weight?
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:46 pm
how much you guys figure a 79 gtv 2.0 weighs in at ..without the transaxle or any of the rear suspension/tires/brakes
Are you chasing a shell weight ?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:57 pm
Hey, you do know that although removing the transaxle, wheels, suspension, etc makes the car lighter, it's definitely not going to be faster
Are you chasing a shell weight ?
Are you chasing a shell weight ?
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:47 am
nope im fixing to haul one home and want to take the ligthest trailer posible to save me some gas $$$ lol...still debateing it enuf to consider hauling it 10 miles to cut it up to haul home or haul it the full 150 miles home first
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:27 pm
actualy if you have a fully gutted shell weight that would be handy as well
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:15 am
The coplete car should be around 1100 kg
W/O rear junk 950 kg
Shell only 250 kg.
If you can't afford the exta $1 o'gasoline I'd leave it be
W/O rear junk 950 kg
Shell only 250 kg.
If you can't afford the exta $1 o'gasoline I'd leave it be
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:56 am
well actualy i was looking at gutting it and hauling it home on my lightweight but had a decent trailer litteraly fall into my lap so the weight isnt realy an issue now but its still nice to have the figures in front of me
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:45 pm
What do you mean without rear junk, Micke?
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:35 pm
Is the shell really that light? no doors/glass I assume?Micke wrote:The coplete car should be around 1100 kg
W/O rear junk 950 kg
Shell only 250 kg.
If you can't afford the exta $1 o'gasoline I'd leave it be
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:11 am
I'm guessing that the "rear junk" is the gearbox/de-Dion assembly.SydneyJules wrote:What do you mean without rear junk, Micke?
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:17 am
Mats isn't a guru for nothing!