Brain Storming Twin Engine Truck Concept
04-27-2013, 01:27 PM
#1
Brain Storming Twin Engine Truck Concept I've been thinking of putting together a street monster for a while and many different cars have run through my mind.
I saw the chevy Luv project build on here and that got my attention focused on smaller trucks. Ford rangers, S10s, Luvs, ect.
My thought was what would stop me from putting an LS4 in the front of a truck
(might need to make a custom front subframe to work around the pan, but you could mount the engine directly to the frame rails)
Then you put a 5.3 in the back with a 4l80 or 4l60 mounted directly to the rear end
The 5.3 could stick through the bed of the truck again mounted to the frame rails along with the tranny. I would think there would be enough space without having the front of the engine encroach into the cab area.
If you wanted good gas milease the ls4 has DOD too so if you had some way to decouple the rear engine/tranny from the rear end with a lever you could run it FWD with DOD in a car that still weighs less or the same as an F-body.
It seems pretty straight forward. A combined 10.6L I'm sure would be pretty awesome even with stock engines. Turbo or supercharge the rear 5.3 and you'd really be moving along on the cheap.
I saw the chevy Luv project build on here and that got my attention focused on smaller trucks. Ford rangers, S10s, Luvs, ect.
My thought was what would stop me from putting an LS4 in the front of a truck
(might need to make a custom front subframe to work around the pan, but you could mount the engine directly to the frame rails)
Then you put a 5.3 in the back with a 4l80 or 4l60 mounted directly to the rear end
The 5.3 could stick through the bed of the truck again mounted to the frame rails along with the tranny. I would think there would be enough space without having the front of the engine encroach into the cab area.
If you wanted good gas milease the ls4 has DOD too so if you had some way to decouple the rear engine/tranny from the rear end with a lever you could run it FWD with DOD in a car that still weighs less or the same as an F-body.
It seems pretty straight forward. A combined 10.6L I'm sure would be pretty awesome even with stock engines. Turbo or supercharge the rear 5.3 and you'd really be moving along on the cheap.
04-27-2013, 05:25 PM
#3
I would venture to say it's cheaper than turbo charging a single engine.
5.3 pullouts are so cheap you can buy a whole engine+tranny for less than some turbos.
I can do all of the wiring.. and I would have 2 completely separate systems each with it's own battery and ignition system.
Fab work wouldn't be that hard either. Sheetmetal with a body on frame vehicle is way easier than unibodies.
Cooling could be interesting. I'd be curious to see how other dual engine setups are cooled. I'm guessing I would have to run 2 separate systems all together. (packaging could be a bitch on this end) Prob run the radiator in the bed.
Having swapped a car already I'm no expert but I've got a concept of what an engine swap takes.
5.3 pullouts are so cheap you can buy a whole engine+tranny for less than some turbos.
I can do all of the wiring.. and I would have 2 completely separate systems each with it's own battery and ignition system.
Fab work wouldn't be that hard either. Sheetmetal with a body on frame vehicle is way easier than unibodies.
Cooling could be interesting. I'd be curious to see how other dual engine setups are cooled. I'm guessing I would have to run 2 separate systems all together. (packaging could be a bitch on this end) Prob run the radiator in the bed.
Having swapped a car already I'm no expert but I've got a concept of what an engine swap takes.
04-27-2013, 07:56 PM
#4
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use 2 front wheel drive engine/trans assemblies and keep the cooling systems separate.
You could run whichever engine you wanted or both together.
Biggest problem with twin engine systems is synchronising them so one isn't dragging the other along.
In boats or planes it isn't the end of the world if one engine is slightly out of phase with another but think about one engine shifting gear before the other.
You could end up with one engine making 250hp in 2nd and the other 175 in 3rd!
You could run whichever engine you wanted or both together.
Biggest problem with twin engine systems is synchronising them so one isn't dragging the other along.
In boats or planes it isn't the end of the world if one engine is slightly out of phase with another but think about one engine shifting gear before the other.
You could end up with one engine making 250hp in 2nd and the other 175 in 3rd!
04-27-2013, 10:15 PM
#5
Use 2 front wheel drive engine/trans assemblies and keep the cooling systems separate.
You could run whichever engine you wanted or both together.
Biggest problem with twin engine systems is synchronising them so one isn't dragging the other along.
In boats or planes it isn't the end of the world if one engine is slightly out of phase with another but think about one engine shifting gear before the other.
You could end up with one engine making 250hp in 2nd and the other 175 in 3rd!
You could run whichever engine you wanted or both together.
Biggest problem with twin engine systems is synchronising them so one isn't dragging the other along.
In boats or planes it isn't the end of the world if one engine is slightly out of phase with another but think about one engine shifting gear before the other.
You could end up with one engine making 250hp in 2nd and the other 175 in 3rd!
