Transmission Ideas?

[PhyrraM]

......Why not use a Porsche 944/Audi 5000 "type 016" transaxle?........... I would actually prefer GM Ecotec engine to the subaru. .............. For a budget build one could use an LK9 engine out of a turbo Saab (220 Hp) ...............

Because, then your not building a FFR 818 anymore. Your building something else.

[juha_teuvonnen]

Reason they went with subi is because of the boxer engines low COG. Yes subi's are awd, the 5spd can be converted to 2wd fairly easily whereas the 6spd I believe can't be converted to 2wd. Mating another transmission to an engine it wasn't originally designed for increases the cost. I'm sure it would have pushed the cost goal of the 818 well beyond 15k.

There is a company (out of Australia I believe) that makes stronger gears for the 5spd but it isn't cheap, I think it's to the tune of 2-4k. Also the Ej205 from what I've read can handle up to 300whp on stock internals beyond that you have to go with forged pistons ect... 300whp in a 1800 pound car IMO is more than enough to get you into trouble.

Also, A donor wrx can be had for cheap, I've seen them sell for 2k on copart.com (not including fees and shipping) FF's goal is to have a one donor car swap not have bits and pieces from 8 different cars.

With all of their goals in mind it makes complete sense why they went with 02-07 impreza or wrx

I completely agree with you that Ecotec + Porsche/Audi trans would likely be more expensive and more PITA to build. The folks shooting for a budget build should, and very likely will likely stick with Subaru running gear. Ones looking for a more expensive/ higher performance build may run into the limitations of the subaru transmission. While there are many performance options for the internals WRX engine, all of them will likely blow the 15 grand target, probably by a good margin. It is generally cheaper to sell the WRX engine and buy a used JDM STI engine than to build up WRX. In both cases the strength of the transmission is going to be the limiting factor.

I would estimate the cost of the bellhousing adapter to be in the neighbordhood of $350, assuming a decent-sized group buy. Kennedy engineering sells adapter kits for 440, but that includes pilot bearing, flywheel and fasteners. While modifying a WRX trans to 2WD configuration is easy, what how much will it cost? I'm figuring easily over 200-250 for anything that requires the trans to be opened up, assuming a competent transmission shop is doing the job. I've rebuilt an Audi-style FWD transaxle once, and then taken it to a good shop to have the diff adjusted properly. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, "a man has got to know his limitations". So, IMHO a Porsche/Audi "typ 16" may be a viable option for the higher-powered Subaru engines. You will need custom axles, but I would expect them to be needed one way or another in a RWD configuration, even with a stock WRX engine. Even with a lighter car, you are putting all that power through 2 axles instead of 4. Say it's 1.5 times the torque (not 2x) because of the lighter car. You are still way beyond what the stock WRX axles were designed to do. Nothing will ruin your car, quite like the inner CV joint failure.The aftermath is never pretty, sometimes the car could be a total loss.

Ecotec is a great engine, but it's probably not worth the trouble, unless supported by Factory 5 kit as an option. Assuming the trade value of the WRX motor 1 grand less than that of Ecotec LNF, if you sell your Subaru motor and buy LNF, you are out about 1500 tops. The wiring and ECU is going to be a gigantic PITA, but there are outfits that will rig a standalone wiring harness out of a stock one and program the ECU for standalone operation. It costs somewhere around $500 and is way worth it. Then you get to cooling system and exhaust (time to get the trusty old TIG welder going, custom built stuff is expensive). Either you have expensive tools, have lots of time on your hands and are capable of doing a lot of fab work, or it's tons of money.

[thestigwins]

I thought one of the main reasons for the Subaru engine and drivetrain was due to the fact that this is a world car. They wanted a drivetrain that could be sourced around the world. I see no problem with looking into different engine/transmission combinations.

[Xusia]

Because, then your not building a FFR 818 anymore. Your building something else.

I don't think the engine defines the car. It may have different characteristics, perhaps even a different character, but so does every car that is custom built...

[PhyrraM]

IMHO, the main reason to choose a Subaru is that is it already, from the factory, basically set up for a longitudinal mid-engined setup using a VERY short motor. Some Audis are also this way, but the Audis have much longer motors and need more space between the seats and rear wheels.

