mr henderson
|
| posted on 1/6/08 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cymtriks
Audi (which I can find nothing regarding inverting)
Why would you want to invert it, though? It's already the right way round for a mid-engined car
John
|
|
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 2/6/08 at 06:07 AM |
|
|
quote:
Why would you want to invert it, though?
To improve the driveshaft angles with a low mounted (dry sump?) engine and a low ride height.
I've never seen or heard of it done on an Audi though.
In my car, with the RV8 sump flush with the bottom of the chassis and 80 to 90 mm ground clearance the drive shft angle is 10 degrees, which I am
happy to try
Cheers
Fred W B
[Edited on 2/6/08 by Fred W B]
You can do it quickly. You can do it cheap. You can do it right. – Pick any two.
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 5/6/08 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fred W B
quote:
Why would you want to invert it, though?
To improve the driveshaft angles with a low mounted (dry sump?) engine and a low ride height.
I've never seen or heard of it done on an Audi though.
In my car, with the RV8 sump flush with the bottom of the chassis and 80 to 90 mm ground clearance the drive shft angle is 10 degrees, which I am
happy to try
Cheers
Fred W B
[Edited on 2/6/08 by Fred W B]
& if you are making the chassis yourself, why not angle the engine and box downwards a few deg to sit the engine lower in relation to the
driveshafts (which is what is happening in my plan)
|
|
|
smart1275gt
|
| posted on 16/6/08 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
I've seen Mazda rotary engines bolted to VW transaxles and cope fine upto 150bhp.
Rotary Sandrail Conversion
In a Mini - what's wrong with a rear engined transverse set up? I guess weight distribution, but that's it.
[Edited on 18/6/08 by smart1275gt]
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 21/6/08 at 06:49 PM |
|
|
alfasud? this gices you inboard brakes also!
|
|
|
akumabito
|
| posted on 21/6/08 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
Can't find any pictures at the moment, but perhaps the Alfa 33 box would be suitable?
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 23/6/08 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
33 box is very similar to the alfasud box, but with outboard brakes. Highest powered 33 was the 1.7 16V, with 133bhp.
I don't know how they'll cope with 200bhp and middy levels of traction though...
|
|
|
akumabito
|
| posted on 25/6/08 at 10:08 AM |
|
|
Seen a twin-turbo 33 once. 500Hp, kept shattering transmissions like crazy. I guess they'd be fine up to 200 though.
This one claims 220Hp and 273NM with 0.8 bar boost. Think the 'box will be fine
unless perhaps you mate it to a big V6 or V8.
Still not sure about the size though.
Mehh, stick with the Audi. It's a proven concept.
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 25/6/08 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sebastiaan
33 box is very similar to the alfasud box, but with outboard brakes. Highest powered 33 was the 1.7 16V, with 133bhp.
I don't know how they'll cope with 200bhp and middy levels of traction though...
wouldn't really worry about the bhp... I'd be slightly more concerned with the torque figures... 
|
|
|
Ratman
|
| posted on 27/6/08 at 04:48 AM |
|
|
Remember that the transmission only has to be able to cope with the torque that can spin the rear wheels. In a light weight car this might not be all
that much, so 500HP may not put all that much more stress on a transmission than 200HP. I guess it would depend where the weakest link in the tranny
is.
|
|
|
thomas4age
|
| posted on 16/7/08 at 12:32 AM |
|
|
the renault NG3 boxes aren't weak!
they cope with over 200hp in some formula renault cars over here..... everything in the cars has broken at least once exept the box.
it's small Light strong and has room for almost all 4 and 6 cylinder clutches you can think of..... cheap as chips also. all renault 25 exept
the V6's and also all everything pre renault 19 uses them......
grtzx Thomas
If Lucas made guns, Wars wouldn't start either.
|
|
|
