Doods where do you get your infos?

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Reamer — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:08:13 -0500

If or when I build a rwd car i would run a used Nascar trans and a quick change rear end. Any gear set you want from 218 to 915 final drive for $49.00 and an aluminum tube magnesium housing rear end for around $400 used or spend the big bucks and buy new for under $1500. Put a used black gold diff for another $300.00 and you would have a damn near bullet proof with any ratio for any conditions to at least 850hp. They may take more then 850hp but thats all I can say for sure because thats the most power Ive put down with one on tarmac.

As for OL verses PGT who cares theres no PGT cars to race with and the rules suck! OL to me would be the better choice of the 2. If it were fwd or rwd I would go rear because of how cheap and easy the build would,could be. Thats my 2 cents any who.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Clayto — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:33:47 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
Clayto
Damn you!
Makes me wanna build a reeer wheel screamer:)

Got an extra Xratty sitting right over <------ that ways about 25 feet.

Yes, I have gleaned the car from a pic somewhere deep in the website.

I'm a noob to competitive Rally but not a noob to rear wheel fun!

My first rear wheel car was a 84 supra with a great torque band.

Sadly I will have to wait on the Xratty:(

But I will keep that baby in mind:)

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:26:09 -0500

Quote
Clayto
Damn you!
Makes me wanna build a reeer wheel screamer:)

Got an extra Xratty sitting right over <------ that ways about 25 feet.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Clayto — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 22:08:28 -0500

Damn you!
Makes me wanna build a reeer wheel screamer:)

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:39:05 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote

Probably irrelevant, but now I'm kind of curious.

Not at all irrelevant, its a good question cause it brings the discussion down to basics, or fundamentals, and that's always good---cause its silly talking about "theoreticals" or effectively un-obtainable stuff like $6000 gear sets.

Quote

Is there any advantage to using longer gears in the box with a shorter final drive vs. using shorter gears in the box with a relatively longer final drive to hit the same overall gearing?

For less stress on the box itself, yeas its better to have "taller' gears---or pointedly less speed reduction and therefore less toque multipication in power that comes into the box. let's see if these piccies help;

or

And here's a link to T5 since we can look at the effect of differeing torque capacities on otherwise basically same boxes:
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/T5ID.htm

Notice the horrible 4.03 first gearset with a measly 235 ft/lbs rating, the disgusting 3.97 at 240 ft/lbs, the crappy 3.50 at 250 ft/lbs, the sucky virtually identical to Xratty 3.35 at 260 early and a bit more later and note well the NWC 2.95 gearset at 305 ft/lbs, later 2.95 gearsets at 325 ft/lbs.
It all goes down to how much toque is multiplied from input shaft down to cluster gear....like you see in the power flow piccie.

Whatever torque the engine makes gets multipled by whatever the ratio is from input shaft down to cluster gear and the box "sees' that increased torque. Reduce it a whole bunch so first is 4.08, the box is stressed X% more than if you reduce only a bit to make first 2.95-everything else --specifically the centerline distance between the 2 shafts.
That distance is always the first thing you look at
Example the most commonly used rally box in the world for decades is Ford Type9, a 5 speed version of the 4 speed used way back in the Escort MkIIs
It's 69mm between shaft centers. The gear company Tran-X makes a version that is 72mm between centers--evidently worth it. Ford wanted something a bit stronger in-house than the Borg Warner T5 so they made MT75, MT75 4x4 and much later the fwd MTX75.
Quaiffe makes a direct replacement box for the Type 9 that is 80mm c-c and Fords own Group A 4x4 box was called MS90, 90mm between centers.For comparison the box in my diesel van is a Muncie M89, curiously 89mm between centers for the 2 shafts--so a purpsoe built GpA box is sized like what is suitable for a full sized van with a diesel with who da fawk know what I can tow with it..

But after than the ratio from clutch inputshaft down to cluster is the next prime determinant of what torque the box will tolerate.

Quote

I'd think there would be reduced shaft/gearset speeds but have no idea if that has value or relevance. Since you are moving rotating mass, is there a gain in not having to accelerate the mass to the same speed? in a trans-axle car the half-shafts are past the final drive so moving that mass is irrelevant, but in a conventional RWD using a driveshaft between the gears and the final drive is there an advantage to be had in keeping that spinning slower?

