Transaxle manual gearbox quick question
Discussion
I'm building a project car - RWD about 1400+ kgs with Mercedes M120 in front. To compensate the overweight I thought about using Maserati 3200/4200 transaxle manual (since I prefer the stick to do the sticking), but not sure they strong enough to handle 450+ torques after doing some homework. Is there any other option to go for, at all? I know Porsche built some. There are possibly some specialists that can strengthten it, but haven't find any after a bit of googling. Thanks for suggestions.
Veeayt said:
kambites said:
Worth having a look at what people use in things like Ultimas? They often run crazy power/torque.
I thought they are directly attached to an engine, no?Presumably the Corvette uses one. Are they remotely affordable?
Edited by kambites on Friday 31st October 18:09
The nice thing about transmissions is that the tyres act as a fusible link between the engine and the road. So unless the gearbox is grossly over-stressed, it's quite difficult to destroy it instantaneously with excess torque, as opposed to just reducing its life.
And this doesn't sound like the sort of car that will be doing tens of thousands of miles a year.
For these reasons, I'd be inclined to go for the toughest cheap and readily available transaxle you can find, and treat it as semi-expendible.
Audi sounds cheaper and easier to source a replacement for than Maserati?
And this doesn't sound like the sort of car that will be doing tens of thousands of miles a year.
For these reasons, I'd be inclined to go for the toughest cheap and readily available transaxle you can find, and treat it as semi-expendible.
Audi sounds cheaper and easier to source a replacement for than Maserati?
MintSprint said:
The nice thing about transmissions is that the tyres act as a fusible link between the engine and the road. So unless the gearbox is grossly over-stressed, it's quite difficult to destroy it instantaneously with excess torque, as opposed to just reducing its life.
And this doesn't sound like the sort of car that will be doing tens of thousands of miles a year.
For these reasons, I'd be inclined to go for the toughest cheap and readily available transaxle you can find, and treat it as semi-expendible.
Audi sounds cheaper and easier to source a replacement for than Maserati?
Doesn't the Audi transaxle bolt straight onto the engine?And this doesn't sound like the sort of car that will be doing tens of thousands of miles a year.
For these reasons, I'd be inclined to go for the toughest cheap and readily available transaxle you can find, and treat it as semi-expendible.
Audi sounds cheaper and easier to source a replacement for than Maserati?
PositronicRay said:
Doesn't the Audi transaxle bolt straight onto the engine?
It does, but that doesn't necessarily prevent its use.For example, the Westfield FW400 used a Hewland transaxle (which normally bolts straight onto the engine, like the Audi), with the clutch on the engine and a propshaft spinning at engine speed connecting the two.
The more commonly used front engine/rear transaxle layout has the clutch in unit with the transaxle at the back, but depending on the configuration of the car you're trying to install it in, this can mean that you end up with a very bulky clutch housing between where you want the hips of your driver and passenger to be.
Also, with quite a few of them (Porsche 928 and Alfa, as examples), the diff and driveshafts are at the extreme rear of the unit, so that the main part of the transaxle's mass is ahead of the axle line.
The FW400 arrangement had the dual advantages that the transmission tunnel was nice and slender, as it only had to accommodate the propshaft, and the main mass of the gearbox was hanging out behind the rear axle, where you wanted it to be to counterbalance the mass of the engine up front as much as possible.
Most of the GT40 replicas and stuff use a heavily modified variant of the Renault UN1 transaxle. They were used in all sorts, from the 20/25 right up to reasonably late Espace models.
I've heard the input shaft is weak, but there are racing modifications to overcome such things. In the GT40 reps I suppose they're connected to proper iron block stuff: 427/428/460 Fords or whatever's about at the time. So it's a possibility.
I'd guess the transmissions are getting on the rare side these days, as they went out in the mid to late nineties. Although French scrapyards are going to be full of them!
I've heard the input shaft is weak, but there are racing modifications to overcome such things. In the GT40 reps I suppose they're connected to proper iron block stuff: 427/428/460 Fords or whatever's about at the time. So it's a possibility.
I'd guess the transmissions are getting on the rare side these days, as they went out in the mid to late nineties. Although French scrapyards are going to be full of them!
motorhole said:
Front-engined rwd with transaxle and big power - Corvette transaxle would be the way to go imo.
If you can package it adequately in the design, I have to say that I agree with you.But it's one of those transaxles with the clutch in unit with the front of the transaxle and the diff at the extreme rear, so you've got to have a big enough transmission tunnel to accommodate it, and it doesn't move the maximum amount of weight possible to the rear, so it will only partially meet the OP's objective in that respect:
motorhole said:
Front-engined rwd with transaxle and big power - Corvette transaxle would be the way to go imo.
Corvette doesn't have a transaxle. It's a Tremec six speed, in the later cars - earlier variant C4s had a four speed overdrive, bolted on to a final drive unit. The whole thing is located at the back of the car, granted, but a transaxle is a combined gearbox and final drive. Effectively the Corvette setup moves the normal transmission backwards. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff