LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently October 1, 2020, 6:55 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: November 24, 2009, 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: August 15, 2005, 10:13 pm
Posts: 7046
Location: Charleston, WV
Joe T wrote:
I must admit I like the Audi 01E box, its a lot lighter the the G50 and runs in its original orientation, no flipping or reversing. Some have pushed it to 350bhp with no mods, the 01X is another option.

Here a link to a useful site that gives the model number of the gearboxes against the cars they were fitted in. Its hard work but useful in determining what was fitted where.

http://www.dieselschrauber.de/audi_zuord.html

Great link, but most will need to copy and paste that url somewhere like this in order to read that as it's in German. :wink:

_________________
He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: November 25, 2009, 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: February 9, 2008, 1:05 am
Posts: 678
Location: San Antonio
chetcpo wrote:
Joe T wrote:
I must admit I like the Audi 01E box, its a lot lighter the the G50 and runs in its original orientation, no flipping or reversing. Some have pushed it to 350bhp with no mods, the 01X is another option.

Here a link to a useful site that gives the model number of the gearboxes against the cars they were fitted in. Its hard work but useful in determining what was fitted where.

http://www.dieselschrauber.de/audi_zuord.html

Great link, but most will need to copy and paste that url somewhere like this in order to read that as it's in German. :wink:


Isn't that always a surprise. :lol:

Try rehearsals in three languages. It's entertaining. Especially if certain sections of the orchestra tend to a certain language, so you don't know what the conductor is telling the brass or woodwinds. :BH:

Fortunately, miming drinking is universal. And so is beer. :cheers:

_________________
JSullivan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: March 8, 2010, 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 8, 2010, 10:07 pm
Posts: 4
horizenjob wrote:
Quote:
Can't find a Honda engine you like?


Anyone have hints on Honda motors, 4 cyl. reverse rotation, maybe 2 litre?


Sure.

Of the "wrong way" motors, your best candidates are probably

B Series
B18C1/B18C5 VTEC
Integra GSR or Type R. Not very much torque, but lots of HP. Great motors.. roughly 170-180 hp stock, about 130 ft-lbs. Can make 230 hp pretty easily with cams, pistons, etc. Cost about $1500-2000+ to get a used one. If you buy with a transaxle will have desirable short gearing and perhaps an LSD (4.4 or 4.7 final drive).

B18A/B18B (Non-VTEC)
Integra LS/RS. 135 hp, 120 ft-lbs (roughly). They made millions of these from 1990 to 2000, as most Integras had this motor. Very cheap, roughly $250-500 complete, probably including a transaxle (4.2 final drive).

B20 (Non-VTEC)
CRV motor. Identical to the B18A/B but with a 84mm bore instead of an 81mm. Typically will come with an automatic transaxle. Pretty good torque. Roughly 145hp and 130 ft-lbs. $250-500 complete.

There is a LOT of interchangeability of the three above motors. For example, you can put a VTEC head onto the non-VTEC motors and make a high torque, but lower revving motor.

H Series
H22A
Prelude Si Motor. Not as easy to swap into an Integra/Civic so these aren't even half as popular as the B-series stuff. They do make very good horsepower and decent torque, but is bigger/heavier and the transaxle isn't as good (or as well-supported aftermarket-wise) as the B-series stuff. This problem has been solved by the H to B series transaxle adapters. I think they had around 190hp and probably 155 lb-ft of torque. You can probably get an H22 for $1,000. Not a bad way to go, especially if you remove the balance shaft, etc. Downsides is it uses FRM cylinder, not as many aftermarket goodies.

H Series
Honda switched the rotation of the motors in around 2002, with the new K Series motors. These motors are bad-ass. Come in several displacements and states of tune (mostly different heads). Are in the current RSX/TSX, CRV, etc.

If you have a couple of grand and want a motor that will bolt up to a normal transaxle, this is the way to go. Is taller than the B-series, which they were able to get away with when they switched to a McPherson strut setup on the Civic/RSX, etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 11, 2010, 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: April 11, 2010, 11:18 pm
Posts: 5
Hi everyone, just thought I would put in my 2 cents worth here. I make adapters for the LS series engines to the Porsche Boxster/Cayman transaxles as well as the Audi 016/01E/01X units. I have also done one for the Chrysler 42LE automatic for a guy who is putting it in a lambo replica. If anyone would like some information about these adapters or any other transaxle/engine combinations please contact me at eric@kitcarchassis.com or visit my site at www.kitcarchassis.com.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 14, 2011, 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 8, 2008, 11:28 pm
Posts: 57
why not use the transaxle out of a c5 or newer corvette? its a 6 spd with lsd...

Or does it not "bolton" to the rear of the ls motor? (since normally there is a torque tube inbetween.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 15, 2011, 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:59 pm
Posts: 110
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Straight four wrote:
why not use the transaxle out of a c5 or newer corvette? its a 6 spd with lsd...

