Ian Clark

Hi Laurent,

Good to know the engine and transaxle were gone through a number of years ago.

Having spent nearly two decades working on most brands of GT40 replicas I've learned to make sure the parts including wiring, hoses, fittings and brackets are as good as they appear. The drivetrain and brackets look clean in your pics.

Clearances are a bit tight but you're in a position at this point, to make future routine maintenance and tuning easier.

If you decide to lower the drivetrain by inverting the transaxle the distributor will drop down close to an inch below the firewall bracket shown in post #22. This also lowers the CG (center of gravity) of the car and significantly increases header/muffler air gap to the fiberglass rear clip.

The motor and transaxle mounts are going to require modifications when you make changes to reduce your half shaft angles regardless if you go with inverting the transaxle or raising it.

Obviously I'm biased towards putting the drivetrain in the original GT40 location whenever possible, as in your car.

However it is your car, not mine or a job in the shop, please forgive me for harping on about it. Looking forward to watching your build.



Hi Guys !
Has anyone ever made a modification of the rear longitudinal bars in this way to escape the chassis?
I thought about making bars (larger diameter for rigidity) with a small elbow so as not to touch the lower part of the chassis.


Hi guys interesting conversation about inverting the UN Renault gearbox in KVA 40s. I did all of that back in the 1980s before anyone had done that in a 40. Driveshaft angles and wanting to drop the engine to the same height as the original cars were the drivers for me. No internet back then so reading books and working things out for myself were the only ways to do stuff like that. I`ve forgotten lots of the thing`s I did but do remember problems with positioning breathers so take care with that. Cheers, Kev Farrington

Howard Jones

Putting a bend on a rod that is in tension like the trailing arms are is completely at odds with common engineering practice. That will introduce a stress riser right at the bend and be prone to cracking and ultimately failure at that point. I think you should find an alternate solution.

Chris Kouba

I read somewhere that Colin Chapman described tubes with bends in them as "pre-failed". I understand that concept and motivation but there's no way I'd be putting something of that nature in that position. It's asking for problems both in tension and compression.

Ian Clark

When thinking back to the start of projects, there have been more than a few times when I thought the easiest (fastest) way to " get her done" was to work with what's already there.

That approach has bitten me in the rear too many times, changing my way of thinking. Besides it's false economy because even after working around and beyond the job at hand you can bet going backwards later to fix something (even minor) will take more time and money than making it proper in the first place.

In Laurents' KVA build, as words of advice only, is to put the car up on stands, pull the engine and transaxle, along with the coilovers. Next level the chassis and block the tires up to simulate ground clearance at ride height. Then a much clearer picture (and access to do work) will be seen.

It appear chassis tubes in conflict with the suspension, making no sense. Inverting the transaxle solves the driveshaft angles and will require changes to the engine and transaxle mounts ( although those mounts would have to changed regardless).

Starting with a clean sheet of paper so to speak, will save umpteen work arounds - ultimately cost less and make a much better car.

Insert last line of post #24 here.