goodall
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:09 PM |
|
|
how long are V6 and V4 engines?
10" or 11" long is what i want?
|
|
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by goodall
10" or 11" long is what i want?
Don't quite understand you here buddy???
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
front the front of the engine (at the pullys to the back of the engine (the bell houseing bolt up face)
sorry im not to clear on the technical names
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
It'll be a small engine!
The bores in a 2litre pinto add up to more than 12"  (90mm each x4)... Granted thats an inline 4 pot, but i doubt a v6 would be any shorter
than a straight 4 by the time you have the crank/conrod offsets...
David
[Edited on 18/2/07 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
Hmmmm a scale model maybe 
My V6 is just under 18" long. A bike V4 might get close to what you want. If i were you I would probably abandon the idea of trying to fit an
audi quattro layout in something tiny with no front overhang. The ford system is much more suitable and dead cheap.
Liam
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 03:40 PM |
|
|
i dont like the ford system for to reasons, 1; its 4WD rather than AWD which is alright but depends on what you want. 2; it uses unequal length drive
shafts which causes torque steer.
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by goodall
i dont like the ford system for to reasons, 1; its 4WD rather than AWD which is alright but depends on what you want. 2; it uses unequal length drive
shafts which causes torque steer.
Isn't 4WD (four wheel drive) the same as AWD (all wheel drive) in a 4-wheeled car?
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
no
4wd is when the power is sent 2 one axle and then another axle is driven but doesnt become fully operational until the main axle has lost traction
awd is were the power is split between the two axle equally in such away that they are both transmitting power
awd helps stop the car losing traction unlike 4wd which helps regain traction
[Edited on 18/2/07 by goodall]
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
Here's a spec sheet for my V6 Duratec if it helps but 11 inches??  Even the Audi V6 (which is the shortest I've seen) doesn't come
close.
[Edited on 18-2-07 by RazMan]
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
well thats only about 16" from pully to flywheel, id say a V4 will be abit shorter
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
Dont get too hung up on AWD, 4WD, permanent, part time, etc etc. The terminology is not used consistently between one manafacturer and the next.
You're wrong about the ford system (sierra xr4x4/cosworth and escort cosworth). It is a full on permanent 4 wheel drive (or all wheel drive if
you prefer) with three mechanical diffs (two of which are LSDs). Whats more power is split 2/3 to the rear which is arguably preferable to a 50:50
split for a sporty vehicle. And of course you dont have to have the engine hung in front of the front axle - i have it a few feet behind in my ford
based locost.
Liam
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 18/2/07 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by goodall
well thats only about 16" from pully to flywheel, id say a V4 will be abit shorter
But you won't find a V4 car engine, at least not one worth using.
Not convinced about the 4WD definition, I think you have them backwards. Lots of 4WD vehicles such as a Land Rover have front and rear drive
permanently engaged (when 4WD is selected).
Rightly or wrongly the AWD term seems to be used mainly for vehicles that don't have a high/low ratio transfer box.
|
|
|
locost_bryan
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 03:41 AM |
|
|
In marketing speak, awd is a 4wd version of a 2wd car (Subi, Audi), and a 4wd is an off-roader (Landie, Jeep) or soft-roader (RAV4).
Most AWD will be 2wd until electronics detect front wheel slip and transfer up to 50% power to rear wheels.
A real 4wd is permanently coupled, has dual range, manually locking diffs, and 16 feet of ground clearance. 
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locost_bryan
A real 4wd is permanently coupled, has dual range, manually locking diffs, and 16 feet of ground clearance.
That is definition of a "Chelsea Tractor".
Many real 4x4 designed for rough front line combat conditions don't have dual range or locking diffs and manage quite nicely.
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 09:37 AM |
|
|
damn have just got rid of my saab v4 otherwise i could measure it for you. not that you would want to use one really, would cost alot to get any
decent torque aand horsepower out of it.
it would be about 10 inches in length i think
|
|
|
rav
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 11:39 AM |
|
|
Scuby flat four is 16", well 15" if you don't include the front pulley.
However, for a front mid engined 4x4 sports car, Sierra/cossy 4x4 gearbox has to be the way to go - that is if you want the engine in a sensible place
rather than hanging out at the front like a nerd on the school bus.
