of the challenges would be transaxle as most 4x4 transaxles are for front engine mounted cars (except for cars like the Lambo). Also passing the shaft up to the front would be a bit of a challenge.

Ron Earp · 04-28-03, 01:37 AM

I don't know that it would be a 40. The transaxle is in the wrong place to pull something like that off, you've have to use jackshafts to get the power around the engine and back up to the front. Why would anyone want a 4wd 40?

R

Brett James-McCall · 04-28-03, 03:29 AM

The bond's were all front engine cars, so its not really a problem.

I suppose the only way to do it would to remount the engine like a Porsche and use a turbo box?

ChrisL · 04-28-03, 12:28 PM

The bond cars (Jag & Aston) were front engined, rear wheel drive cars originally. As I remember from "the making of..." documentary, the smaller windsor engines were fitted primarily to create space for the rocket launchers etc.

Now as far as why would you do All-Wheel-Drive (as opposed to 4WD) on a GT40... You would do it to improve traction above and beyond that of the 2WD drive cars. How would you do it? I'd hate to think. I suspect that the only "off the shelf" components that you could get would come from the AWD Diablo (if you could get them to sell it to you), then start throwing money at it. Now the theory is that it would be even quicker around a race-track, but of-course there is the weight trade-off. Is it worth it? It was all the talk in the early 90s that it would be the next big thing on all mid-engined super-cars, but it went nowhere. So I suppose the answer is NO.

David Morton · 04-28-03, 03:08 PM

I suppose it could be done if the passenger seat was removed and a suitable gearbox/power
transfer shaft up to a front axle diff. Alternatively a hydraulic motor could do it
but either would need serious modifications to the chassis. Fun trying though !
Dave M.
[img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

JP · 04-29-03, 01:20 AM

Perish the thought of it! Yuk! [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Regards,

J.P

cougaraug · 04-29-03, 10:11 PM

weren't the bond cars all front engine? sorry, couldn't help throwing that in again.