Not following the question too well but the kardan or propshaft speed is changing every gear, (in a typical car in first it will be running 1/3.63th crank speed, 1/1.8th crank speed in second etc) the critical speed is what speed is it when in 4th (cause then its running at crankshft speed in a rwd box) or overdrive cause it is spining pretty damn fast

Quote

This is all theoretical, of course, since the availability of gearsets and final drives is probably the real deciding factor.

Well for some boxes such as Type 9 the choices are mind numbing, but for some cars its no problem at all cause nothing is made or made in such short runs it is prohibitively expensive...

Now on the rear end torque is multiplied one more time with another redcuction gear set and again no or limited choice means we can't get things like ratios with tooth counts or materials for competition like some sizes of US axles, notably Ford 9". There you get not only different alloy than the ubiquitous 8620, but different heat treatments for toughness, not 200,000 miles service.
Real competiton stuff may have same ratios as some streety thing but do the ratios with less teeth so the section or base of the tooth is fatter. There's an interesting note in Fords Sierra book in the list of Homologated rear final drives for the stock 7.5" diff which were in 87:
3.64 (51:14) stock<----toothies count, most of the world talks tooth count
4.44 (40:9)
4.63 (51:11)
]4.66 (42:9)
4.88 (44:9)
5.1 (46:9)[/b]

The say "Note there are two closely similar "4.6" ratios for the 7 1/2" rear axle which are in fact, completely different designs...The 4.63 ratio (with 51 crown wheel teeth and 11 pinion teeth) is not reccomended for use in the fully tuned Group A SIERRA COSWORTH RS/RS500 Cosworth"
The highlighted gears were the common gears used , the shortest earlier with 40mm restrictor "up" to the 4,44 in the 34mm restrictor cars. Engines didn't rev so the made them into toque monsters, and didn't NEED
shorter gears.

Notice in the normally used gears they go down in tooth count. They were making the things FAT for strength. i think I have a piccie, its shocking.
(clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop, oh yeah here it is, clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop )

Serious, fundamentally different design, for different usage.

Just thought I'd bump this for all the guys building their nice RWD cars now...

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:49:15 -0500

Quote
heymagic
Common sense needs to prevail, always in short supply with racers tho.

Absolutely!

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

heymagic — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:52:27 -0500

Optimizing is always good as long as the benefit is realisticaly weighed against cost and gain. Obviously if 2 different diffs are available and one is trash ....but we don't want people to focus on micro-tech stuff if it costs a bazillion dollars and gives back $20 worth of return. Common sense needs to prevail, always in short supply with racers tho.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:21:18 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham
I think this is a case of...

Not really John.
It is about looking to optimize a tiny teeny bit of performance, or at least understanding how the choices come together. But if you can optimize each component a little it turns into a larger gain when you bring them together.

Specificlly, this is about what's between the transmission input and axles. Engine or wheel/tire gains are great and almost certainly more effective (hell, wheel scrapers are a huge advantage on wettish events.) But that's outside the scope of what I'm batting around here. (Admittedly - even when I first brought it up - a purely 'bench racing' discussion)

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:47:45 -0500

Quote
heymagic

Quote
Rallymech
It is much harder to accelerate the mass of a gear set than that of a prop shaft. This is caused by three factors: more mass in the gear set, more bearings (resistance) in the gear set and more mass at a longer distance from the center line of rotation in a gear set.

Again this is all a bit academic because I would always choose the option with stronger gear teeth.

And I'm pretty sure way more energy is lost to the clutch/flywheel and tires/wheels than you would ever notice on a driveline or mainshaft.

Yeah, always been baffled that so many buy the widest HEAVIEST tires like 17/65 Michelines and those Pirellis that weight 50 lbs each for their 165 bhp Sub-a-rats. They hain't Loeb or Gronholm, they don't drive anywhere like Loeb or Gronholm, they don't need tires like KLoeb or gronholm...

And if they bought sensible tires all us lowly 2wd turbo guys could buy their tale-offs and then spank 'em with their own used tires.

Note the typical propshaft is 2.5" with 0.088 wall tube....not very difficult to rev up..

I'm more concerned about reciprocating weight in all the old school motors most are using: rods and especially pistons. They completely stop and then start again twice every single revolution of the crank....rottating things have some small relative speed change (its already spiing 6000, and it drops to whatever but not much on a gearchange and you just have to change its speed maybe 30%, not slow it down (energy used) then speed it up, then slow it to a stop, the speed it up 100 times a second @6000 rpm.
All I can say is OI!)