It would be a scary fast truck for sure.
04-28-2013, 06:39 AM
#8
Two completely separate drivelines. They wouldn't need to be synced... The engine making more power would simply take some load off of the lagging engine (easiest way to think of it would probably think about accelerating downhill vs on flat ground)
Actually, thinking about it, out-of-phase shifts would offer a straight-line performance benefit, as one set of drive wheels would be accelerating the vehicle while the other driveline is shifting.
Actually, thinking about it, out-of-phase shifts would offer a straight-line performance benefit, as one set of drive wheels would be accelerating the vehicle while the other driveline is shifting.
04-28-2013, 06:40 AM
#9
Two completely separate drivelines. They wouldn't need to be synced... The engine making more power would simply take some load off of the lagging engine (easiest way to think of it would probably think about accelerating downhill vs on flat ground)
Actually, thinking about it, out-of-phase shifts would offer a straight-line performance benefit, as one set of drive wheels would be accelerating the vehicle while the other driveline is shifting.
Actually, thinking about it, out-of-phase shifts would offer a straight-line performance benefit, as one set of drive wheels would be accelerating the vehicle while the other driveline is shifting.
04-28-2013, 07:45 AM
#10
Yeah I'm thinking two FWD engines and transaxles would be the way to go. Plus you would have your weight over the wheels.
The one transmission controller might work as long as you didn't have wheel spin. Imagine if you used the rear VSS signal and rpm signals for shifting and with weight transfer the front engine started spinning. You wouldn't get the shift for the front and would either over rev or hit the rev limiter. As long as there wasn't wheel spin I wouldn't see a problem though.
The one transmission controller might work as long as you didn't have wheel spin. Imagine if you used the rear VSS signal and rpm signals for shifting and with weight transfer the front engine started spinning. You wouldn't get the shift for the front and would either over rev or hit the rev limiter. As long as there wasn't wheel spin I wouldn't see a problem though.
04-28-2013, 09:44 AM
#11
Interesting concept and it has been done before.
A few years back some guys out here in California started making two engine caddy eldorados for sale to the public.
The stock northstar up front with it's FWD setup and an identical setup in the back.
I saw it in several magazines and it looked killer and was said to haul ***.
Don't worry about syncing the engines, one won't drag the other.
Get two front wheel drive LS setups and just use the entire setup except of course you have to block the steering straight on the rear setup.
In the old days several guys used olds toronado/riveria setups as a rear engine in various kit cars and it worked well, especially the old Kelmark cars and a few Corvairs.
Go for it and don't worry about being different.
Jarhead
A few years back some guys out here in California started making two engine caddy eldorados for sale to the public.
The stock northstar up front with it's FWD setup and an identical setup in the back.
I saw it in several magazines and it looked killer and was said to haul ***.
Don't worry about syncing the engines, one won't drag the other.
Get two front wheel drive LS setups and just use the entire setup except of course you have to block the steering straight on the rear setup.
In the old days several guys used olds toronado/riveria setups as a rear engine in various kit cars and it worked well, especially the old Kelmark cars and a few Corvairs.
Go for it and don't worry about being different.
Jarhead
04-28-2013, 10:46 AM
#12
04-28-2013, 10:58 PM
#15
I hear what you guys are saying in terms of twin FWD engines and I agree if the car had Independent suspension all the way around it would be a no brainer to go that way.
But if the car is going to be a single digit car with a lot of tire I'd like to keep a solid rear axle out back. 8.8s are so cheap and plentiful it seems silly to engineer an IRS out back.
If you can mount the engine longitudinally in the bed than you could mount it with a motor plate, and one cross bar brace between the frame rails, most of the complex fabrication will be contained to the front subframe.
But if the car is going to be a single digit car with a lot of tire I'd like to keep a solid rear axle out back. 8.8s are so cheap and plentiful it seems silly to engineer an IRS out back.
If you can mount the engine longitudinally in the bed than you could mount it with a motor plate, and one cross bar brace between the frame rails, most of the complex fabrication will be contained to the front subframe.
04-29-2013, 02:23 AM
#16
If you run a different transmission in the rear, aren't you going to have issues with gear ratios and shifting? As for setting up the rear, just get the cradle that comes with the engine and integrate it into the rear frame. That should give you most of the suspension pick up points other than the top of the strut which should be easy to make.
04-29-2013, 11:07 PM
#17
If you run a different transmission in the rear, aren't you going to have issues with gear ratios and shifting? As for setting up the rear, just get the cradle that comes with the engine and integrate it into the rear frame. That should give you most of the suspension pick up points other than the top of the strut which should be easy to make.
Looking at the length of the bed in these smaller trucks I think it'll be hard to fit the entire engine/tranny between the back of the cab and the rear end.
