rontyler
|
| posted on 29/11/07 at 03:14 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
However the transverse engines have an important asset in that the engine and transaxle can be rotated to lower the engine or the bell housing can be
modified to achieve the same outcome.
Great point. As long as the lubrication is attended to... its an interesting thought... hmmmmmm....
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 29/11/07 at 04:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kreb
Here's a rather cool Subbie-powered middie:
http://www.blastautomotive.com/
Kind of a half-baked site. When will people learn about business, "Best foot forward!"
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
kreb
|
| posted on 29/11/07 at 06:29 AM |
|
|
I think that he decided not to market it. He's a retired guy with money and probably didn't want the liability. I like the design though.
Not particularly graceful, but well detailed, proportioned and fun looking. Almost buggyish..
https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1966_FiatAbarth_1000SP1.jpg
|
|
|
rpmagazine
|
| posted on 29/11/07 at 08:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rontyler
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
However the transverse engines have an important asset in that the engine and transaxle can be rotated to lower the engine or the bell housing can be
modified to achieve the same outcome.
Great point. As long as the lubrication is attended to... its an interesting thought... hmmmmmm....
Not really original though as Lancia did oh so many years ago.
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 29/11/07 at 02:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
Not really original though as Lancia did oh so many years ago.
Now that you mention it, I remember seeing old circle tracker's with Offy's layed over nearly flat. To my knowledge, the only way to go to
that extreme is dry sump... but cool nonetheless.
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 5/12/07 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
can anyone just confirm if there were any/ which subaru were 6 cyl / 2wd?
|
|
|
hughjinjin
|
| posted on 5/12/07 at 01:39 PM |
|
|
hi, the alfasud i'm modifying has the same issues as the subaru drivetrain ie heavy engine for the capacity relative to an equivalent inline 4,
high crank position relative to the bottom of the block and a transaxle with the output shafts below the mainshaft/ crankshaft line.
My latest plan is to fit a hewland mk 9 transaxle (basically an inverted beetle gearbox with a straight cut dog engagement gearset). This will allow
me to mount the engine about 75mm lower than the alfa box.
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 5/12/07 at 11:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hughjinjin
hi, the alfasud i'm modifying has the same issues as the subaru drivetrain ie heavy engine for the capacity relative to an equivalent inline 4
Do we really know this or is it based on supposition? The EJ22 is under 250lbs and makes 135 hp in ‘grocery getter’ tune. A little headwork, cams,
intake and exhaust I’m betting would put it over 175 (only 80hp per liter). Are there any commonly availabe inliners, with roughly 175 HP (with common
mods), that weigh under 250lbs complete? I don’t mean to sound cynical, its just that no emperical data has been presented. The puprose of this thread
is to generate that kind of info before I make the mistake of choosing the Suby, so my interests are genuine.
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
kreb
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 12:33 AM |
|
|
Ron - you posted very nearly what I was going to. The Subbie 4 cyclinder engines are in the mid 200lb range and the stock output of the 2.5 liter is
about 175 with abundant torque. So those engines are no slouches. The 6 cylinder engines are nice too - 230 to 270 HP but packa good deal more
poundage (275 or so?)
https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1966_FiatAbarth_1000SP1.jpg
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 09:59 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kreb
Ron - you posted very nearly what I was going to. The Subbie 4 cyclinder engines are in the mid 200lb range and the stock output of the 2.5 liter is
about 175 with abundant torque. So those engines are no slouches. The 6 cylinder engines are nice too - 230 to 270 HP but packa good deal more
poundage (275 or so?)
Thats really quite light isn't it? The Audi V6 I was originally contemplating comes in at around 350lbs for not dis-similar output.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 02:33 PM |
|
|
Has anyone actually weighed these engines, or is it hearsay? Also, is that of the bare engine or complete? Without knowing what's included it
isn't very informative.
It's like the V8 argument that they hardly weigh any more than a four cylinder, yet it's of a shortblock! Until someone posts a picture of
a *complete* Subaru engine hanging from a digital scale, I'm skeptical. And we also must include transmission weight!
Engine weights seem to be about as reliable as people's golf score...
[Edited on 12/6/07 by kb58]
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
kreb
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 02:58 PM |
|
|
Kurt - your point is, of course valid. there are a variety of published weights for practically any engine. I'm still looking for that 400 pound
small block Ford! (Bare long block with aftermarket aluminum heads - maybie.) That said, I have seen mid 200s listed for Subaru H4s enough times to
feel pretty good about it.