I think this is a case of:
<

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:14:51 -0500

I'm sure you're right Gene - I even suggested we were probably talking fractions of percent in performance and this is more of an exercise in theory than it is anything else. But, given a situation where the tooth sizes and gear strength are similar - understanding this can help in deciding on the driveline bits.

Good point about parasitic loss to the oil...

So this ALL points to a taller box and shorter final drive, assuming everything is available in a strong enough package.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

heymagic — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:47:23 -0500

Quote
Rallymech
It is much harder to accelerate the mass of a gear set than that of a prop shaft. This is caused by three factors: more mass in the gear set, more bearings (resistance) in the gear set and more mass at a longer distance from the center line of rotation in a gear set.

Again this is all a bit academic because I would always choose the option with stronger gear teeth.

And I'm pretty sure way more energy is lost to the clutch/flywheel and tires/wheels than you would ever notice on a driveline or mainshaft.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Rallymech — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:15:57 -0500

It is much harder to accelerate the mass of a gear set than that of a prop shaft. This is caused by three factors: more mass in the gear set, more bearings (resistance) in the gear set and more mass at a longer distance from the center line of rotation in a gear set.

Again this is all a bit academic because I would always choose the option with stronger gear teeth.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

phlat65 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:29:57 -0500

I would think Keith that the gear set would have more drag due to the oil in the trans, so I would suspect the shorter final drive would win out.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

SteelSolutions — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:38:23 -0500

type 9 gear kit super close not made for no reason my guess perfect 1.3 13000 rpm flame thrower.
2.16 1.46 1.16 1.0 0.87

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:20:50 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham
Not at all irrelevant, its a good question cause it brings the discussion down to basics, or fundamentals, and that's always good---cause its silly talking about "theoreticals" or effectively un-obtainable stuff like $6000 gear sets.

Talking theoreticals builds an understanding of what the 'target' is and where you want to try and get to and why. With that understanding you then get to sort out what is truly unobtanium and what is the 'reasonable' route.

Quote

For less stress on the box itself, yeas its better to have "taller' gears---or pointedly less speed reduction and therefore less toque multipication in power that comes into the box. let's see if these piccies help;

Piccies not needed, the first part of the quote above would have done just fine.

Quote

Not following the question too well...

Yah - sorry about that, didn't express myself too well there.
I'll try again, but to give you fair warning I am probably over thinking this by shit-ton.

Lets look at this from the road back to the engine and assume that the combined gear/final ratios are the same. (so that at the fixed road speed in the same gear the engine speed is the same, but are reached through different combinations of gear set and final drive.)

In a conventional RWD platform, the rotational speed of the prop shaft at a given road speed is determined by the final drive ratio. With a taller final drive, the prop shaft rotates slower so the gear set has to rotate faster.

SO... to accelerate to a given speed, energy goes into accelerating every piece of the driveline. With a short box and tall final, the gearset would need to be accelerated more than the prop shaft. Conversely, with a tall box and a short final, the prop shaft ends up accelerating more than the gear set.

NOW... to make the best use of the power you want to make the job as easy as possible so which ever accelerates easier is what you want to accelerate more. To exaggerate the point - if it were 10x harder to accelerate the prop shaft than the gearset you'd probably want to run a really tall final drive and a really short gearset.

The answer would look at the rotational mass and moment arm of the components. Is it is safe to assume a propshaft is heavier than a gear set? Is the mass of a gear set further out from the centre of rotation, making it harder to 'spin up?'

At the end of the day I suspect it is a wash or the difference is measured in fractions of percent of performance.

Then again, makes me wonder how much acceleration can be gained by a lightweight prop shaft in a short final drive set-up? Would you see more improvement in a short final drive compared to a tall final drive with lightening only the prop shaft?

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:12 -0500

Quote

Probably irrelevant, but now I'm kind of curious.

Not at all irrelevant, its a good question cause it brings the discussion down to basics, or fundamentals, and that's always good---cause its silly talking about "theoreticals" or effectively un-obtainable stuff like $6000 gear sets.

Quote

Is there any advantage to using longer gears in the box with a shorter final drive vs. using shorter gears in the box with a relatively longer final drive to hit the same overall gearing?

