View Full Version : PHB vs. Watt's Link

12-08-2004, 05:36 PM
I am planning for a new rear suspension for my Chevelle. I have read a substantial amount of past posts here and over at CC.com. I am looking for some opinions and some more clarification on the differences between running a Panhard Bar vs. a Watt's Link.

Here are the positives that I have found for each:

PHB mounted to the chassis on the left and the axle on the right...
The asymmetrical behavior of the PHB will help counteract driveshaft torque and aid in rear wheel traction.
Fewer parts to build and buy and less weight.

Watt's Link with the pivot mounted to the chassis...
Zero lateral movement of the rear axle.
RRCH does not move in bump/roll relative to the sprung mass of the vehicle. Therefore the Rear Roll Moment does not change.
More parts = more to build/buy and more weight.

All of that being said, I am looking at this from a clean sheet of paper approach. And money and time to build are not my primary concerns at this point. Can anyone add to the positives or negatives of either. And can anyone give me their reasoning of why one would be preferred over the other in practical terms. I know that Katz mentioned that he liked the Watt's over the PHB back in Dennis's 3-link thread from this summer, but I haven't seen allot of direct comparisons between each.

As always, thanks for you wisdom and assistance.

12-08-2004, 07:30 PM
Time and money are not a primary concern, how about packaging? that would be the only negative to a Watts. If you can fit it and don't mind having to buy/replace the added parts, I cannot think of 1 reason why not to run the Watts over a PHB.

12-08-2004, 11:08 PM
well... packaging is one issue, and what about weight...

now if its not going to be a full out racecar i dont see any major issue with weight either. but ive read a lot about this on CC.com and many of the guys use PHBs because of packaging and weight.

along with that the gains from a watts arent anything majorly significant over that of a PHB

Norm Peterson
12-09-2004, 07:10 AM
I'm assuming that it's either a torque arm or 3-link arrangement that we're discussing, rather than the addition of another means of lateral constraint to the OE 4-link or a Satchell . . .

How about first deciding on where you want the rear roll center to be, and on how much ground clearance you need to maintain. That, in turn, depends on how much rear axle roll steer you want to end up with and the LCA inclinations (both plan and side views), and should be slightly higher than the front RCH. You may even want to start with some desired amount of anti-squat to get started from the LCA side view inclination.

100% anti-squat is your likely target if the dragstrip is particularly important, and perhaps half that for road course/auto-x/open road (in the interest of avoiding brake hop without giving away any rear braking contribution). Maybe shoot for 3% - 5% roll steer (vehicle understeer). IIRC, Katz's car has 2% and if your Chevelle's OE geometry is anywhere close to the G-body's it's about 8%. As a general guideline, 7% has been considered too high for best slalom performance. BTW, all of these numbers are at static ride height, and will vary somewhat over suspension travel.

If you're not quite sure where to spot the RCH, or want to retain the ability to fine-tune it later, a PHB that's adjustable for height would probably be easier to work up than a properly-done Watts with a similar feature.

Packaging is likely to favor the PHB, though the diagonal brace to the passenger side frame rail that you should be using* isn't without its own effects on things like exhaust routing.

*Without this brace your driver's side frame rail would be picking up a torsional moment in addition to the entire lateral force. With it, the lateral force is shared between the two rails (not quite equally, though) and the torsion is replaced by vertical forces.


Salt Racer
12-09-2004, 07:22 AM
While I agree that PHB setup is lighter overall, I kinda have a doubt about the actual advantage.

All lateral loading is transfered through a long single tube on PHB, therefore rod ends, PHB tube, mounts and everything else have to be pretty stout on 3000+lb cars.

Assuming each linkage for Watt's is half the length of PHB, the linkage made of same material & cross sectional area will take 4 times more compressive axial loading w/o failure. Actually, it will probably be less than 4 b/c shorter links will increase angle per inch of suspension deflection, but shorter links still take a bunch more loading than longer ones. With two linkages to share the loading (one in tension and the other in compression), you can use lighter linkages and rod ends than PHB. Linkage mounts on axle also can be made lighter, especially if you don't make them height adjustable like on most PHB setup. I think, this will cut down on unsprung mass over PHB setup.

The heaviest part of the Watt's (center bell crank) will be mounted relatively low at the centerline of the vehicle. More than likely it's way below the overall CG height of sprung mass, so I wouldn't worry about it. I really don't think the bell crank mount will be any heavier than PHB chassis mount. The Watt's mount can be integrated with crossmember for behind-axle coil over mounts (if you're running C/Os) to further reduce the weight.

