Thanks for the link Bridgetown. This is an interesting picture posted by Motoracer838. Mount the driver pulley's right on the gearbox output flanges with no bearings. Might be alot of side load on the gearbox shafts though.
Every LS(x) swap in a Fiero that I have seen has had the intake flipped 180 (except the LS4s - they came from the factory with the TB over the bellhousing area).
The overall length of an LS(x) engine is shorter than the SBC, and the LS4's are quite economical. You might also want to consider using this Audi Transmission as it places the axle centerline very close to the bellhousing area of the engine.
[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 10-11-2014).]
Thanks Fieroguru. I have been trying to educate myself on the differences in chevy engines as I has always though SBC but there are many more models that may be more suitable. What Audi transmission model is that?
Interesting indeed. I assume that's the differential jutting forward on the passenger side? Would there we an issue with the chevy bell housing? I'll have to do a search and see what the power / torque limits are. Thanks for the details Fieroguru.
I had looked in to this transmission a while ago as well. It looks like a good option but from what I saw, not very easily obtainable. Not sure about the torque capabilities either but it is similar to the old 016 transmissions which can handle a V8 torque when taken care of. The 012 Audis are weaker though. g86 Porsche transmissions are better for this V8 application than an 012. The 016 trans has the shortest distance between bell housing surface and axle centers. Aside from this trans of course. Any trans setup you hook up to an SBC you will need an adapter and a custom flywheel. A fellow over on madmechanics can make an adapter and flywheel for you.
My opinion, and my opinion only, would be to either look at maybe an Audi V8 or look back at a transverse setup like Booz. All your project though so looking forward to seeing what you will end up doing.
Cheers Don
[This message has been edited by 355Fiero (edited 10-12-2014).]
Thanks Don. Looking up that transmission online seems to indicate its was mated with a 190 hp motor. It might not be adequate for my intended setup. Perhaps if I could use two of them ha-ha-ha.
I am still thinking some kind of Chevy V8 and look forward to the challenge of trying something new. I still think the belt drive has merit and it is just a matter of working out the details. I am lucky that my job affords me the opportunity to work on unique projects and I have alot of resources at my finger tips and consider the belt drive system a challenge. My intensions are to try and use off the shelf components whenever possible but If I see that I am facing a brick wall, I always have the traditional transverse arrangement to fall back on.
Please keep the ideas and suggestions coming. The more brains working on this the better.
Further refined the design by removing the pillow block bearings on the gearbox output shafts. As well, I should be able to mount the fwd bearings by including the supports as extensions on the bellhousing adapter plate that I'll certainly need to have machined. This will allow the arrangement to be installed and tensioned on the engine/ greabox prior to installation of the assembly into the car. The design at this stage is just conceptual at this stage.
Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: Looking up that transmission online seems to indicate its was mated with a 190 hp motor. It might not be adequate for my intended setup.
Torque is what kills transmissions, not HP. Since that application is a diesel, its hp will be lower, but should have a higher torque rating. The engine it was behind was rated at 280 lb-ft, and the G6 F40 is only rated at 295 lb-ft... so it really boils down to who do you think builds their FWD transmissions with the higher safety margin? GM or Audi/VW?
BTW, the LS4 is 23 3/16" from the bellhousing to the forward edge of the harmonic balancer/pulley. The length of the block is 20 3/4" and the leading edge of the #1 bank is flush with the face of the block. The top of the intake is 17 1/2" above the crankshaft center line.
Thanks for the info Fieroguru. You are totally right about the torque vs hp, especially in the TDI. The site I looked at only posted the hp for some reason.
The LS4 is certainly a possibility for me. I have been reading as much as I could about it. Thanks for the measurements. The engine model I imported into my chassis drawing is a polygon model and I can't do much with it other than to turn parts on and off from view. I guess I need to spend the money and buy a subscription for proper 3D rhino engines/ gearbox drawings.
Don, Guru: Which VW/Audi engines are a direct bolt-on to either the 012 or 016 transmissions? Will the Audi 4.2 V8 bolt to either of them?
quote
Originally posted by 355Fiero:
Graham;
I had looked in to this transmission a while ago as well. It looks like a good option but from what I saw, not very easily obtainable. Not sure about the torque capabilities either but it is similar to the old 016 transmissions which can handle a V8 torque when taken care of. The 012 Audis are weaker though. g86 Porsche transmissions are better for this V8 application than an 012. The 016 trans has the shortest distance between bell housing surface and axle centers. Aside from this trans of course. Any trans setup you hook up to an SBC you will need an adapter and a custom flywheel. A fellow over on madmechanics can make an adapter and flywheel for you.
My opinion, and my opinion only, would be to either look at maybe an Audi V8 or look back at a transverse setup like Booz. All your project though so looking forward to seeing what you will end up doing.