For less stress on the box itself, yeas its better to have "taller' gears---or pointedly less speed reduction and therefore less toque multipication in power that comes into the box. let's see if these piccies help;

or

And here's a link to T5 since we can look at the effect of differeing torque capacities on otherwise basically same boxes:
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/T5ID.htm

Notice the horrible 4.03 first gearset with a measly 235 ft/lbs rating, the disgusting 3.97 at 240 ft/lbs, the crappy 3.50 at 250 ft/lbs, the sucky virtually identical to Xratty 3.35 at 260 early and a bit more later and note well the NWC 2.95 gearset at 305 ft/lbs, later 2.95 gearsets at 325 ft/lbs.
It all goes down to how much toque is multiplied from input shaft down to cluster gear....like you see in the power flow piccie.

Whatever torque the engine makes gets multipled by whatever the ratio is from input shaft down to cluster gear and the box "sees' that increased torque. Reduce it a whole bunch so first is 4.08, the box is stressed X% more than if you reduce only a bit to make first 2.95-everything else --specifically the centerline distance between the 2 shafts.
That distance is always the first thing you look at
Example the most commonly used rally box in the world for decades is Ford Type9, a 5 speed version of the 4 speed used way back in the Escort MkIIs
It's 69mm between shaft centers. The gear company Tran-X makes a version that is 72mm between centers--evidently worth it. Ford wanted something a bit stronger in-house than the Borg Warner T5 so they made MT75, MT75 4x4 and much later the fwd MTX75.
Quaiffe makes a direct replacement box for the Type 9 that is 80mm c-c and Fords own Group A 4x4 box was called MS90, 90mm between centers.For comparison the box in my diesel van is a Muncie M89, curiously 89mm between centers for the 2 shafts--so a purpsoe built GpA box is sized like what is suitable for a full sized van with a diesel with who da fawk know what I can tow with it..

But after than the ratio from clutch inputshaft down to cluster is the next prime determinant of what torque the box will tolerate.

Quote

I'd think there would be reduced shaft/gearset speeds but have no idea if that has value or relevance. Since you are moving rotating mass, is there a gain in not having to accelerate the mass to the same speed? in a trans-axle car the half-shafts are past the final drive so moving that mass is irrelevant, but in a conventional RWD using a driveshaft between the gears and the final drive is there an advantage to be had in keeping that spinning slower?

Not following the question too well but the kardan or propshaft speed is changing every gear, (in a typical car in first it will be running 1/3.63th crank speed, 1/1.8th crank speed in second etc) the critical speed is what speed is it when in 4th (cause then its running at crankshft speed in a rwd box) or overdrive cause it is spining pretty damn fast

Quote

This is all theoretical, of course, since the availability of gearsets and final drives is probably the real deciding factor.

Well for some boxes such as Type 9 the choices are mind numbing, but for some cars its no problem at all cause nothing is made or made in such short runs it is prohibitively expensive...

Now on the rear end torque is multiplied one more time with another redcuction gear set and again no or limited choice means we can't get things like ratios with tooth counts or materials for competition like some sizes of US axles, notably Ford 9". There you get not only different alloy than the ubiquitous 8620, but different heat treatments for toughness, not 200,000 miles service.
Real competiton stuff may have same ratios as some streety thing but do the ratios with less teeth so the section or base of the tooth is fatter. There's an interesting note in Fords Sierra book in the list of Homologated rear final drives for the stock 7.5" diff which were in 87:
3.64 (51:14) stock<----toothies count, most of the world talks tooth count
4.44 (40:9)
4.63 (51:11)
]4.66 (42:9)
4.88 (44:9)
5.1 (46:9)[/b]

The say "Note there are two closely similar "4.6" ratios for the 7 1/2" rear axle which are in fact, completely different designs...The 4.63 ratio (with 51 crown wheel teeth and 11 pinion teeth) is not reccomended for use in the fully tuned Group A SIERRA COSWORTH RS/RS500 Cosworth"
The highlighted gears were the common gears used , the shortest earlier with 40mm restrictor "up" to the 4,44 in the 34mm restrictor cars. Engines didn't rev so the made them into toque monsters, and didn't NEED
shorter gears.

