• Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.

    Enjoy.

427 Conversion?

Jay Laifman said:
I actually was coming to the same thought as Husky Driver. Michael definitely points out the troubles with my prior chop job. Here is one where I moved the windshield, door and rear axle back, but kept the rest the same. This does get rid of the rear shelf. But at the same time, it cuts into the gas tanks and trunk space.

View attachment 36239
Click to expand...
Jay you shortened the rear overhang on a car with fins. And if keeping the slopping and radius boot lid.. there are a bunch of problems... It looks like a clown car, the design was a balanced design, each change impacts the rest.. you can't really just chop and change.... A perfect example is the xke 2+2 ... Look at the awkwardness created by just adding a few inches to the central floorpan....
 
Jay Laifman said:
FWIW, my son tells me one of the Provence Moulage Alpines that he built was done with the driver's compartment moved back on the car. He didn't move it, he said the mold itself was like that. I'll have to see if I can find it. We packed up everything when we redid the house, and that hasn't been unpacked for sure.
Click to expand...
This is a photo of the 1961 entry series II from PM...

As with all the PM models they used the same wire wheels .. so they are out of scale and 15-16" probably... That said.. they look good.


1000126016.jpg
 
alpine_64 said:
Jay you shortened the rear overhang on a car with fins. And if keeping the slopping and radius boot lid.. there are a bunch of problems... It looks like a clown car, the design was a balanced design, each change impacts the rest.. you can't really just chop and change.... A perfect example is the xke 2+2 ... Look at the awkwardness created by just adding a few inches to the central floorpan....
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I am trying to address the part of the original design that some might think makes the Alpine look like a Renault Caravelle or Amphicar.
 
Jay Laifman said:
I don’t disagree. I am trying to address the part of the original design that some might think makes the Alpine look like a Renault Caravelle or Amphicar.
Click to expand...
That would be the fins and the drop bonnet line and pronounced guards... The Alpine design also gets compared to the TR4/5 and you could argue similarities for siv on for mini db4 volante.

The Renault has a much longer rear deck being rear engined and while the side elevation has some overall profile similarities ... The 3/4 views not really. Amphicar again is just a few styling ques....

Messing with the Alpine proportions isn't a great idea unless it's a considered holistic approach...
And i thought your original post was about fitting a big block engine in ....then about having a long bonnet...
Need to pick a lane :cool:
 
Last edited:
I agree that it is more like an Aston Martin - but in comparing them closely, the only real difference I see is that the space between the windshield and front wheel is slightly longer, and the fins taper smaller rather than larger. But, to be certain, the AM is way better looking as a coupe than a convertible - to my eyes.

And I did say in my first post that I was also thinking about the area behind the seats. It was a two for one concept. Actually, it was a three for one concept. I was suggesting that for those who are inclined to make dramatic changes to Sunbeams, especially with what people do to other cars these days, I'd love to see someone try this.

On my Alpine, I think my chrome roll bar seems to nicely disrupt that long extension.

I totally agree on it needing a holistic approach - that's why I've done so many iterations of moving things around to make it better balanced. And I do fear that while I like the balanced look of the most recent picture I did, I worry that the front shot and 3/4 shot would not look good.
 
ALL of the discussion seems to be on how LONG it is.

The 289 AND 427 Cobras have the Same wheel base.

A MOD/ Big Block Tiger just needs to be Wider.

DW
 
Just need to cut out the inner fenders and do a pro street brace to frame rails. My brother did that years ago with a Vega race car. Move the radiator forward under the front panel.
 
Very interesting that the Tiger/Alpine have the same wheel base as the Cobra. I matched the wheelbase, and then lined them up at the steering wheels:

1757358158804.png
 
belmateo said:
Interesting, how both those cars you mention have the dual exhaust out in the center of the car directly under the gas tank....just saying.
Click to expand...
Yep! ... Kinda like the looks of it .. especially the 429 Alpine which I wouldn't mind owning;) .. rather have a 429 Cammer (Boss) in it though.