I would be hesitant to remove the bearings from the transmission end of the belt drive. The trans bearings are not built to run with those side loads that you will put on them with the shaft not supported by some side thrust bearings.
88GT
From what I remember, the 016 was pretty much in the Audi 5000, 200 and 100cars which were all four cylinder engines. The 012 is mated to the Audi V8s so a direct bolt on should be a 4.2. I can't reminder all the combinations of engines to the 012 but most applications I have seen have been up with other engine choices so there is usually an adapter in between. I think engine man has the 4.2 in his setup over in Technical Discussion? doing a search on the 012 in Google should bring up cars and therefore engine matchup fro you.
Hi Don, I agree about the bearings for the gearbox output shaft. I suspect that atleast the outer one will have to be put back in the design. I am still looking into the belt tension required although my experience is that the cogged belts require far less tension than the friction V belt. As well, the carbon belts are quite resistant to stretching so there may not be a huge amount of side load applied to the gearbox shaft. Again, all things I need to confirm first.
So far the Audi 01E is showing the most promise for my installation.
The O1e is probably one of the best you can get for these applications. Hard to get in North America though. More plentiful in Europe. There is a fellow over on gt40s forum that can get them over here for you. I honestly can't remember his user name. I will have a look and get back to you.
That's the guy. Erik from Advanced Automotion can help you out with the transmission. A very good guy to talk to as well. He is well known in the replica world fro providing excellent service.
Another option to look at is also the O1X which is very similar to teh O1E and more readily available in N/A. Again, Erik is the guy to talk to about this as he can set you up.
This is what I would love to do. Found this picture of a build by svsgt1 on a GT40 forum. Looks like he's done an amazing job installing an LS1 mated to an Audi 01e transmission. He even has the 180 degree headers.
That sure does look nice. The headers may be 180 degree, but they aren't equal length... that would take a lot more complexity. You realize if you go this route, you're going to have a lot of sucking up to do with your wife. I can just hear the conversation now: "What do you mean I can't have the entire kitchen and both bathrooms remodelled? I let you spend $20K on a stupid engine and transmission!"
I am sure I will not be the first guy or the last guy to have that conversation. But the bathroom is done so that should atleast get me a transmission. That's how it works right?
I am sure I will not be the first guy or the last guy to have that conversation. But the bathroom is done so that should atleast get me a transmission. That's how it works right?
Great sense of humor, because you must be joking on the last statement! That is a one way door!
I hear ya TXOPIE. And I always find myself trying to go through that one way door in the wrong direction....... and pushing harder just makes it close tighter.
Ok, taking some time away from the engine / gearbox / drive arrangement ( since everyone has pointed out that my wife will never let me buy it anyway ) and getting back to rebuilding the rear structure that I recently gutted.
The lower frame rails will be fabricated from 2" x 4" x 1/8" HSS which I have made to fit over the inserts that I had fitted during my previous 3" chassis stretch. Once welded up, it will make a strong junction between the stock chassis and the new structure. I decided to run the frame rails straight back as apposed to angled inward like the stock frame rails. This will allow them to form a foundation for the new strut towers and give me a little more room in the engine bay. I am also duplicating the widened section of the lower frame rails to accept the engine cradle rear bushing/ mounting points. I opened up the inside of the widened section to allow access to the captured nuts that will eventually be in there. As you can see, I will be building a custom engine cradle that will line up with the new lower frame rails.
I have pretty much finalized the new strut tower design and location so that the caster/camber plates that I purchased with my coilover struts will fit and still allow enough travel room to get the desired caster and camber settings when it comes time to do the alignment.
The new strut tower design also minimizes the intrusion into the engine bay. Even though it only a few inches, that is valuable real estate when you are trying to squeeze a V8 in there.
This is what I would love to do. Found this picture of a build by svsgt1 on a GT40 forum. Looks like he's done an amazing job installing an LS1 mated to an Audi 01e transmission. He even has the 180 degree headers.
Yarmouth, that would be one hell of a set-up.
Nice work on the pics below. BTW, with women there is one word that every man has to do..."negotiating".
Women...can't stand them, can't live without'em...
This is what I would love to do. Found this picture of a build by svsgt1 on a GT40 forum. Looks like he's done an amazing job installing an LS1 mated to an Audi 01e transmission. He even has the 180 degree headers.
looks great, someone can not build a GT40 without the "bundle of snakes"
Thanks fierogt28 and jb1. Those headers are pretty cool but as Blooz pointed out, getting them equal length is going to add a whole extra level of complexity. Hopefully I still have room for it all. As for negotiating, I do it alot for my job and I'll take the most difficult client of all over having to negotiate at home.
I started on the strut towers today and while I spent the better part of the day at it, all I have is the driverside mocked up. I really need to get a plasma cutter for the garage. Those zip wheels disappear fast and they get a little expensive buying them by the box.
