Ferrari engine?

Have a look here.


http://www.ferraripartsexchange.com/engines.htm

 

You wouldnt be starting with a 330 2+2, would you?

 

Holy ****!! I just fell off my chair!! I knew they were expensive,but DAMN!!!hehe! Yeah man,go for it,use a Ferrari engine.....................

 

Another source: http://www.ferrariservice.ws/

 

Here you go. Only thing is the prices are in Great British Pounds. That and there is a core charge.
http://www.usedferraris.net/catalog/index.php?cPath=25_183&osCsid=5ea93eee0624707b6e49f260a260cd80

 

Didn't Enzo himself say that when you buy a Ferrari, you buy an engine, the rest you get for free on the purchase ?

Atleast thats what I've heard, so my point being is that I think those engines were almost suprisingly cheap.

 

I’ve designed and build a few space-frames over the years, so if you need any help with it let me know. I can tell you that it is WAY harder than it looks to get the design right. It’s easy to get bending strength and stiffness, but torsional stiffness is another matter all together. The frame is very sensitive design when it comes to torsion. One design I worked with had 1 particular tube that if missing would drop the torsional stiffness by all most a factor or 4, but make no noticeable change in bending. I’ve got a couple designs for a mid-engine sports car already worked out if you want a place to start.

For an open top design race car that you step into, the frame can be as light as about 60 lb the handle 600 hp, but if you add doors and want the same stiffness, the weight jumps up to about 250 lbs and the number of required tube sections goes from about 80 to about 300. 300lbs is still light for a race car since the body only has to be strong enough to deal with air, but for a street car it has to deal with someone leaning on it, so must be much stronger. Add that weight to the weight of the frame and it’s hard to hit project design weight goals.

Those are the reasons monoque has gotten so popular. Since the body has to be strong anyway, it only makes sense to use the strength to support the car. For a race car, I’d probably stick with what I know and build a space-frame, it’s easier to repair, easier to modify, easy to replace body panels. For a street car it’s hard to argue with the advantages of monoque….although I can be pig-headed at times.

 

Mk e, what is the concensus of using square tubing versus round tubing in space frames? Seems that most of the older race cars from the 60s used round or elliptical tubing. But most repro/kit cars use square tubing. Have you ever seen any drawings of old Ferrari frames that are detailed enough to use as a basis for duplicating the frame?

 

Round is by far the best choice in almost every case. Square is used when cost is a concern, it’s easier to fit and attach brackets to square so there is less labor involved.

The exceptions are mostly come when a bracket or mount needs to go in the middle of the tube instead of a multi-tube joint where it really belongs. That puts the member into bending load instead of tension/compression like it should be which is a much higher load condition. In bending square or better yet rectangular members are better than round…think of it as a monoque member in the space-frame design. Of course the best solution is to not design brackets and mounts where they don’t belong to begin with, but if it just can’t be helped changing the tubing profile can minimize the problem.

I don’t know if there are any drawings of old Ferrari frames around….and even if there are I’m not sure you would want to use them unless you were building a replica….many things have changed in the last 30 or 40 years.