alkun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know that the stock Renesis motors with special
> ecu they use in star mazda (fomula gay-rod) gets a
> very relaible 250+ HP.


I've seen that bandied about as well for the 6 port Renesis motors.

Check this out

http://www.diasio.com/

I'm looking at a 4 port one from an autotragic Rx8.. which I think is in the 150-180 HP range.. frankly, I think 120 HP is more than enough, considering the car weighed 649 kg, or ~1400 lbs from the factory.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ted all's youse gots to dos is stink back to Type
> 901 transaxle aka 911 and or 914 transaxle. In one
> a dem Portches its motor first, trans last, in da
> udder one its trans first and motor at the end.
> They differ primarily in where the shaft the shift
> linkage attches to emerges from the case..
>
> I's actually looked at dis junk cause I was being
> talked to about, and had gathered the bellhousing
> to block adaptuer from Kennedy, and modded
> flywheel to stick a 911 5 speed into a Saab 96.

Apparently, quite a number of the different transaxles can be modified in one way or the other to be situated one way or the other There is also wrong turning engines, but I try to ignore all this counter clockwise rotating engine jazz as it's too much for my little head.

But as john says, the main thing is having the shift linkage in a favourable location.. the early 914s apparently were just a 901 flipped and made to work going that direction, but the shift linkage came out of the back of the trans.. not ideal. Newer ones had the linkage coming out of the side.

I need to figure out if the 944 transaxle is basically a newer 901 with the right linkage and start figuring out bellhousings.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

The 944 uses an Audi 016 with a few minor detail changes. (hole through bellhousing for shift rod, stuff like that)

I... may... be working on adapting a rotary to an 016. Finding a place for the starter will be the worst part, as it usually is when adapting a rotary to anything. The VW transaxle has the benefit of having the starter on the trans side and not the engine side.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2009 04:44PM by Pete.

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 944 uses an Audi 016 with a few minor detail
> changes. (hole through bellhousing for shift rod,
> stuff like that)

My understanding is 20 mm (audi) and 25 mm (porsche) input shaft is another difference. The transaxle I'm looking at now is out of a 1980 944.. which is my understanding not the beefiest, but should be fine and is cheap enough that if it works for a bit and is there for mocking up then I'm happy.

> I... may... be working on adapting a rotary to an
> 016. Finding a place for the starter will be the
> worst part, as it usually is when adapting a
> rotary to anything. The VW transaxle has the
> benefit of having the starter on the trans side
> and not the engine side.

What a coincidence I've inquired to Kennedy Engineered to see what they have.

I assume you're working on this project for yourself, so, in your opinion that's a good direction to go? The word on the street is that these transaxles are good for V8s.. so should be good for stock 4 port renesis and a 1400 lb car one would think.

Depending on what the adapting costs, it's looking like I'd be crazy not to go for this option.. think of all the headaches, cursing.. wait "opportunities for learning" are here!

Cheers,

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2009 05:08PM by hudson.

what that says

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Some '93 to '95 Imprezas were FWD with a combined 1.8L engine with tranny weight around 300#. Always wondered if they would fit into a Sonett. Might fit into NSU.
JT

MrToad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some '93 to '95 Imprezas were FWD with a combined
> 1.8L engine with tranny weight around 300#. Always
> wondered if they would fit into a Sonett. Might
> fit into NSU.
> JT

That would make a Sonett haul!

I thought about boxers both porsche and suby... my general thoughts were:

If mounted rear engined, I haven't improved my f/r balance.. most likely made it worse (improved CG though).

If mounted mid engined, it would take up the full width of the floor, and I'm assuming the shifter linkage would have to go over the motor.. plus I'm assuming at the very least with the FWD impreza box, the shift pattern would be backwards/upside down. Plus there's intake and exhaust plumbing.. so that means it's not just wide but it will have to be high as well. (most likely goodbye back seat!)


Advantages of the rotary:

Small package in all directions (have the dude with the Renesis getting back to me on that).. I don't think seats in the back and it being mid engined as being out of the question.

Shift linkage can't be that hard to figure out (can go above or around)

Disadvantage, is that you need to mate it to some transaxle..