Most of your DOHC vee engines are fairly large and porky. All that valvetrain adds up!
https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1966_FiatAbarth_1000SP1.jpg
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
Has anyone actually weighed these engines, or is it hearsay? Also, is that of the bare engine or complete? Without knowing what's included it
isn't very informative.
It's like the V8 argument that they hardly weigh any more than a four cylinder, yet it's of a shortblock! Until someone posts a picture of
a *complete* Subaru engine hanging from a digital scale, I'm skeptical. And we also must include transmission weight!
Engine weights seem to be about as reliable as people's golf score...
[Edited on 12/6/07 by kb58]
Well Kurt, put your bib on so I can spoon feed you :-D
About 14 posts back, I gave you a link to the very thing you're asking. Here it is again for your viewing pleasure...
http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=125246
Scroll to the bottom.
You'll see an EJ22 that weighs 214lbs. It is wet weight, missing the damper, flywheel, alt., and exhaust manifolds.
Allow me to edify this... This was done with *my* scale. A scale thats commercial grade, used prolifically by the largest battery manufacturer in the
world. Those weights were taken by a close friend of mine, of 15 years. A gentleman that I know better than my own brothers. He's as honest as
the day is long. He's certificated A&P, a pilot, and known internationally for his engine building success. He takes technical tasks
seriously. If you'll read the first post in that thread, you'll see that his views mirror your own. If you read the second post,
you'll see that the weights were taken with a hanging, digital scale, per your request.
I will personally guarantee the repeatability of that number.
Now, the question begs, can anybody show me something similar with an inliner?
[Edited on 6/12/07 by rontyler]
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
Here's a data point: 1995 Honda H22A1, including complete engine with starter, alternator, flywheel, pullies, intake, header, tranny and axles.
475lbs. 190whp with only intake and exhaust.
If everyone posted with this detail we wouldn't have to guess engine and drivetrain weights.
So what's the entire Subaru drivetrain weight - all of it.
[Edited on 12/6/07 by kb58]
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 6/12/07 at 10:18 PM |
|
|
Kurt, I was really hoping you wouldn't take my post 'personally'. That wasn't the intent. It was more in 'jest'.
Peace?
If you read through this thread, top to bottom, I think you'll see that I've done my best to keep it factual and empirical, weeding out
the hearsay as much as practical.
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
Here's a data point: 1995 Honda H22A1, including complete engine with starter, alternator, flywheel, pullies, intake, header, tranny and axles.
475lbs. 190whp with only intake and exhaust.
Great, thank you!
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
So what's the entire Subaru drivetrain weight - all of it.
That's the scary part isn't it? As I mentioned earlier, the Suby tranny is not looking very svelt. Sorry, I don't have one in my
possession to weigh. But I suspect its rather dissapointing. On the other hand, It would have to weigh over 200lbs to have a deficit on the Honda you
quoted. And, well, it could actually be that heavy. If a guy was willing to spend some money, there are other transaxles that can be made to work,
both lighter and with a better input shaft to axle split. However, I very much would like to keep this 'locost'. In the end, the tranny
certainly is the most offensive part of this drivetrain.
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
THAWA
|
| posted on 7/12/07 at 12:58 AM |
|
|
There's no way the a FWD 5mt weighs more than 200 lbs. I've moved many AWD 5mts alone, and many EJ engines, and an EA engine alone. Just
the short block of the EJ feels heavier. Yes I know this isn't real data, and the two are different shapes with different CoG's, but I
struggle at times with a shortblock, depending on what's still attached, whereas a tranny isn't THAT bad. I think someone somewhere
posted the weights, cant find it though.
FWIW a 4eat feels to weigh about the same as a block with one head and intake manifold still on. and 4eat's are much heavier than 5mts.
[Edited on 12/7/2007 by THAWA]
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 7/12/07 at 01:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by THAWA
There's no way the a FWD 5mt weighs more than 200 lbs. I've moved many AWD 5mts alone, and many EJ engines, and an EA engine alone. Just
the short block of the EJ feels heavier. Yes I know this isn't real data, and the two are different shapes with different CoG's,
That's encouraging. If anybody can produce even rough tranny weights, Id be greatful.
I could use a little help with the designations... 5mts and 4eat? 5 speed manual and 4 speed auto I'm guessing?
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
THAWA
|
| posted on 7/12/07 at 06:58 AM |
|
|
You got it.