.... David
 

Attachments

  • 5e824a94b5773af40c42a7cc4aa91aae.jpg
    5e824a94b5773af40c42a7cc4aa91aae.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
Brian, The 427 is in the same place as your 302 but the firewall is back about 6" where the white on your's starts. SoCal the Cammer is a 427.
 
260Alpine said:
Brian, The 427 is in the same place as your 302 but the firewall is back about 6" where the white on your's starts. SoCal the Cammer is a 427.
Click to expand...
Have to agree ... But the Ford Boss 429 is also referred to as a "Cammer" or "semi hemi" that's what I was referring to... the 427 SOHC is also called a "Cammer" but referred to as a top or side oiler in standard 427 form. I didn't see a 427 SOHC pictured in the other posts in this link just the standard 427. Big difference between the SOHC 427 and the standard 427. ... Just saying;) .... the problem is I posted the wrong photo in the above post which is now corrected ... Thanks for the unintentional observation.

... David
 
Last edited:
Another note is the Boss 429 is referred to as "A" Cammer ... and the 427 SOHC is referred to as "The" Cammer. Trying to do to many things here at one time .... must be a reflection of my advancing years.:eek:

.... David
 
Barry said:
Series Alpines and Shelby Cobras do not have the same wheelbase. Factory Cobras have a 90" wheelbase; factory Series Alpines have an 86" wheelbase.
Click to expand...
Jay Laifman said:
Very interesting that the Tiger/Alpine have the same wheel base as the Cobra. I matched the wheelbase, and then lined them up at the steering wheels:

View attachment 36249
Click to expand...
Jay ,

As @Barry and @spmdr mentioned the 289 and 427 shared the same wheelbase it's track that increases.

I mentioned in an earlier post that to modify a Sunbeam and keep proportions you would need to add amounts to the middle fore and aft of the doors.

Another thing your omitting about the difference in proportion of the design of the AC is the original engineering... The Cobra is derived from the AC Ace.. that car was designed with a straight 6 engine ( like the xke) so the proportion for a longer bonnet are determined by the mechanical layout.

The reason the Cobra was such an easy swap was the relative lack of length of the V8.. 2 less cylinders.. it allowed the motor to be set back inside a long engine bay helping weight distribution and lots of room at the front of the engine bay for cooling system and fresh air.
 
Michael ... So all the AC's had the same track width (50.0" frt./rear) it was just engines (straight 6s) that were different (displacement wise). Alpines have a 51" front track (steel wheels) and 48.5" rear track (steel wheels) is that correct?


.... David
 
SoCal'beaming said:
Michael ... So all the AC's had the same track width (50.0" frt./rear) it was just engines (straight 6s) that were different (displacement wise). Alpines have a 51" front track (steel wheels) and 48.5" rear track (steel wheels) is that correct?


.... David
Click to expand...
Mki/ii/iii cobra all have the same wheel base....the track for 289/427 changes...the 427 gets much wider track but wheelbase stays the same.

The ace had 3 engines .. all 6cyl.. AC , Bristol and Ford Zepher... I believe the tracks etc were not altered.. but you'd have to look that up

Alpines/tigers have inset rear track to allow them final oversteer... The sunbeams understeer as a default .. and you lush harder they understeer more, then if you lift off, the narrow rear track will cause the back to progressively come round and tighten the line.. final oversteer.. sort of idiot proof handling.. the tiger less so as the weight distribution is different and the transition from understeer to oversteer is a lot quicker and the steering isn't very quick....
 
Mike, you bring up the most challenging point in this conversation, it is the width of the engine bay which besides the steering challenges are the suspension restrictions. I have always felt that most of the british leyland cars were a bit "narrow" not only in the engine bay but the passenger space as well.
At the end of the day, you can fit pretty much any motor into just about anything with enough fabrication, time and labor. For the look of amazement, yes a 427 would look AWESOME in an Alpine. If that is what you are after, go for it. For me, I prefer a more balanced weight ratio with much more power than any 1725 motor can put out. Much of this conversation goes back to the steering design that creates the biggest hurdle. Forgive me, but an MG rack with the wrong ackerman angles just doesn't cut it. Steering geometry is crucial to the car not having any scrub, bump steer etc.
Once that is corrected, the sky is the limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top