In terms of suspension geometry, chassis-mounted Watt's is theoretically better, as roll moment stays constant. Typical road race style PHB does change roll moment, usually 0.5" per inch of suspension travel. On a related note, RC moves in the opposite direction on some sprayed 4-links.

Besides the obvious things like cost & packaging, the downside of Watt's is lack of adjustability as Norm already stated. You can only lower it so far before bell crank starts dragging on ground, and you'll still have RC 6~8" above the ground. But this may not be a consideration if you need 10" RC height to maintain good roll steer. It depends on skew angle, side view angle, as well as height of LCAs.

I run PHB on my Riviera. Primary reason is the cost. Secondary reason is that it's my current R&D car so I needed lots of adjustability. BTW, Norm is correct that my design Roll steer is 2% understeer at 9" RCH. But due to large skew angle of LCAs, it varies from 7.7% roll understeer to 0.5% roll oversteer over the range of 8 ~ 12.5" RCH. Smaller skew angle will make roll steer less sensitive to the change of RCH. On the other hand, large skew angle will let you raise IC height therefore higher AS number.

I am very happy with the PHB setup on my car, but I'd use Watt's on my next car if money's no object.

12-09-2004, 12:24 PM
Guys as usual thanks for the help.

Dennis, Packaging is a potential problem on my car, but I think it could be accomplished without major surgury. That is part of the reason for the questions. I'm trying to decide if I should take the time to mockup a Watt's for the car, or just go straight to the PHB.

Norm, Yes this is for a 3-link. As I mentioned I have been doing allot of reading and I was hoping to simplify things a bit by looking at one component at a time. And as I already knew and you have pointed out, they are all so very interconnected. I need a bigger head to stuff all of this info in. :hmm:

Well if I may I would like to revise my question then. I am confident that I can determine the Anti-squat and RRCH however I really don't know how to determine the roll steer. And now it is obvious to me that determining the amount of roll steer is related to the RRCH. My current thoughts are to use the stock LCA mounts on the frame, and I am building a new rear axle for the car so the axle mounts are open at this point. The stock A-bodies have a 21.750" long LCA and they are angled in towards the front similar to the G-body. The are at a 8.8 degree angle to the centerline of the car. Also currently the LCA's are level at ride height, and the pivot is 4.500" below the centerline of the axle.

Can anyone describe for me how to determine the roll steer % or send me to a link or a book that describes it well. My current library of chassis books doesn't cover this.



Norm Peterson
12-09-2004, 01:22 PM
Look at post #11 (by Jon A) in this thread (http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16332&highlight=3-link+roll+steer). Your roll steer % is the slope of dotted line AB identified as 'roll axis'. Downward sloping toward the front of the vehicle is vehicle roll understeer.

Just to try to ward off the confusion that this picture from Millikens' RCVD may be bringing with respect to terminology, the 'roll axis' in this picture is the rear suspension's own roll axis, not the roll axis of the vehicle as a whole (Milliken refers to the vehicle roll axis as "Neutral Roll Axis", probably to provide some distinction between the two).


Norm Peterson
12-09-2004, 01:27 PM
Post resubmitted after "page not found" message came back.


12-10-2004, 04:25 AM
Thanks Norm. I will read this over this weekend a likely come back with 6 more questions on Monday. :hail:

Norm Peterson
12-10-2004, 06:17 AM
Have you seen the story in Hot Rod Magazine (Jan 2005 issue) about Peter Castellana's '67 Chevelle? Talk about coincidental timing . . .


12-10-2004, 06:57 AM
No I haven't yet, however I have heard allot about it this week. Sounds like I'm going shopping during lunch break. :icon996:

Mean 69
12-10-2004, 09:51 AM

First, good for you in attempting to design and build your own setup, there is no better way to learn this stuff than to tackle it on your own. You are asking some good questions, and it seems like you are coming along well in your understanding of how things interact. But, those interactions are TERRIBLY important and cannot be taken lightly. At some point you are going to need to determine where the compromises you will be forced to take will come from, because you just can't have it all.