If we are already having trouble with the idea of the H6 - which is only 3 cylinders long - making an inline 4 (4 cylinders long) fit is not looking good. If you lengthen the chassis, you've got to lengthen the body. Not really an 818 anymore at that point. I'm not against putting any type of motor or transmission you wish into it, just the amount of work makes it more of a homebuilt than something FFR intended. For example...How many of us still consider that Hennesy(?) thing a Lotus? IIRC, they don't even label it as a Lotus

[Evan78]

I agree with Xusia, the chassis defines the car a lot more than the engine does. Whoever sells a car gets to name it, so Hennessey call's their car a Hennessey Venom.

There are engine swaps all over the place, only the extreme purists say "it's not a (fill in the blank) anymore". GM LS v8 engines are put into nearly everything these days, do you see an LS powered RX7 and make up a new name for it? Even if you give it a new name, it's still a car that does all the things that cars normally do, so I don't see any reason to say it doesn't deserve discussion.

[juha_teuvonnen]

IMHO, the main reason to choose a Subaru is that is it already, from the factory, basically set up for a longitudinal mid-engined setup using a VERY short motor. Some Audis are also this way, but the Audis have much longer motors and need more space between the seats and rear wheels.

If we are already having trouble with the idea of the H6 - which is only 3 cylinders long - making an inline 4 (4 cylinders long) fit is not looking good. If you lengthen the chassis, you've got to lengthen the body. Not really an 818 anymore at that point. I'm not against putting any type of motor or transmission you wish into it, just the amount of work makes it more of a homebuilt than something FFR intended. For example...How many of us still consider that Hennesy(?) thing a Lotus? IIRC, they don't even label it as a Lotus

I see your point, and it's a good one. I am new to this board, and you clearly know more about the chassis in question than I do. If and H3 won't fit, the ecotec is unlikely to fit. Hence, it would need to be mounted transversely, which would require a completely different transmission altogether. That being said, it may be possible to use Cobalt SS transmission. I would also look into SRT-4 and MR2. It may be possble to have more drivetrain options for 818, any FWD will work so long as the transmission linkage uses cables.

IMHO the target audience for any kit car are mechanically inclined tinkerers, so more engine/driveline options would be a good thing.

[shim2]

I see your point, and it's a good one. I am new to this board, and you clearly know more about the chassis in question than I do. If and H3 won't fit, the ecotec is unlikely to fit. Hence, it would need to be mounted transversely, which would require a completely different transmission altogether. That being said, it may be possible to use Cobalt SS transmission. I would also look into SRT-4 and MR2. It may be possble to have more drivetrain options for 818, any FWD will work so long as the transmission linkage uses cables.

IMHO the target audience for any kit car are mechanically inclined tinkerers, so more engine/driveline options would be a good thing.

MR2's are transverse. That I'm sure of would never bolt to a subi boxer engine. Even if you could, you'd have to turn the boxer engine transverse would create all kinds of complications, again way more work that it would ever be worth. Ideally if you could somehow magically make it work with relative ease the 3sgte is probably one of the best engines to build high hp without needing sleeves.

TBH it would probably be easier to drop an a4/passat 1.8t in it since they're longitudinally mounted same as the subi boxer.

[juha_teuvonnen]

MR2's are transverse. That I'm sure of would never bolt to a subi boxer engine. Even if you could, you'd have to turn the boxer engine transverse would create all kinds of complications, again way more work that it would ever be worth. Ideally if you could somehow magically make it work with relative ease the 3sgte is probably one of the best engines to build high hp without needing sleeves.

TBH it would probably be easier to drop an a4/passat 1.8t in it since they're longitudinally mounted same as the subi boxer.

MR2 trans (or GM F35) would go together with transversely mounted Ecotec. A transversely mounted Ecotec should fit where longtitudaly mounted subaru boxer did, provided the engine bay is tall enough.

A longtitudaly mounted engine (looks like subaru flat 4 is the only viable choice given the chassis constraints) could be mounted to a lingtitudal trans from Porsche 944/audi 5000 or a modified Subaru trans, converted to 2WD configuration.