Notice in the normally used gears they go down in tooth count. They were making the things FAT for strength. i think I have a piccie, its shocking.
(clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop, oh yeah here it is, clop clop clop clop clop clop clop clop )

Serious, fundamentally different design, for different usage.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

heymagic — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:43:49 -0500

After a point the lower gears can cause the pinion gear to be weaker due to physical size. It seems like they used to claim rotary mazda got wussy after 4.88s. The 5.14ish didn't hold up as well. Beyond that I don't know what is practical vs theoretical for certain. Seems cheaper to buy one gearset for the diff rather than a bunch for a tranny.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:29:44 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham
Morison there are advantage this way and that but I have to go pick up Ninotchka....

What ... no immediate long-form answer to a conceptual wondering on my part?
UNACCEPTABLE !!!!

Quote
john vanlandingham
and it does have relevance for us miserable poor clubbie guys.

I wish I could be a 'poor clubbie guy' - one reason I co-drive is that I can't afford to own a car and drive right now. (The other reason is I actually prefer co-driving and the other other reason is that I've given in to the mistress that is organising and helping events actually happen.)

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:18:03 -0500

Quote
Morison
Probably irrelevant, but now I'm kind of curious.

Is there any advantage to using longer gears in the box with a shorter final drive vs. using shorter gears in the box with a relatively longer final drive to hit the same overall gearing?

I'd think there would be reduced shaft/gearset speeds but have no idea if that has value or relevance. Since you are moving rotating mass, is there a gain in not having to accelerate the mass to the same speed? in a trans-axle car the half-shafts are past the final drive so moving that mass is irrelevant, but in a conventional RWD using a driveshaft between the gears and the final drive is there an advantage to be had in keeping that spinning slower?

This is all theoretical, of course, since the availability of gearsets and final drives is probably the real deciding factor.

Morison there are advantage this way and that but I have to go pick up Ninotchka....and it does have relevance for us miserable poor clubbie guys.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:12:09 -0500

Probably irrelevant, but now I'm kind of curious.

Is there any advantage to using longer gears in the box with a shorter final drive vs. using shorter gears in the box with a relatively longer final drive to hit the same overall gearing?

I'd think there would be reduced shaft/gearset speeds but have no idea if that has value or relevance. Since you are moving rotating mass, is there a gain in not having to accelerate the mass to the same speed? in a trans-axle car the half-shafts are past the final drive so moving that mass is irrelevant, but in a conventional RWD using a driveshaft between the gears and the final drive is there an advantage to be had in keeping that spinning slower?

This is all theoretical, of course, since the availability of gearsets and final drives is probably the real deciding factor.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:33:16 -0500

Quote
Aaron Luptak

Quote
BillyElliot

Quote
john vanlandingham

Hey billy, a 9000 rpm motor is going to want a proper real close ratio gearset or it will be a miserable dog..

Find us a link to a gearset with like ratios suitable for a 9k motor like:
2.25,
1.53,
1.16,
1.0
,0.84

Those gears are trash for a 9k motor. You need a 7:1 final drive to go 113mph in 5th. Must be some dem derping turbin gurs of yurs.

To run at 9k you need something like:
1st 3.07
2nd 2.105
3rd 1.652
4th 1.385
5th 1.21
Final 4.9

strangely enough, if you throw a 6.67 FD on the gearset JVL describes, it's almost identical to gearing you list.

No first in the combo I posted, which, despite keyboard boys' contemptuous dismissal is in fact the typical gear set and final drive on 2,0 BDG powered Escorts, it has a 11.5 overall 1st gear ratio , the combo you suggest is 15:1--about 2 car lengths even if the car revs.

For those curious, there was a change in about 88-89 the way many traverse engined boxes did the ratios. PRIOR to then everybody made gear kits and final drive just like the typical RWD set up I posted the yummy ratios for. For example VW sold what guys called "the 8v set' cause it came out when the cars were 8v and final drive was 5.08:1
Right around then both VW and Opel for the wonderful Kadet GSI 16v changed the mix and made 4.2 or 4.25 the final drive and whatever on the gears that came out exactly the same, the difference being the TOOTH COUNTS--a physical change for BIGGER TEETH on the final drive PINION--and top (5th for VW or 6th for Opel) was underdriven like 16% for just about 5.0:1

Can't look at one without the other, gotta look at box and final drive and overall ratios.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:21:00 -0500

Quote
BillyElliot

Quote
Aaron Luptak

strangely enough, if you throw a 6.67 FD on the gearset JVL describes, it's almost identical to gearing you list.