Also a good choice, in my opinion, on the three link approach. It is simple, easy to fabricate, and has terrific theoretical advantages over most of the other link type setups. Some of the things that battle each other in this arrangement are the SVSA, A/S, and roll steer charcteristics. If you poke at one, something else will basically have to give. Where you choose to make the compromise will depend upon what you are really going to do with the car. For a high speed road course application, I'd sacrifice a bit of A/S for a suitable SVSA and roll steer behavior, for a street car that see some drag use, or cone killing, you might want to slip a bit the other way, and focus a bit more on A/S.

Then there's the whole packaging issue. The temptation for most folks is to use the stock location for the LCA forward mounts, because it is already "there." At first glance, it seems like this is possible on your car from where you describe they are (I had a Chevelle years ago, but never thought too much about the rear suspension), but "may" be a bit on the short side. Also, the rear mounting point for the LCA is 4.5" fromt he axle centerline, or the bottom of the axle tube? Important distinction.

As for the Watt's versus PHB, the PHB is incredibly simple, but doesn't necessarily have any weight advantage over a Watt's. I am doing the Watt's approach on my package, and I can tell that there is probably very little difference in overall weight, and unsprung weight probably goes to my advantage. Very tough to sneak tailpipes around though. I read a previous post on the bellcrank dimensions, there is no magic here as I have discovered. In relative terms, the longer the distance between the pivot and rod ends, the less relative rotaion angle as a function on bump, etc. But, it doesn't really rotate that much anyway. For the record, mine has a 2" distance (four inches between the rod ends). Make a scale model out of poster board, and use thumb tacks as the pivot points. You will be amazed at how simple, and effective the system works once you see it work with your eyes. Further, as far as the lateral downfall of the PHB, don't sweat it. The rear does not move laterally under bump very much at all, with a suitably long bar, you'll never probably notice. Either approach is very effective if exectuted correctly.

Just as the layout of the overall system is important kinematically, the construction of the setup is also critical. If you are not a mechanical engineer, make certain you consult with one to determine if the brackets, etc, that you employ are up to the task. Don't compromise, you could end up getting hurt or hurting someone else if it fails at the wrong time.

If you are really serious about doing this, I'd strongly advise getting fully up to speed on all aspects, which basically means reading Milliken about six times, and as many other relevant references you can get your hands on. In the end, I will tell you, you will be really proud of yourself, I know this first hand.

Keep the good questions coming!


12-10-2004, 10:38 AM

Thanks for the help and encouragement. As far as the mounting for the LCA, I am quite sure that it is 4.5" below the axle centerline. I will double check this weekend.

As far as the comprehension of the design and interaction of all of the components, my goal is to get up to speed on the definition and determining all of the calculated points on the system. And then I can come up with what I think is a good start of a system and come to everyone for input. My goal is not to just come to the group and ask people to design my system for me, but just for assistance and direction.

Currently my collection consists of:
Chassis Engineering by Herb Adams
How to make you car handle by Fred Puhn
Paved Track Stock Car Technology by Steve Smith

I have heard many people recommend Milliken many times, so I just ordered it from the local library. This way I can save a few $$$ before X-mas, and maybe I will get a copy under the tree.

As far as the construction, no I am not a ME, but I have two that are more than willing to help. I actually am a Mechanical Designer so I am looking forward to solving any of the packaging issues. Also, I have a welder fabricator/ car builder that will be assisting me and watching over my shoulder during the process. And as far as the safety factor, I have been a firefighter for many years, and I have seen first hand the effects of high speed crashes. I like my body parts attached to their OEM places. :icon996:

Salt Racer
12-10-2004, 11:16 AM
.... My goal is not to just come to the group and ask people to design my system for me, but just for assistance and direction....

:icon996: That's why I like helping people like you, Dennis, baz67, and few others.

With 8.8* skew (per side, I assume), you can probably drop down the LCA axle pivots slightly for increased AS. It can be done by either fab'ing new LCA brackets, or by making simple drop down brackets like in the pic below (excuse me for crappy pic quality).

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2004/12/th_106_0679-1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/saltracer/Riviera/106_0679.jpg)

Figure out the ride height and RCH, set the LCA angles (for good roll steer characteristic), and let the UCA fall where it needs to be for desired SVSA. That's the simplified version of my typical 3-link design approach. I'm doing one for one of members here as we speak.

Mark, how's your Camaro coming along?