Or does it not "bolton" to the rear of the ls motor? (since normally there is a torque tube inbetween.)


Because it's not a true transaxle since the diff is at the back. With most rear engine transaxles, the axles come out just behind the bell housing. It's a low-er cost option, but then you end up with a crazy long wheelbase. There's been lengthy discussion on the forum before.

It's what they did on the Locus Plethore. It's got an ok 115.7 wheelbase, but they had to angle the axles as far forward as they dared, plus they had to make serious concessions with the seating. They had to make it a 3 seater along the lines of a Mclaren F1 with the drivers seat in the center and pushed forward so they could situate the engine as far forward as possible.

Ken

_________________
Need to figure out your suspension geometry, what springs to use, or what your turning radius is? Try this free excel worksheet - http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7339


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 16, 2011, 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: July 17, 2006, 3:09 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Holly, MI
aero_bro wrote:
Straight four wrote:
why not use the transaxle out of a c5 or newer corvette? its a 6 spd with lsd...

Or does it not "bolton" to the rear of the ls motor? (since normally there is a torque tube inbetween.)


Because it's not a true transaxle since the diff is at the back. With most rear engine transaxles, the axles come out just behind the bell housing. It's a low-er cost option, but then you end up with a crazy long wheelbase. There's been lengthy discussion on the forum before.

It's what they did on the Locus Plethore. It's got an ok 115.7 wheelbase, but they had to angle the axles as far forward as they dared, plus they had to make serious concessions with the seating. They had to make it a 3 seater along the lines of a Mclaren F1 with the drivers seat in the center and pushed forward so they could situate the engine as far forward as possible.

Ken



All of the above is true. The question is, what are the real downsides to a really long wheelbase? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am trying to answer this question. Full disclosure: I am running the C5 transaxle in my car on a 118" wheelbase. The only issue I have is that it has a pretty big turning radius in the paddock. Other than that, the car is extremely stable and very easy to recover from a slide. I was scared that the long wheelbase would cause an issue, but I have yet to find one.

Ken


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 16, 2011, 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:59 pm
Posts: 110
Location: Santa Ana, CA
BB69 wrote:
All of the above is true. The question is, what are the real downsides to a really long wheelbase? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am trying to answer this question. Full disclosure: I am running the C5 transaxle in my car on a 118" wheelbase. The only issue I have is that it has a pretty big turning radius in the paddock. Other than that, the car is extremely stable and very easy to recover from a slide. I was scared that the long wheelbase would cause an issue, but I have yet to find one.

Ken


It depends what the purpose of the car is. If you want it to be fast in a straight line then a long wheelbase is fine. If you want a nimble to almost twitchy car, shorter wheelbases are key. Long wheelbase cars have wide turning radii and are slow to respond to steering input, but will be easy and predictable to "catch" in a power slide. My wife's ford F-150 has a 119 inch wheelbase but I wouldn't exactly call it nimble. Excessively short wheelbase rear wheel drive cars will have "snap" oversteer, and will spin out with little or no warning or hope of recovery. Where ideal is though is up to the designer.

There's no better place to look for designer consensus though than in current cars. Most production mid engine sports cars have wheelbases that fall between 100-107", with the 90" Lotus Elise an exception. Even most front engine sports cars fall in that range, Mustang 107.1" and C6 Corvette 105.7". I remember reading something about the Lamborghini Gallardo engineers obsessing to get the wheelbase to 100" which they considered to be ideal, but was reviewed to be too touchy at the limit (prone to snap oversteer) were it not for the 4WD system. Looking at wheelbases of race cars, NASCAR stock cars range between 107-110", the Audi LMP1 R8, Audi LMP1 R10, Bentley LMP Speed 8, etc were between 105-110". Interestingly with the decreased horsepower and downforce allowances on current LMP1 cars, there has been a trend where wheelbases have grown closer to 118". Everything in design is a compromise, and I can only imagine that with the decreased downforce levels, and with the cars running at-the-limit, the engineers may have lengthened the wheelbases to increase the "catchability" in the event of slide.

But really, having a long wheelbase is totally counter productive to the purposes of building a mid engined car. The main purpose of putting the engine in the middle is to centralize weight to reduce the polar moment of inertia of the car. Less polar moment of inertia correlates to a car that will be able to rotate faster around it's center of gravity in response to steering input, facilitating better/faster handling. Having an excessively long wheelbase achieves the opposite goal.

The real question would be which has more of an effect on handling if you could do one or the other but not both, shorten the wheelbase or lower the polar moment of inertia. From watching Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear comment on countless cars' "controllability", I'd say the 103-107 range is probably ideal if you want the best of both worlds. But that's just my (or Jeremy's) opinion.