I suppose Skyline or land rovers are other options, but only if you want millions of ponies and/or more weight "to help it stick to the
road".
What d'ya want Audi 'gear for anyway?
Vorsprung durch Ford!
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
because its more ideal beacuse the front axle line in a mini is just infront of the drivers feet
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
well audi call it awd and theres is permenant but many 4x4 type jeeps and stuff have no diff between the front and rear axle it just locks the two and
thats why most people drive them in 2wd to save tyres and drivetrain. maybe things have moved on since then buts thats the way it use to be
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
Ford have used a proper system since they introduced it in 1982, MUCH better system than the Audi at the time. The ford system is permanent 4x4, which
you don't unlock or any of that rubbish, and it doesn't require ANY electronics to run it.
It was a VERY good bit of design work at the time by FF Developments, incidentally set up by irishman Harry Ferguson after he got bored with designing
tractors and their hydraulic systems. It was similar in concept to the system he had designed a few years earlier for the Jensen Interceptor, and that
fitted to the Boreham Ford MK1 Capri 4x4 rallycross cars in the seventies. Once "productionised" ford (in partnership with GKN) built the
transmissions, in a deal which saw FF Developments getting all the competiton parts, like the group A front and rear 9" diffs etc.
The ford, as liam says, used a 66% rear 33% front torque splitting epicylic, viscous coupled limited slip centre diff, with viscous limited slip diff
at the rear and an open front diff.
The driveshaft lengths are also as good as equal, where do you get the unequal lengths statement from.
Yes there is a difference of an inch or so on the rear shafts, but the fronts are equal, remember the l/h front shaft is two piece with a support
bearing.
For the money you cannot beat the ford system. In its day it was state of the art, and even now it is only surpassed by active centre diffs and
variable locking centre diffs, neither of which will fit your budget!!
[Edited on 19/2/07 by NS Dev]
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
no the front shafts are different lenghts because you have to remember that the shaft thats in the sump is also part of the lefthand front driveshaft.
the reason i wouldent use the ford sytem is that its even less useable than the audi system. imgaine were the engine would have to be with the ff
system, either pokening between the driver and passenger or in the back seat area to places i dont want it there
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
errr I think you may need to do some more learning about torque steer!!!!
The it is only the shaft length BETWEEN THE CV's that causes torque steer, hence why every half decent front wheel drive car uses a two piece
shaft on the long side to keep the "moving" shafts equal length............. thought that was pretty obvious!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
goodall
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 05:33 PM |
|
|
depends on what sources you believe, because as far as i know its caused by the shaft winding up
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 05:44 PM |
|
|
Eh? - explain, please
Cheers
Fred W B
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
In practice torque steer is a bit of a catch-all term for a whole host of reasons claimed to make your fwd car veer all over the road under power.
These include scrub radius, driveshaft angle, cv misalignment, what the tyre contact patch is doing, how the diff behaves, suspension movement, etc
etc. Most modern fwd cars have all but eliminated torque steer with, among other things, the intermediate lay shaft and equal length driveshafts. So
you can be assured that unequal total length (i.e. the diff non-central) shafts isn't a big factor - or all modern fwds would be torque steering
all over the place.
Or to put it simply the ford 4x4 front axle doesn't torque steer . Have you driven an XR4x4 or cossie 4x4?
About the mini: With the ford transmission technically the engine can be wherever you want in relation to the front axle if you dont mind modding a
sump and the front prop. But the standard position puts the engine right over the front wheels which I would have thought would be ideal for a
mini.
Have you had a look at this one?...
4x4 Mini
You obviously want this thing to drive well when it's done or you wouldn't be so concerned about torque steer. In my opinion with
something as small and light as a mini you'd suffer from crippling understeer with the weight of the engine hanging out the front and a 50:50
4wd system. I think the ford system is much more suitable for this application.
Liam
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 19/2/07 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by goodall
depends on what sources you believe, because as far as i know its caused by the shaft winding up
AFAIK that is a myth, it's more down to the reaction force that a CV joint operated at an angle produces. Equal length drive shafts mean equal
angles.
If it was purely down to length differences, car manufacturers wouldn't bother with the two part drive shafts and extra bearing.
|
|
|