Yeah, but can't fit a 6.67 is still pretty high. Highest I've seen for a Honda K series box is 6.33 and they have 6 gears. So while 5th gear would still be worthless, 6 wouldn't be used.

In fact, the close ratio kit they make for the K series box uses gears very similar:
2.313
1.650
1.304
1.080
.958
.851

If it wasn't so damn expensive to do a K swap and the engine didn't sit 2 inches lower than a B series, I would have probably done it. But that 6 speed kit above is $3345 with a 6.33 final drive. Or you can go big and spend $6550 for a drop in dog kit which includes a final drive. Or do a 5 speed dogbox for $5650. Although, they do make a B series dog kit for $6500.

Billy, you are just blabbering. Learn to speak correctly 6.67 is not high. It is in conventional English for all time until the rise in popularity of Inter-net discussion forums been called "low' gearing and colloquially "short".
a 3.08 final drive is in conventional English for all time until the rise in popularity of Inter-net discussion forums been called "high" or sometimes "long".

Since you clearly understand neither the concepts or the terms try and think this way and its easier: "1st gear" is in a typical shit box 3.65 and we call it "low" gear ---or a pick up with a 5:1 gear we call it Granny Low

"TOP" gear aka "high" is like 1:1 or even overdrive or double overdrive so its "higher' than 1:1

Likewise it goes with axle ratios 3.08 is HIGH, and 5.83 is "low", short, whatever.

The rest of your stuff is flat silly, no sane person is going to pay $5000+ for a set of ratios virtually identical to the ratios a smart person could buy for $380. I say a smart person because a smart person would have consider this before they bought some dead end, no real parts available at realistic prices car, and thus would have bought a nice rwd car.

Try and learn.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

aj_johnson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:39:45 -0500

Speaking of Sooper bitchins, John did that other audi guy ever get back to you? I have a box, and some housings that look like they have a longing to travel.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

NoCoast — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:35:41 -0500

Quote
HiTempguy
I guess it's sort of like Washington rally suspension eh? It's s00per bitchin', until the ears bend, shit breaks, and the cost of shipping back and forth has you at the purchase price of 50mm DMS'.

Well, considering Adam's was damaged on the same event that did this to a set of DMS struts and that the driver and codriver had appointments set with a chiropractor BEFORE they even left for the event means something.

Just don't bend your DMS insert. That'll cost you $800 per. We had to replace two inserts in Mark's Impreza one year right before Rally Colorado. We have a big blue tote at the shop full of bent DMS insert and destroyed housings. One complete set that were off of one of Tanner's cars. Fact is in rally you will destroy suspension if you are trying to win. I'd rather have John's stuff and $165 inserts rather than DMS or similar and their $800 inserts. Pretty sure there's some bent Proflex stuff around the shop somewhere too. Or at least there was at the last shop...

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

BillyElliot — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:40:36 -0500

Quote
Aaron Luptak

strangely enough, if you throw a 6.67 FD on the gearset JVL describes, it's almost identical to gearing you list.

Yeah, but can't fit a 6.67 is still pretty high. Highest I've seen for a Honda K series box is 6.33 and they have 6 gears. So while 5th gear would still be worthless, 6 wouldn't be used.

In fact, the close ratio kit they make for the K series box uses gears very similar:
2.313
1.650
1.304
1.080
.958
.851

If it wasn't so damn expensive to do a K swap and the engine didn't sit 2 inches lower than a B series, I would have probably done it. But that 6 speed kit above is $3345 with a 6.33 final drive. Or you can go big and spend $6550 for a drop in dog kit which includes a final drive. Or do a 5 speed dogbox for $5650. Although, they do make a B series dog kit for $6500.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Aaron Luptak — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:33:20 -0500

Quote
BillyElliot

Quote
john vanlandingham

Hey billy, a 9000 rpm motor is going to want a proper real close ratio gearset or it will be a miserable dog..

Find us a link to a gearset with like ratios suitable for a 9k motor like:
2.25,
1.53,
1.16,
1.0
,0.84

Those gears are trash for a 9k motor. You need a 7:1 final drive to go 113mph in 5th. Must be some dem derping turbin gurs of yurs.

