PanozLMPO7

Edmonton · 6 Feb 2004, 20:48 (Ref:865788)

Could the Ford 6litre V8 fit in this car?

fia289 · 6 Feb 2004, 21:01 (Ref:865799)

Multimatic was supposed have tried for the 2003 season, but the JML team ran LMP1 evo instead. I dont recall hearing if they were succesfull.

I though It would have been a good combination.

Fred

jhansen · 6 Feb 2004, 21:02 (Ref:865803)

I'd love to see someone make this car work. It was mostly about engine issues wasn't? Airflow and perhaps cooling? Anyways, this car must have a significant amount of development left in it.

gsmith2424 · 6 Feb 2004, 21:03 (Ref:865804)

Wasn't the chassis itself a problem?

Edmonton · 6 Feb 2004, 21:06 (Ref:865806)

I think it was mainly engine and transmission that were the problems.

JAG · 6 Feb 2004, 21:12 (Ref:865808)

I think a lack of money and development were the main problems. Given time it could and should work. Its a shame no-one developed it more. Could have been a competitive customer chassis still, replacing the LMP01

fia289 · 6 Feb 2004, 21:15 (Ref:865809)

The main problem was that the original zytek engine didn't have enought torsional rigidity. Remember this car is almost 3 pieces: Front-engine-tub.. The 6.0 L won't solve the rigidity issue.

Fred

JAG · 6 Feb 2004, 21:22 (Ref:865814)

Will anyone ever take on a front engined LMP1 project again. New road cars like the Ferraro 612 and Mclaren-Mercedes SLR, have 50/50 weight distribution, but with the engine placed in front of the driver, behind the front axle.

Could a front engined LMP1 car work?

fia289 · 6 Feb 2004, 21:27 (Ref:865818)

The Panoz experience seems to indicate that yes an open cokpit will work, but the aerodynamics of a closed car will not. The key issue seems to be that you need a fully stress engine in order to do so today..

Question: Is the engine area stressed more in a front mid engine car versus a rear mid engine ??

Fred

Tim Northcutt · 6 Feb 2004, 22:33 (Ref:865858)

I recall that they tried to shoehorn one of the 6.)L engines in it but couldn't....the design of that car greatly restricted the size of power plant it would hold..

Personally, I'd like to see a 3.5 or 4.0 L turbo in it....Take something the the Aurora IRL engine (that served as the basis for the Cadillac Northstar engine) and run that combo....those engines can be bought cheap, so the build would not be as expensive and you would have at least some data or info to use as a baseline wfrom what Cadillac did with it....

jhansen · 6 Feb 2004, 22:47 (Ref:865871)

Hmm, sounds like a shoestring concept to me.

Speck · 6 Feb 2004, 22:50 (Ref:865877)

Nah, IMO a rotary engine would be a better fit, and sounds better too

billnchristy · 6 Feb 2004, 23:13 (Ref:865892)

The Judd V8 used by intersport would probably be smashing wouldnt it?

I do believe the chassis itself had issues too, abandoning a car over an engine just doesnt seem just.

Es Nes · 6 Feb 2004, 23:16 (Ref:865895)

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
I recall that they tried to shoehorn one of the 6.)L engines in it but couldn't....the design of that car greatly restricted the size of power plant it would hold..

Personally, I'd like to see a 3.5 or 4.0 L turbo in it....Take something the the Aurora IRL engine (that served as the basis for the Cadillac Northstar engine) and run that combo....those engines can be bought cheap, so the build would not be as expensive and you would have at least some data or info to use as a baseline wfrom what Cadillac did with it....

yeah, the key element was the size of the engine itself. i remember reading that the intake plums werent designed for a sports car, but, an open wheeler instead. thus hurting power.

ive pondered a turbo engine, but, with such a low frontal area and the ducting behind the front wheel, where would the turbo fit? i could see a small supercharger fitting and with the intercoolers around the raditors like a normal forced induction car. but, looking at the naked pics of it, i personally dont see room for the turbos

anyways, would have been nice to see a team with audi type money to devolpe the lmp07. oh well

jhansen · 6 Feb 2004, 23:27 (Ref:865907)

I believe that Mr. Thorby thought the inlet trumpets should have been cross-over type similar to what the LMP-01 has. The Zytek did not have cross-over inlet trumpets. Don't know if that would have solved it all, but that's what I recall reading.