Mean 69
12-11-2004, 12:36 PM
I'm with Katz, it is really fun and makes me feel good to help out others, just I have gotten help from so many others in the past. Feel free to bounce anything you'd like off us, we're here to help. And by the way, Milliken is a funky book, I think it could be a bit better organized, and is defintely good material to help put you to sleep, it is pretty dry. You mentioned cc.com, you should post there, we'll be nice! Seriously though, there are some really talented racers on that site, you can learn a lot.

I just got my copy of Hot Rod, and that 67 Chevelle is just awesome, and really simple in terms of the design approach: just the way I like it. It won't win any beauty contests either, which is just fine by me. The pic in there with the inner front wheel off the ground, while not the fastest way around the track, shows the incredible value of a good set of tires.

Katz: The Camaro is coming along really, really well. I am assembling the engine and should be ready to drop it back in within a few days. All of the rear is complete and needs final assembly, although I am making one change to the bellcrank that should be done this week. Then, the only thing left is plumbing, I installed a fuel cell, and the brakes need new lines due to the floater rear end. I hope to be driving the car by x-mas. Like everything, lots of little setbacks here and there that kill the momentum of getting it done. I can't wait!!!!


12-11-2004, 01:46 PM
Last night I took the time to sit down and draw out my cars points and try to figure out the Roll Steer, AS, etc. Not exactly and not to perfect scale, but I must say that brought everything into perspective in my head. It is all much clearer now, I am amazed how much that helped.

So it is time to got out in the snow and take exact measurement from the car, and then Monday at work I can start inputing it into Pro/E. Looks like there won't be allot of toys being built on Monday. :D

Salt Racer
12-13-2004, 06:34 AM
...Katz: The Camaro is coming along really, really well. I am assembling the engine and should be ready to drop it back in within a few days. All of the rear is complete and needs final assembly, although I am making one change to the bellcrank that should be done this week. Then, the only thing left is plumbing, I installed a fuel cell, and the brakes need new lines due to the floater rear end. I hope to be driving the car by x-mas. Like everything, lots of little setbacks here and there that kill the momentum of getting it done. I can't wait!!!!


Excellent!! I'm planning to head down your way at least twice next year (El Mirage and OT event). I gotta hook up with you so I can check it out, or better yet, we can do an OT event together if schedule works out! :fingersx:

12-14-2004, 04:49 PM
Well I picked up a copy of Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken and well, I will get back to you about this subject in about 3 months when I reattach my head. :hand:

It actually looks quite interesting and I look forward to digging in. I am sur that I won't be even close to catching it all, but anything is a good start.

It is kind of interesting, several of the Techinal Contributors studied at University of Buffalo and/or worked at Calspan Corp. They are both a few miles from me. And I have several friends that work at Calspan, now General Dynamics.

Thanks for the sugestions guys.

Now all I want for Christmas is 1200 free hours to read this book. :icon996:

11-26-2005, 04:00 AM
Does anyone have photos of peter castellanas chevelle? I tried to search, but no luck.

11-26-2005, 07:30 AM
I was going to toss in my opinion but looks like you guys have it covered. A PHR is an inexpensive, simple way to keep your rearend centered, However, in every other way a Watt's link is superior (except cost, weight). The biggest plus is that with a Watt's you car won't care if it's making right or left hand turns.

11-26-2005, 01:04 PM
This thread is over one year old... :)
I have that issue of Hot Rod, and thought the '67 Chevelle was bad ass the second I saw it!

Mean 69
11-26-2005, 03:21 PM
Hoiw ironic, the last time I replied to this thread, I was putting a motor in my 69 Camaro. Today, I was putting a motor, in my 69 Camaro. :)

11-26-2005, 06:08 PM
the last time I replied to this thread, I was putting a motor in my 69 Camaro. Today, I was putting a motor, in my 69 Camaro

Geez, Mark, how engines does that Camaro need? :)

With me, last year I was working out all the final bits and pieces I needed to finish my car. This year is different: I'm working out all the final bits and pieces I need to finish my car.


Mean 69
11-27-2005, 08:04 AM
Geez, Mark, how engines does that Camaro need?

Only one. The one that doesn't blow up! No more factory blocks in performance cars for this guy, Bowtie time. :evil:

02-02-2006, 10:55 AM
There is another option. You could use what is called a wishbone track bar. It gives you the function of a watts and the weight of a strait bar. The only thing is I don't know what type of lateral load can be put on them. A center pivot is mounted directly over the pumkin and one on the inside of each frame rail usually towards the center of the car. It is nice because ther is no laterall movement in the system and the axle can still pivot on the drive shaft centerline.