The good news is I made the parts from my 3D drawing and they all fit as I expected. It's always nice to get confirmation that your drawings are somewhat accurate. As I had mentioned previously, the sides of the strut towers will be 1/8" plate and the top will be cut from 1/4" plate to resist deflection from the struts.
Could you use U joints from the transmission to an intermediate stationary point where you could attach CV joints for the axles? Much cheaper and possibly less problematic than the drive belts, which I could see being a little noisy (even if they are relatively quiet) and getting dirty unless they are protected by pretty large housings. I haven't looked at how much space you will have to achieve the displacement you need so maybe the angles would be too high for U joints, but maybe not. Also a factor is axle length, I do not know what minimum axle length you would require to keep the CV joints happy through the full range of motion.
Here is a quick drawing showing a drive shaft with CV joints. It produces a joint angle of about 21 degrees. This could be improved on by tucking the engine in a little tighter to the firewall. Is this sort of what you had in mind zkhennings?
Well what I was trying to accomplish was exactly what your belt drive is doing, except getting that shift with short axles with U joints.
Here is a quick MS paint picture of what I mean
Green is U joints and intermediate axle
Red is CV joints and axle to the wheels.
The black boxes with sharp edges are solid mounted positions.
I believe the U joints can achieve higher angles than CV joints as well as operate better as well. The tradeoff is that they can't accommodate for length changes like the CV joints can. The intention of the intermediate axles is to accomplish exactly what your belt drive system is doing. This way the CV joints don't have to be angled during operation at all times and would most likely function better and last longer.
At the same time however 21* isn't very bad compared to what the 4x4 guys run but they break CV joints a lot.
The reason car manufacturers have gotten away from U joints and moved to CV joints is because when run at an angle, the U joint parts speed up and slow down as they cycle around one full revolution (hence the development of constant velocity joints). Just try turning a couple socket wrench extensions with a U joint between them using your fingers and you'll see what I mean. That whipping gets worse the larger the angle is at the joint and transmits into the chassis as a vibration.
Personally, I'd stick with the belt idea. On a side note, when I was researching my own axle angle limitations I found that most CV joints can operate to a maximum of about 26 degrees, though some were limited to only 16 degrees. Also of interest is that an angle of at least one degree is required to ensure proper lubrication. Just call me Cliff Clavin.
A buddy of mine used CV joints on an axle with a large angle several years ago. He found that after running it for about a week, it ran itself out of lubricant. He phoned a pile of places and finally got an expert ( I think its was an engineer at one of the axle places) and found out that CV joints are not designed to run at CONSTANT large angles. They are designed to accept large angles but only for a short periods of time such as cars turning or bumps etc. What happened to my buddy's axle was that it heated up to the point that it melted the axle grease out of the CV joint and then failed.
This was many years ago though so I am sure the CV joint technology might have improved since then and this info is from my buddy so I don't have confirmed engineering confirmation of the info. Belts would be a better option in my opinion for this much of an offset.
I believe the U joints can achieve higher angles than CV joints as well as operate better as well. The tradeoff is that they can't accommodate for length changes like the CV joints can. The intention of the intermediate axles is to accomplish exactly what your belt drive system is doing. This way the CV joints don't have to be angled during operation at all times and would most likely function better and last longer.
At the same time however 21* isn't very bad compared to what the 4x4 guys run but they break CV joints a lot.
Universal joints can take higher loads than most Constant Velocity joints per mass.
Universal joints do not run at a constant velocity and induces an oscillating angular acceleration in the shafts. This requires more shaft material to resist the cyclic loading and fatigue stress. The condition worsens at larger angles, this is why most RWD cars use rubber drive discs and a CV joint in their drive shafts to reduce driveline vibration, and NVH.
There are shaft designs that utilize universal joints that can accomidate the required change in length needed with splined male and female ends, or like the Jaguar and corvette, some designs utilize the drive shaft as a suspension member, so length can stay fixed.
Thanks for the great video jefrysuko. We use cardan shafts ( a shaft with U joint at each end and splined section in the middle) a lot in the marine field and that is the best video I've seen on the use and misuse of shafts and U joints. A couple years ago we invested in a laser alignment tool just for aligning cardan and its almost completely eliminated shaft issues. But I have to wonder how automobiles don't have more issues considering that the wheel end of the shaft is not fixed relative to the engine end, especially at high rpm's. Anyone with thoughts on this?
BS!~~60_12.jpg)
The headers may be 180 degree, but they aren't equal length... that would take a lot more complexity. You realize if you go this route, you're going to have a lot of sucking up to do with your wife. I can just hear the conversation now: "What do you mean I can't have the entire kitchen and both bathrooms remodelled? I let you spend $20K on a stupid engine and transmission!"
But the bathroom is done so that should atleast get me a transmission. That's how it works right? 
) and getting back to rebuilding the rear structure that I recently gutted.