Maybe AMT could comment on if the chassis could have further development potential and be competitive with the cross-over inlet trumpets?

Es Nes · 7 Feb 2004, 00:01 (Ref:865939)

there should be more in it ... remember it nearly won its 2nd race if it didnt need a late splash and dash. it was fast all weekend too.

mbd also did well at the wet sears point race until the track dried.

dretceterini · 7 Feb 2004, 01:20 (Ref:865983)

The mobile clown shoe 007 is about the only car I can think of that is uglier than a DP...

awegrzyn · 7 Feb 2004, 01:26 (Ref:865987)

The chassis was no good either. It ran well only on a very smooth track.
It could not run on bumpy tracks. The car did not handle and it did not break.
It was actually fast. They were very fast in Texas (2001) during warm ups, but then
Klaus Graf showed them he can be even faster in the LMP-01 so in their minds they
new the project was a failure.

Some of the team members were telling me in Mid Ohio (2001) that the car was bad all together. No one had any luck with this thing. I doubt you could further develop the car to be able to beat the Audis.

Garrett · 7 Feb 2004, 02:27 (Ref:866032)

The two factory LMP07s that Panoz ran in Le Mans 2001 no longer exists. A friend of mine that built part of the carbon fiber tub for the cars, Jesse Straight, siad that Panoz had scrapped the LMP07s and gave away the parts. I have two pistions out of the LMP07's engine. Though, they were not reliable cars, I would have given it a try, if I was Dr. Panoz, to have forced a 6 liter V8 from the LMP01 into the LMP07 car because I think the LMP07 had way better aerodynamic flow over the car. Shame they only racd for about 7 months and were stopped. Like to see a return of them with the 6 liter V8 in them. Also, the LMP07 engine did not sound Panoz!!!

Fogelhund · 7 Feb 2004, 04:55 (Ref:866075)

I believe that the cars haven't been scrapped. They were on display at various venues and times this year. The original engines were dumped by Multimatic, who tried the Mugen engines I believe, so it is possible that the Elan engine parts you have are from the days when Panoz ran the cars.

gttouring · 7 Feb 2004, 13:58 (Ref:866341)

Thorby has said this was an unfinished work- the design was sound and very exotic- the LMP01 may be more pleasing and less dastic but a good front engined demon isn't all that abd- yes turbos are a thought, but why not build rails and mount the engine in between them to aid in rigidity? or build it differently so it isn't simply front-engine-tub but front-frame-tub and the engine sits there?
would rigidity be down like this, or vibrations be up or sideways

it could adopt a variety of plants this way, and didn't a certain Riley and Scott MkIIIC run a tubeframe design and do rather well? so a semi frame on carbon tub may help this chassis woes, especially with a better lump in front than that weezing zytec

Mopar · 7 Feb 2004, 13:59 (Ref:866343)

i remembering hearing somewhere that someone was going to take over the project for 2003 as an LMP675 car. dont know what engine was going to be used though.

MulsanneMike · 7 Feb 2004, 14:35 (Ref:866362)

gttouting,

Actually the engine installation on the LMP07 is exactely as you describe, here's how the Mugen went in:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/panozlmp07-5.html

Note the tub frame sub-structure off the front end of the monocoque.

The -07's problems stemmed from lack of tunnel time and an engine that generated such vibration that it literally shook the car apart.

veeten · 8 Feb 2004, 22:55 (Ref:867535)

as for engine possibilities, there's one that everyone's leaving out; the 5L Modular DOHC V8.

Since it is a production piece for Ford, it passes the bar on the rules. And it fits between the questions of the 4.0L and the 6.0L V8s. Properly done, this engine would be the saving grace for this chassis.

fia289 · 8 Feb 2004, 23:02 (Ref:867541)

The modular engine is too wide !!!

It's almost as wide as a 427.. First time I saw a modular 4.6 in a mustang the only thing I could think off was to ripe it out and put back the old 5.0. If cost is not so much an issue wouldn't the 5.0 Judd be an alternative ??

Fred