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 7/12/07 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
some actual sizes of various engines would also be very helpful to build a decent database for those looking for something outside the ordinary - I
have U2U'd Meany after his post early on in this thread but nothing back yet.
|
|
|
gator
|
| posted on 10/12/07 at 03:44 AM |
|
|
Hi there, I must keep the controversy raging. Using half of my incredibly expensive corner weight set, I would suggest that a 2WD scooby box (less
clutch fork etc) weighs in the order of 43kg. The 4WD box (with clutch fork) 57.5kg. Regards, Alan
 
Rescued attachment 100_1582.jpg
|
|
|
gator
|
| posted on 10/12/07 at 03:46 AM |
|
|
The other view. Regards, Alan
 
Rescued attachment 100_1586.jpg
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 10/12/07 at 11:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gator
Using half of my incredibly expensive corner weight set, I would suggest that a 2WD scooby box (less clutch fork etc) weighs in the order of 43kg.
The 4WD box (with clutch fork) 57.5kg. Regards, Alan
My HERO! I owe you a beer or three :-) Thanks!
Loosely speaking, that puts me 100lbs under Kurts example, although with a bit of a power deficit. I can live with that.
So the next issue is CG. It within a range that I'm willing to accept, but wouldn't mind dropping it if I could. I was kicking around the
idea of flipping the trans over. 'Course, it would spin the drive wheels backwards. There probably isn't a chance in hell I could expect
to flip the ring gear. Probably have better luck with a lottery ticket. Outside of that 'little hurdle', anybody know of the consequences
of running a transaxle upside-down?
The other thought that occurred to me is running the engine backward... but thats a can of worms I'd rather avoid.
Thanks again.
Regards, Ron Tyler
"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 10/12/07 at 11:51 PM |
|
|
I think the Porker boxes are often flipped over without too much drama - at least the Ultima boys seem to get away with it.
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 11/12/07 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rontyler
Outside of that 'little hurdle', anybody know of the consequences of running a transaxle upside-down?
I'd have thought the most obvious (other than having lots of reverse gears) would be lubrication - how is that handled in the scoobie box and
would flipping it result in oil not getting where it's supposed to?
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 15/12/07 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
ground clearance
Some thoughts on mounting the engines and CoG height.
First with a flat engine:
allow 4 inches under the car
allow 6 inches for the exhaust headers
asume the cylinder heads are 8 inches wide (so half this, 4, to the engine CL)
This gives 4+6+4=14 from ground to the crank CL
assume the input to output shaft distance for the gearbox is 3 inches and the Gbx is not inverted
the output shafts are therefore at 11 inches
for a normal tyre size for a non turbo 2.5 engine, say 225/45-15 at the rear and 195/50-15 at the front, the distance from the ground to the wheel
centres will be about 11.5 inches
So the axles will slope down by about half an inch from the hubs to the Gbx.
That all seems to work well. There are no extreme ground clearance or drive shaft angles to be concerned about.
The sump on the engine looks very deep so it may need cutting in the above example but a six inch deep sump isn't that extreme, unless someone
is about to put me right on this point!
scaling from a picture I found on Google it looks as if the top of the intake is about 14 inches above the crank which puts it at 28 inches
now for a straight four and inverted box
the lowest point on the whole assembly is now the bell housing so...
allow 4 inches to the bell housing
assume a further 7 inches to the crank
the crank CL is therefore at 11 inches above the ground.
for a wheel radius of 11.5 inches and an input output Gbx distance of 3 inches we have a drive shaft slope of 2.5 inches.
This seems a bit much given that permanent misalignment of over 7 degrees (a 1:8 slope) is considered a no no for CV joints. Note that I used the word
permanent there, I know that temporary much larger angles are no problem.
Assume that the top of the engine is 17 inches above the crank and this is at 28 inches.
This is exactly the same overall height as a flat four BUT the straight four has big cast bits such as the block and the head above the crank so the
CoG is higher.
Conclusion...
Use a flat engine with the Gbx the normal way up, the CoG is lower, the drive shaft angles are better, the overall height is the same and you
don't need to mess about with extra bits or mods to invert the box.
What about the Ultima set up?
lets assume 4 inches under the gearbox and a further 7.5 (assuming a slightly bigger housing than above) to the crank.
The crank is at 11.5.
The gearbox is inverted so the output shafts are at about 15 inches (again assuming a slightly bigger box than the above calcs)
The radius of the wheels is going to be about 13 inches (The ultima site gives two sizes, either side of this)
so the drive shafts slope 2 inches which puts them close to the maximum permanent slope of 7 degrees.
The height above the crank to the top of the block is about 15 inches so the overall height, excluding the intake, is going to be 26.5 inches.
Conclusion...
Inverting the box works when you have bigger tyres/wheels to keep ground clearance and drive shaft angles acceptable. The overall height isn't
far off a smaller straight four with an inverted box or flat engine with a box the normal way up.
[Edited on 15/12/07 by cymtriks]
|
|
|