To run at 9k you need something like:
1st 3.07
2nd 2.105
3rd 1.652
4th 1.385
5th 1.21
Final 4.9

strangely enough, if you throw a 6.67 FD on the gearset JVL describes, it's almost identical to gearing you list.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

john vanlandingham — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:21:25 -0500

Quote
BillyElliot

Quote
john vanlandingham

Hey billy, a 9000 rpm motor is going to want a proper real close ratio gearset or it will be a miserable dog..

Find us a link to a gearset with like ratios suitable for a 9k motor like:
2.25,
1.53,
1.16,
1.0
,0.84

Those gears are trash for a 9k motor. You need a 7:1 final drive to go 113mph in 5th. Must be some dem derping turbin gurs of yurs.

To run at 9k you need something like:
1st 3.07
2nd 2.105
3rd 1.652
4th 1.385
5th 1.21
Final 4.9

Can order that whole gearset off the shelf for $1700 for my Honda. I sort of did that, but I'm just running OEM 1st/2nd, bit longer 3,4,5 (1.695/1.384/1.21) with a stock 4.4 final and it cost me $700 to spin to 8300.

Google can't find me a close ratio EVO gearset, doens't mean it's not out there. But I'm sure it costs big bucks. I was just saying that an EVO motor would be better to build N/A than a Subaru motor. But at that point where you are spending so much money, might as well move to SP or Open class.

And, then there's problem of a final drive ratio easily available, and affordable to turn that 9000 rpm into acceleration. Do you know where one can get a Subie or Misterbitchy 4.88 or 5.1? For both axles?

That's the problem of n.a. 4wd cars.

That's why turbos are so popular: they can fake it since the motor makes the torque.[/quote]

5.09:1 final drive for EVO right here but doesn't work too well with a stock drivetrain spinning to 9k. Will work spinning to 7k:
http://www.horsepowerfreaks.com/partdetails/Tomioka/Drivetrain/Ring__and_Pinion_Gears/EVO_Final_Drive/17719[/quote]

Where do you get your imagination from?
I don't even know what to say when people write things so silly.
Get off the inter-net Billy and get out in the real world.
What absurd blather you make.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

BillyElliot — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:11:13 -0500

Quote
john vanlandingham

Hey billy, a 9000 rpm motor is going to want a proper real close ratio gearset or it will be a miserable dog..

Find us a link to a gearset with like ratios suitable for a 9k motor like:
2.25,
1.53,
1.16,
1.0
,0.84

Those gears are trash for a 9k motor. You need a 7:1 final drive to go 113mph in 5th. Must be some dem derping turbin gurs of yurs.

To run at 9k you need something like:
1st 3.07
2nd 2.105
3rd 1.652
4th 1.385
5th 1.21
Final 4.9

Can order that whole gearset off the shelf for $1700 for my Honda. I sort of did that, but I'm just running OEM 1st/2nd, bit longer 3,4,5 (1.695/1.384/1.21) with a stock 4.4 final and it cost me $700 to spin to 8300.

Google can't find me a close ratio EVO gearset, doens't mean it's not out there. But I'm sure it costs big bucks. I was just saying that an EVO motor would be better to build N/A than a Subaru motor. But at that point where you are spending so much money, might as well move to SP or Open class.

[/quote]
And, then there's problem of a final drive ratio easily available, and affordable to turn that 9000 rpm into acceleration. Do you know where one can get a Subie or Misterbitchy 4.88 or 5.1? For both axles?

That's the problem of n.a. 4wd cars.

That's why turbos are so popular: they can fake it since the motor makes the torque.[/quote]

5.09:1 final drive for EVO right here but doesn't work too well with a stock drivetrain spinning to 9k. Will work spinning to 7k:
http://www.horsepowerfreaks.com/partdetails/Tomioka/Drivetrain/Ring__and_Pinion_Gears/EVO_Final_Drive/17719

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

Morison — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:14:08 -0500

I'm pretty sure Gene was talking car vs. car without the driver as a factor. I'm not sure I'd disagree with him. Even on the world scene 2wd cars have been able to run with the WRC pack on tarmac.

Re: Doods where do you get your infos?

HiTempguy — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:33:04 -0500

Quote
heymagic

On dry ground the OL drivers can't beat a good G2 driver...heck most PGT driver's can't beat a good G2 driver for that matter.

Prettttty sure this is what you meant Gene :p It isn't the car that is causing the results you see...