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Here's some dimensions for a 13B:

http://4wings.com.phtemp.com/crafts/a2con/b13svdim.jpg

http://4wings.com.phtemp.com/crafts/a2con/b13evdim.jpg

It seems like 26" x 26" x 26" is pretty safe.. plus whatever distance from the Center Line of axle to end of transaxle.. say 10" is safe?

Finally have something to go off of for what it will look in the car.. will be back with those pics.

Cheers,

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

hudson Wrote:
>
> My understanding is 20 mm (audi) and 25 mm
> (porsche) input shaft is another difference.

I'll look into that. I am trying to remember if there was a difference between turbo and non-turbo.

> The
> transaxle I'm looking at now is out of a 1980
> 944..

No, it is not. The 944 didn't enter production for several years.

1980 would have been a 924, and it used a one-year-only trans. In 1981 they started using Audi transmissions (1st gear is up and to the left, 1980 it is down and to the left, 1979 it is a four-speed)

>
> I assume you're working on this project for
> yourself, so, in your opinion that's a good
> direction to go? The word on the street is that
> these transaxles are good for V8s.. so should be
> good for stock 4 port renesis and a 1400 lb car
> one would think.

I can't see them being good for V8s. From what I have seen, mild small blocks kill them in 2wd form.

In AWD form, they seem to stand up okay to 500hp as long as you don't shock the trans while under load, or about 600hp absolute. This is HP as based on what a pressure fed 2.2l engine with a ludicrous redline would produce, for an idea of the torque involved.

A non turbo rotary will not hurt it, but shifting might be difficult if you're impatient. My one gripe with the trans. (That, and having it mated to an engine that can create 500-600hp almost by accident - they only bolt up to Audi 5s, V6s, and V8s, and the Porsche torque tube)

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2009 09:38PM by Pete.

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll look into that. I am trying to remember if
> there was a difference between turbo and
> non-turbo.

http://jamesrgregory.com/Porsche/G31%20Transaxles%20-%20Pete%20Tinucci.pdf

A few sources say tehre are differences between the turbo and non

> No, it is not. The 944 didn't enter production
> for several years.
>
> 1980 would have been a 924, and it used a
> one-year-only trans. In 1981 they started using
> Audi transmissions (1st gear is up and to the
> left, 1980 it is down and to the left, 1979 it is
> a four-speed)

You're right, I meant 1986

> I can't see them being good for V8s. From what I
> have seen, mild small blocks kill them in 2wd
> form.
>
> In AWD form, they seem to stand up okay to 500hp
> as long as you don't shock the trans while under
> load, or about 600hp absolute. This is HP as
> based on what a pressure fed 2.2l engine with a
> ludicrous redline would produce, for an idea of
> the torque involved.
>
> A non turbo rotary will not hurt it, but shifting
> might be difficult if you're impatient. My one
> gripe with the trans. (That, and having it mated
> to an engine that can create 500-600hp almost by
> accident - they only bolt up to Audi 5s, V6s, and
> V8s, and the Porsche torque tube)

Apparently all the GT40 and lambo kit guys use these Audi 016 transaxles all the time.. and the do blow them up, but not everyday.

I've heard that the shifting isn't the best, but better than others.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

hudson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrToad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some '93 to '95 Imprezas were FWD with a
> combined
> > 1.8L engine with tranny weight around 300#.
> Always
> > wondered if they would fit into a Sonett.
> Might
> > fit into NSU.
> > JT
>
> That would make a Sonett haul!


Give me a fucking break.
A Piece of SHIT Subaru 1.8 and a geared as high as the sky trans is going to make a Sonett "Haul'
The V4 is a BETTER engine, MUCH stronger crank, equal---to the point of theoretical interchange---rods, better stock cast pistons, and an IRON block that will tolerate abuse.

The OEM Saab gearbox has better ratios and the stock ring and pinion is, for a Sonett 4.67 or a stock 96 4.88 and you're suggesting a Sub-a-rat trans with typical overgeared 3.9 or so is going to make it "haul"....