Ken

_________________
Need to figure out your suspension geometry, what springs to use, or what your turning radius is? Try this free excel worksheet - http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7339


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: February 16, 2011, 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 17, 2006, 3:09 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Holly, MI
I understand the physics of the wheelbase, but my point is that I don't think people are going to notice. Quite honestly, my car puts me in the top 1% of the cars I have run with on the track. My car is used ONLY for road course track events. One of my first cars was a FIAT X1/9 which had a very short wheelbase. I spun it on the street with absolutely no warning whatsoever. Nobody has ever driven my car, or ridden in it, and then gotten out and proceeded to tell me it's lazy on turn in. Quite the opposite really.

I obsessed about the wheelbase for the whole time I was building the car only to find out that I can't find any real downside to it. Don't let somebody talk you out of a relatively inexpensive, robust, easy to find parts for solution based on wheelbase.

Ken


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 9, 2011, 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 12, 2008, 6:29 am
Posts: 3540
BB69 wrote:
Nobody has ever driven my car, or ridden in it, and then gotten out and proceeded to tell me it's lazy on turn in. Quite the opposite really.

Don't let somebody talk you out of a relatively inexpensive, robust, easy to find parts for solution based on wheelbase.

Ken


Great advice - too many people are quick to comment on some theory they have read or been told about but never actually tried themselves - just like your auto box as well....

Anyway and on topic (and BB69 if you ever wanted to try a shorter wheelbase for interest sake) I don't know if anyone has mentioned the Chrysler 42LE box yet? Awesome layout making it very short and bolts up to the 4.0 V6 which ain't short of power and heaps of them laying around in junk yards - sure they are auto (4 speed) but so what, get the manual shifting version and use "2 feet for 2 pedals"!

I just can not believe the attitude to automatics and you just couldn't do better than this box for a V8 the short side of $5000 ($100 - $300!). Plus you get 62" track, big strong shafts and big brakes probably included in the price, to me that is just "Wow"!

Attachment:
42LE.jpg
42LE.jpg [ 62.15 KiB | Viewed 17696 times ]


Photos from Egoman's build thread ....

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 9, 2011, 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3081
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
cheapracer wrote:
...sure they are auto (4 speed) but so what, get the manual shifting version...
I don't recall any praise ever being offered towards the "manually shiftable" (Autostick) 42LE for it's quick and crisp, manual transmission like, performance shifting capabilities. Unfortunately this transmission was designed for large cars where comfort was a top priority, and the illusion of a little available sportyness was more important than the actual sporting capabilities. That's not to say it might not be capable of being made to perform adequately in a sporting application with the right aftermarket parts being available. Still lacking limited slip availability though, to the best of my knowledge.

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 10, 2011, 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 12, 2008, 6:29 am
Posts: 3540
carguy123, great to see your basing your comments on experience, it's a nice change - I would however have comments on your experiences in the correct thread which this is not.

For those interested there is shift kits, mods and paddle shift kits made for the 42LE as well as a LSD.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 10, 2011, 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3081
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
cheapracer wrote:
For those interested there is shift kits, mods and paddle shift kits made for the 42LE...
That's pretty good to know.

Quote:
...as well as a LSD.
Phantom Grip doesn't count. :wink:

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 13, 2011, 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: November 12, 2008, 6:29 am
Posts: 3540
Driven5 wrote:
cheapracer wrote:
For those interested there is shift kits, mods and paddle shift kits made for the 42LE...
That's pretty good to know.

Yeah, haunt the Chrysler LH platform, Concorde and 300M forums.

Quote:
...as well as a LSD.
Phantom Grip doesn't count. :wink:


hehe, I was wondering if anyone would notice the lower grade friction adder type! Guy in Oz made similar in his back shed for a few years and lots of club Rally and Off Road guys used them and they were certainly better than an open diff although nowhere near as good as a real LSD. Biggest drawback is they bind off throttle as well.

For those who don't know them they simply add friction and binding to the sun gears by 2 lumps of steel forcing outwards by spring pressure on the sun gears. Simple and clever or cheap and nasty, guess depends on how you drive and what your pocket can stand.

Anyway, I am buying a 42LE in the next month or so and will see what I can do with one, too good an option to just let slide by. I believe a close ratio 6 speed (depending on the O/D setup) fully manumatic may be a reasonable goal depending on the solenoid setup or if the whole solenoid block can be replaced with a manual shift valve setup.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 13, 2011, 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: July 6, 2009, 11:50 pm
Posts: 171
I had a Phantom Grip in my Fiero 5 spd for a year before it destroyed everything. The first thing I noticed with it is that it didn't work, it still one wheel peeled. Second thing was that the added side load caused lots of galling between the side gears, washers, and carrier. Metal bits went through the trans and ruined the whole thing. That's when i began my F40 6 speed swap.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY