Modern 1.0 or 1.2L converting to rear wheel drive?

[kartman24]

Is it possible to use a modern small transverse engine in a rear wheel drive car. I`m looking for info on converting the engine to inline form with a gearbox on the back. Any info on this anyone?.......Martin

[singlecoil]

I assume you mean to have the engine at the front, then the gearbox, then a propshaft to a differential?

If so, use any engine you like as long as there is a gearbox/bellhousing to fit it.

If you say which engine you want to use, someone might be able to be more specific

[kartman24]

That is my question, what conventional gearboxes will fit on to the back of what was a transverse mounted engine to make the car rear wheel drive?...Martin

[singlecoil]

kartman24 said:

That is my question, what conventional gearboxes will fit on to the back of what was a transverse mounted engine to make the car rear wheel drive?...Martin

It depends on the engine- different engines need different gearboxes.

[Sam_68]

singlecoil said:

It depends on the engine- different engines need different gearboxes.

More correctly, different engines need different bellhousings.

Some engines (notably Ford) were designed with a standard (for the manufacturer) bellhousing bolt pattern, making it relatively easy to bolt a FWD engine to one of the manufacturer's RWD gearbox bellhousings. Look for manufacturers who had both FWD and RWD models using the same engines as a starting point, then make enquiries with marque specialists as to compatibility (though you will get the odd red herring like the A-series, which is not particularly straightforward to adapt from FWD to RWD, 'cos the FWD version uses a gearbox-in-sump arrangement).

A small number of engines (eg. the Rover K-series, used in Caterham Sevens) have specially manufactured bellhousings available to mate them to Ford inline gearboxes.

The other way of doing it is to use an adapter plate. It is possible to design and manufacture a relatively simple adapter plate that will allow you to bolt pretty much any engine to pretty much any gearbox, with a little ingenuity.


eta: the other option, potentially, is to use a rear-mounted transaxle with a front engine, an arrangement used by Alfa Romeo, Porsche, Ferrari and Maserati in some models.

Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 12th February 23:10

[kdempsie]

Perhaps you could try the 1.25l Zetec SE engine. The larger ones are used by Westfield and Catherham I think in rear drive applications. Not sure what gearboxes they use though.

[Sam_68]

kdempsie said:

Perhaps you could try the 1.25l Zetec SE engine. The larger ones are used by Westfield and Catherham I thing in rear drive applications. Not sure what gearboxes they use though.

If you buy from the manufacturers (Caterham/Westfield) they use Mitchell-Cotts manufactured transmissions, which are basically Ford inline gearboxes; Caterham offers a 6-speed version, if you have the money.

[singlecoil]

Sam_68 said:

singlecoil said:

It depends on the engine- different engines need different gearboxes.

More correctly, different engines need different bellhousings.

Even more correctly, different engines need different bellhousings or adaptor plates.

But I wasn't going to get into too much detail until the OP did.

[dave de roxby]

Sumps?

[kartman24]

What i am looking for is VERY good fuel economy from an engine but it has to go into a car in the conventional layout.....front to rear.........Martin

[Sam_68]

singlecoil said:

Even more correctly, different engines need different bellhousings or adaptor plates.

Like what I mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the post you quoted me from, you mean?

[dave de roxby]

Sam_68 said:

singlecoil said:

Even more correctly, different engines need different bellhousings or adaptor plates.

Like what I mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the post you quoted me from, you mean?

Yep, you definitely said it first!

Would just mention that If you take an engine from transverse location and mount it north/south, the sump may need modification since the 'slosh' developed in cornering tends to be at 90 degrees to that originally catered for and can lead to oil starvation. Nothing that can't be dealt with by some judicious 'baffling'??

[singlecoil]

kartman24 said:

What i am looking for is VERY good fuel economy from an engine but it has to go into a car in the conventional layout.....front to rear.........Martin

Well weight is going to play a part in that case, have you considered a motorcycle engine, lightweight, and a gearbox attached, there are solutions for electric reversing mechanisms available from various sources. Perhaps something like a modern 650cc unit would meet your needs.

[Sam_68]

dave de roxby said:

Nothing that can't be dealt with by some judicious 'baffling'??

Or an accusump, or (my personal favourite for road use, 'cos it's cheap as chips and easy to fit) sump foam.

Maybe we need to take a reality check, though: the OP specifically asked about 1.0 - 1.2 litre engines, so we're talking shopping trolley material here?

It's going to be an expensive way of going very slowly, if we have to spend loads of money on custom bellhousings/
adapter plates, sump modifications etc.

Apart from the potential of bolting the smaller Ford engines straight up to an old Sierra box, I'm struggling to think of anything that would be a cheap, straightforward bolt-together job at that sort of capacity?

[thescamper]

I might be completely mad and this is a real off the wall thought, what would stop you turning a FWD east west engine through 90 degrees and then welding up the diff and running a propshaft from one side of the diff.

Mad I know but how about it?

[anonymous-user]

If you did that, you'd need a 1:1 ratio diff in the back!!


And if you want ultimate fuel econonmy, avoid anything desgined with "performance" in mind, esp. m/cycle engines!!


i'd use the Toyota Aygo engine myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Aygo

1.0 3 cyl, very light, easy to source, modern so reliable, designed for low friction with a decent low rpm torque curve.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 13th February 13:19

[thescamper]

Max_Torque said:

If you did that, you'd need a 1:1 ratio diff in the back!!

See I said it was off the wall.

[singlecoil]

Max_Torque said:

And if you want ultimate fuel econonmy, avoid anything desgined with "performance" in mind, esp. m/cycle engines!!

I don't think it follows that a higher perfomance engine is necessarily less fuel efficient that a larger, less perfomance oriented vehicle.

I think we need the OP to provide more information about his requirements. Is economy the only consideration? Does it need to be capable of a bit of performance from time to time (for instance, overtaking safely on a country road when stuck behind a horse box that is struggling to do 30mph).

[kartman24]

The car is approx half the weight of the Aygo and economy is the main consideration as i do a fair amount of mileage to and fro work each day. As long as i can get 80mph and reasonable acceleration, i`m not after anything to burn away from the lights etc....i have another car for that ;¬)
...........Martin

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

I don't think it follows that a higher perfomance engine is necessarily less fuel efficient that a larger, less perfomance oriented vehicle.

Actually, it pretty much does! Just about everything you do to make an engine produce more power, with the exception of reducing friction, has a negative effect on economy.