Norm Peterson
02-02-2006, 01:33 PM
I doubt that making it strong enough would be as much a problem as the fact that it generally leaves you with a roll center that's either several inches too high for best handling on pavement (top of pumpkin mount) or too low for unrestricted street use if it's attached to the bottom of it (read: marginal ground clearance to at least the low point of the center pivot's stud).

Either way has worked in competition, but I think usage follows the venue; high for dirt and low for paved road courses.


David Pozzi
02-06-2006, 10:42 PM
I came across this while looking for something else. I thought it would be a good topic for the Tech section, so I moved it here. :)

04-29-2006, 11:45 PM

ProStreet R/T
04-30-2006, 02:34 AM
I'll come back to this shortly... looks interesting.

04-30-2006, 09:20 AM
I have more info that can be posted. I am interested in using in somewhat extreme Lotus 7 with 3 link.

05-03-2006, 02:07 PM
The Mumford linkage looks very interesting. It looks like the instant roll center will be at the intersection the right and left axle to "Mumford linkage" links. It seems to have all the advantages of the frame mounted watts linkage with increased ground clearance, a lower roll center and less complex attachment to the axle housing. Please post more info.

05-03-2006, 05:43 PM


I am planning a 392 Lotus 7 the best solid axle setup seems to be a 3 link with a Mumford link and adjustable sway bars. I have a 06 Mustang 8.8 coming. I'm not an engineer and too far into therory makes my head hurt but I like the looks of this setup. This should be enough info to get started.

05-08-2006, 12:09 PM
If you're working from a blank slate I would think about a lateral locating system that offered an adjustable height. It's pretty tough to beat a pbar for simplicity, weight and adjustablilty. With the exception of a low insprung weight, the mumford doens't look very attractive with no adustablilty and the weight of two bell cranks and a full chassis cross member (unless you use the cross member to mount your fuel cell)

05-08-2006, 02:30 PM
The typical Lotus frame has that cross member anyhow. Once the ride height is set with this car it would probably not be changed though adjustability is via the two long links.

05-09-2006, 04:42 AM
With the two bell cranks fixed, I see no method of adjusting the rear roll center.

Mean 69
05-09-2006, 06:57 AM
This is a pretty trick setup, and as pointed out, the main benefit is that the roll center can be set really, really low. On the typical heavier front engine sedans that folks in this forum typically build, there is without question a rear roll center height that is indeed "too low." One strong consideration for these cars is the roll couple, which is basically the imaginary intersection line between the front and real roll centers: on these cars the most desireable condition is to have the line sloping down from rear to front, it gives the best "feel" for the car going around turns. These cars typically have high-ish centers of gravity (17 to 20" or so, depending upon ride height, engine selection, etc), and front roll center heights that can vary all over the place to put it nicely. A good practical front roll center height on a well thought out modified front suspension system is of the order of 2 - 4", give or take. "Probably" the lowest you'd want to go for the accompanying rear roll center height is 8", but this is not a hard-fast rule. Most of the cars have roll centers well above this, typical PHB cars are around 13" because for some reason the suspension suppliers in this market (most, not all), put the bar at the same height as the axle centerline. Anyway, a frame bellcrank mounted Watt's can be packaged to get to this suggested target RRCH and still have good ground clearance.

For your Lotus, comparison bets are off. It's a WAY lighter car with a far lower center of gravity (I'd guess, I have never owned one), and you can approach more of the purpose built race car "numbers" for things like roll center heights, roll couple, etc: it's a different animal. If you find that you really CAN benefit from an ultra-low RRCH, this looks like a fine way to go. But I'd suggest doing your homework (and maybe you already have, not to imply you haven't)on the overall suspension system including looking at the dynamics of the front before you commit to this structure. For certain, if you are going to be restriced to a small range of RRCH adjustment, I'd plan on an adjustable rear torsion bar as well, as when the roll centers drop, the tendancy for roll angle increases (all things being equal).

Fun project!

Norm Peterson
05-09-2006, 02:27 PM
With the two bell cranks fixed, I see no method of adjusting the rear roll center.This arrangement works differently than the Watts link that I suspect you're comparing it to. If the roll center were indeed specified by the two bellcrank pivots (rather than just their influence on link inclinations) you'd have two competing "roll centers", very little roll, and lots of unexpected/unwanted roll stiffness.

Mark - with a car as light and as low as a 7 or any of its clones, parameters like roll moment vs track and mass moment of inertia in roll (or pitch, for that matter) are quite different from the typical ~3200# ponycar or 3500# intermediate. For the same amount of roll, relatively less ride rate and/or sta-bar is required, and the shocks are not forced to work quite as hard in damping either pitch or roll motions during transients.

If I'm not mistaken, the front suspension has a slightly falling rate in bump . . . something else to ponder


Mean 69
05-09-2006, 03:06 PM
Indeed, I saw an outline of the parameters for his project on another forum earlier today. Quite, quite impressive from an overall standpoint, terribly light, lots of power, this car is going to be a rocket once sorted, that is for certain. Daytona Prototype power levels, F1 weight.

I'd be concerned about a falling rate front setup, but of course depending upon the rate of decline. Not much travel needed on this car, so perhaps in practice in this example it might not be too much to fret over, but again, not optimal IMHO.


05-09-2006, 09:58 PM
Here is a pic of the tow vehicle.
It's taking a nap while I gather additional parts.

Mean 69
I think the project is quite dooable and have most of the mechanicals on hand. I am somewhat commited to the front suspension but the only thing set is the spindles. Basicly a MII sourced front is used on a LOT of cars. One of the problems seems to be the U&LCAs are too shortso since they will be fabbed I had figured on extending the LCA to 15" and the UCA to whatever it needs to be. One of the things I have seen mentioned was that the spindle was a bit too short so I figure the pivot point can be lowered 1". What else should be done? I am frugal/cheap so wherever possible I intend to use production parts but not be silly about it.

05-10-2006, 04:35 AM
That is what I was thinking. What defines the roll center in a Mumford linked suspension?

Mean 69
05-10-2006, 07:17 AM
As I understand it, the roll center is defined by the virtual intersection of the two links. It's a bit funky to picture how it works, I honestly haven't devoted the brain space to work it out mentally myself, just going by what I have read. Increasing the inclination would lower the roll center, and from the looks of things, it would appear that you can get an appreciable amount of change for a given mounting location for the bellcranks? By appreciable, I mean something that would translate to actual car handling behavior.

hssss, tow vehicle, eh? For the front stuff, I'd suggest opening a new thread, I will guess that there are a lot of people that would be interested in the details, and I doubt they'd look here for the goods. In general, lengthening the links on just about any commercially available/OEM front suspension "can" help things, they are usually packaging constrained out of the box. Front stuff is really sensitive though, small changes in anything can have pretty dramatic effects, very tricky.


05-10-2006, 08:34 AM
The virtual intersection of the two links? Excellent! So two little serrated brackets on the housing would let you change the rrc a bunch? I like it. I've been lookingfor a new band wagon to jump on and I think this is it! From now on any car that doesn't have a mumford link is a trailer queen rat box! I've got a lot of work to do before NHIR...

Mean 69
05-10-2006, 10:18 AM
You smart aleck!!!

You can't be competitive without one, you know. Darn crew chiefs. Pff. :)


05-10-2006, 01:26 PM
Yeah, actualy the 41 willys PU kinda fits this discussion in that it has 4 bar, panhard, and coils front and rear. I believe it will give new meaning to the term burn out, long as the transfer case holds up. Actualy I'm considering making the rear a 3 link but I'm not sure about the mumford. For street use I'll probably use the built 327 out of my old Corvair. I think it would be fun to go to an autox run the lotus then unhook the trailer, take junque out of the bed, switch tires with the lotus and run the truck. It should be good for some dislocated jaws and actualy shouldn't do too bad.

I'll start a thread about the MII suspension but it will be "Mustang II suspension for Cobras and other small light cars". I tried one stating lotus 7 and no bites, prolly everyone was thinking tiny underpowered etc (thats not the case). A "production" (MFG building production cars for 15+ years) Lotus 7 holds the world record for 0-100-0, Ultima then did thier own test and beat them but I realy wouldn't realy call an Ultima a production car.

Damn True
05-10-2006, 02:34 PM
Have you seen the 7 on flyin miata's website?

05-10-2006, 07:03 PM
Yeah, it's well done by a Mazda expert. Where his is Miata based mine will be Fox mustang (mostly) and a bit bigger. This is what I'm after but on a much lower budget.
Westie with 6.6 Dart aluminum.