Where's that face palm image?
>
> I thought about boxers both porsche and suby... my
> general thoughts were:
>
> If mounted rear engined, I haven't improved my f/r
> balance.. most likely made it worse (improved CG
> though).
>
> If mounted mid engined, it would take up the full
> width of the floor, and I'm assuming the shifter
> linkage would have to go over the motor.. plus I'm
> assuming at the very least with the FWD impreza
> box, the shift pattern would be backwards/upside
> down. Plus there's intake and exhaust plumbing..
> so that means it's not just wide but it will have
> to be high as well. (most likely goodbye back
> seat!)
>
>
> Advantages of the rotary:
>
> Small package in all directions (have the dude
> with the Renesis getting back to me on that).. I
> don't think seats in the back and it being mid
> engined as being out of the question.
>
> Shift linkage can't be that hard to figure out
> (can go above or around)
>
> Disadvantage, is that you need to mate it to some
> transaxle..
>
> Andrew McNally
> Hamilton, ON
> 29

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > That would make a Sonett haul!
>
>
> Give me a fucking break.
> A Piece of SHIT Subaru 1.8 and a geared as high as
> the sky trans is going to make a Sonett "Haul'
> The V4 is a BETTER engine, MUCH stronger crank,
> equal---to the point of theoretical
> interchange---rods, better stock cast pistons, and
> an IRON block that will tolerate abuse.
>
> The OEM Saab gearbox has better ratios and the
> stock ring and pinion is, for a Sonett 4.67 or a
> stock 96 4.88 and you're suggesting a Sub-a-rat
> trans with typical overgeared 3.9 or so is going
> to make it "haul"....
>
> Where's that face palm image?

Ok John, you caught me talking out of my ass trying to be positive I figured impreza heavier than sonett and that's where I stopped thinking.. been too busy trying to dig up other info.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

hudson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > That would make a Sonett haul!
> >
> >
> > Give me a fucking break.
> > A Piece of SHIT Subaru 1.8 and a geared as
> high as
> > the sky trans is going to make a Sonett
> "Haul'
> > The V4 is a BETTER engine, MUCH stronger
> crank,
> > equal---to the point of theoretical
> > interchange---rods, better stock cast
> pistons, and
> > an IRON block that will tolerate abuse.
> >
> > The OEM Saab gearbox has better ratios and
> the
> > stock ring and pinion is, for a Sonett 4.67
> or a
> > stock 96 4.88 and you're suggesting a
> Sub-a-rat
> > trans with typical overgeared 3.9 or so is
> going
> > to make it "haul"....
> >
> > Where's that face palm image?
>
> Ok John, you caught me talking out of my ass
> trying to be positive I figured impreza heavier
> than sonett and that's where I stopped thinking..
> been too busy trying to dig up other info.

Thank you.
Seriously I keep a Subaru (and pistons and rods)crank just to show folks what miniture junk it is. It is shocking. Just had a couple guys here for the afternoon from BC dropping off a Cossie YB for a rebuildand we were in the back 40 and looking at turbos and one of them saw the 2,2 Sub-standard-rat shit and he actually yelped "Oh Gawd! what is THAT!!!???" and he couldn't believe it---specially having just unloaded the nice Cossie stuff.

So the rotary has a NSU connection but you haven't said what's wrong with the OEM motor of box....why all the searching before saying what's wrong with the stock powerplant.
>
> Andrew McNally
> Hamilton, ON
> 29

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Well I just did a rough look at the fitting.. and it fits, but I keep forgetting how small the NSU is.. the quarter panels are exactly 26" high.. and forget the back seat idea <blush>

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the rotary has a NSU connection but you haven't
> said what's wrong with the OEM motor of box....why
> all the searching before saying what's wrong with
> the stock powerplant.

Nothing is wrong with the stock stuff per say. Quite light, very compact. You can build them to ~100 hp, but that takes $$$ I'd say the one I have is probably good for 50 hp (on a good day?).

Mainly, I just like to consider things.. I find it fun and before I got stuck into putting $$$$ into carbs, gaskets, yadda yadda I wanted to make sure I had looked at some options.

To build a mild/warm (say 75-80 hp) NSU motor with a locking diff -- I haven't crunched the numbers, but I see what stuff goes for -- 2.5 grand feels low ball.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish