| Author |
Message |
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| beelzibus wrote: |
| Beware Mike, those sumps are very weak, I've cracked mine twice in my A6 Quattro, it's such a heavy and relatively low car that it doesn't take much of a bump for it to ground. In short, protect it well. |
Noted, thanks Andy 
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
purplepeopleeater
Samba Member
Joined: July 23, 2005
Posts: 3117
Location: E. Washington
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| well if you go suby I have a mount forsale in my ads....1.8T = wood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I thought I'd put up my final decision regarding with engine for my project.
After much consideration (many hours ) I'd decided on the Subaru 2.5 single OHC 2001 engine.
It's the lightest and most powerful N/A engine for it's size. I have a 2nd hand smallcar engine mount which I'll be modifying to copy the Burley sump/engine mount combo so it'll be a one off but it will be very wide with baffling for extreme offroading.
I have yet to decide whether to use an RJES bellhousing or make my own using a Subaru Legacy gearbox. The reason for this is to try to incorporate the Legacy Hi-Lo selection for a better ratio for offroading. This is not easy as there isn't as much room in diff housing (inside the gearbox) in the VW setup as there is in the Subaru setup so I can't put the Hi-Lo setup next to the Crown wheel. It would have to sit further back in effect lengthening the bellhousing. This is not what I wanted as I want to shorten the back of the project for better departure angles.
I have a set of 6.17's and a set of 4.86's at my disposal and the Subaru Hi-Lo ratio setup I have is 1:1 - 1.46:1. When in Lo position, this makes a 6.17:1 = 9:1 and a 4.86:1 = 7.1:1. I am aware that doing this not only drops the gearing but also raises the amount of torque running through the drivetrain and I'm likely to have more failures when in running in Lo.
Here is a photo of the Hi-Lo setup in the stock Subaru transmission.
There are a couple of good posts up around with people using the Hi-Lo setups in different Subarus but never in a Syncro.
http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=97653
The project is still in it's infancy and I have yet to buy a donor vehicle but I'll put up a post when I start cutting up a syncro for the project.
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snowsyncro
Samba Member
Joined: January 11, 2009
Posts: 1557
Location: East Preston, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, as long as you don't change Limey! 
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
I have a set of 6.17's and a set of 4.86's at my disposal and the Subaru Hi-Lo ratio setup I have is 1:1 - 1.46:1. When in Lo position, this makes a 6.17:1 = 9:1 and a 4.86:1 = 7.1:1. I am aware that doing this not only drops the gearing but also raises the amount of torque running through the drivetrain and I'm likely to have more failures when in running in Lo.
MG |
I don't think so, unless I am missing something. With all other things being equal (tires, offroading situation, etc.), then going to a lower range should decrease, not increase, the torque running through the drivetrain. I am not familiar with the Subaru hi/lo range gearing, but it sounds like it is located in the differential housing, so I assume between the R&P ring gear and the inner CV. So, from the driven wheel to the inner CV nothing changes. But, from the inner CV to the engine, the RPMs will be higher for the LO range, than for the HI range. Power is torque x RPM generally, so higher RPM means reduced torque, for the same power requirement. You should experience fewer torque-induced failures.
Now if you meant that by having a low range, you can now deliver more usable torque to the drive wheels at a lower crawl speed (the reason for having a low range of course)... and as a result get yourself into more extreme offroading situations ... then yes you will increase the torque from the inner CV to the driven wheel, and break more things out there, and I am totally wrong.
Did I miss something in your statement Mike?
Never mind -- you called it the 'drivetrain' -- so you meant the latter -- ignore everything I said. 
RonC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dredward
Samba Member
Joined: May 24, 2007
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hellenic vanagon wrote: |
Running for 5 years an AUDI 2.8 l, V6 (174 HP), withouy problems, I have learned my lesson: this power is not enough for the SYNCRO!
So I am going a new project SYNCRO & BITURBO V6 & MTM 4th stage= 420 bhp! (2.7 l AUDI S4),(Still under construction).
This is the beast:
On the car:
[b]Underneath & left intercooler
Left side exhaust & catalyst & fuel pump:
[b](Between others), differential's valvoline radiator
Right side exhaust:
 |
This was another swap i've dreamed of doing. You gota keep us posted!
_________________
Cars owned: 1979/89 scirraco, 1983 gti, 1984 gti, 1986 gti, 1990 gli, 1989 cabriolet(2.0,16v conversion), 1992 gti, 1982 Westy, 1987 syncro Westy(w/ 1.8t conversion stg1 chip), and finally 2004 r32.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beetsport 
Samba Member
Joined: January 08, 2005
Posts: 475
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dredward wrote: |
| hellenic vanagon wrote: |
Running for 5 years an AUDI 2.8 l, V6 (174 HP), withouy problems, I have learned my lesson: this power is not enough for the SYNCRO!
So I am going a new project SYNCRO & BITURBO V6 & MTM 4th stage= 420 bhp! (2.7 l AUDI S4),(Still under construction).
This is the beast:
On the car:
[b]Underneath & left intercooler
Left side exhaust & catalyst & fuel pump:
[b](Between others), differential's valvoline radiator
Right side exhaust:
|
This was another swap i've dreamed of doing. You gota keep us posted! |
Too much ground clearance loss for me. A little concerned about the Turbo being right next to the starter and the firewall/fuel tank on Syncro..
Great engine though. Like to see the finished pictures too!
_________________
'90 Syncro Westy 1.8T with 180hp 174 torque, CA safe!
http://H2oVanagon.com
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=217285 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| snowsyncro wrote: |
Fine, as long as you don't change Limey!
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
I have a set of 6.17's and a set of 4.86's at my disposal and the Subaru Hi-Lo ratio setup I have is 1:1 - 1.46:1. When in Lo position, this makes a 6.17:1 = 9:1 and a 4.86:1 = 7.1:1. I am aware that doing this not only drops the gearing but also raises the amount of torque running through the drivetrain and I'm likely to have more failures when in running in Lo.
MG |
I don't think so, unless I am missing something. With all other things being equal (tires, offroading situation, etc.), then going to a lower range should decrease, not increase, the torque running through the drivetrain. I am not familiar with the Subaru hi/lo range gearing, but it sounds like it is located in the differential housing, so I assume between the R&P ring gear and the inner CV. So, from the driven wheel to the inner CV nothing changes. But, from the inner CV to the engine, the RPMs will be higher for the LO range, than for the HI range. Power is torque x RPM generally, so higher RPM means reduced torque, for the same power requirement. You should experience fewer torque-induced failures.
Now if you meant that by having a low range, you can now deliver more usable torque to the drive wheels at a lower crawl speed (the reason for having a low range of course)... and as a result get yourself into more extreme offroading situations ... then yes you will increase the torque from the inner CV to the driven wheel, and break more things out there, and I am totally wrong.
Did I miss something in your statement Mike?
Never mind -- you called it the 'drivetrain' -- so you meant the latter -- ignore everything I said.
RonC |
No you read it right, maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.
If I managed to put an eplicyclic gearbox inbetween the engine and gearbox, say a 3:1 ratio, that would mean that the gearbox would turn at a 3rd of the speed of the engine but that I had just tripled the torque load being put through the gearbox.... ?
If we're talking final drive ratios then the load would increase from the output flanges as you've changed the ratio at that point?
Re-2.7 Twin Turbo V6 install, I'd love to see that finished too. I've just sold my spare South African bellhousing to someone who is looking at doing the same install but into a 2WD Van.
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Worms
Samba Member
Joined: May 19, 2009
Posts: 279
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The subaru Hi/Low is on the transmission input shaft, it changes the ratio prior to the gearset. This does increase torque through the box.
The confusion arises because the Hi/Low is in the ring and pinion area - it is actually not connected to the R&P. The input shaft is either direct coupled to the gearset, or in Low, runs via the small intermediate shaft above the R&P housing.
Have you thought of fitting the subaru box? There are a LOT of ratios available for them, plus you have the Hi/Low? I assume you know you can get the reverse cut R&P for them from Aussie for $1500 US??? Maybe it doesn't work for Syncros??? I have a 2WD, so I want one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snowsyncro
Samba Member
Joined: January 11, 2009
Posts: 1557
Location: East Preston, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
No you read it right, maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.
If I managed to put an eplicyclic gearbox inbetween the engine and gearbox, say a 3:1 ratio, that would mean that the gearbox would turn at a 3rd of the speed of the engine but that I had just tripled the torque load being put through the gearbox.... ?
MG |
I understand your question, and the answer is yes, sort of, but I wouldn't put it that way. Looking at things from the wheel's point of view, for any driving situation there exists a specific torque requirement. Say you are climbing a 10% grade in 2WD, nice even surface, at a constant speed, i.e. no acceleration. Ignoring any losses, for now, you could calculate exactly how much force is required at the tire contact patch. No matter what you do with gearing, tire size, anything, this would remain a constant. What will change is the torque required, at the wheel, to develop this force. Bigger wheel, more instantaneous torque needed, because the contact patch is at a greater distance from the centre of rotation. For a given vehicle speed, there will be a fixed power demand. Doesn't matter how big the wheel diameter is. But, the bigger the wheel, the slower it rotates, so torque has to be higher, since power is torque x RPM, and RPM is lower. For a smaller wheel diameter, same power, higher RPM, so less torque -- at the wheel.
You can then translate that torque situation all the way back to the engine, through the various components, and calculate the required torque. If you ignore the losses, then that power demand at the wheel has to remain constant, all the way back to the engine. If the rotational speed of any shaft transmitting a fixed amount of power is reduced to one-third of what it was previously, then you have increased the torque through the shaft by a factor of three. Blame physics.
The reason I added the "sort of" is because the way the question was asked will cause confusion. It sounds like I am saying that, if you were able to instantaneously insert a 3:1 ratio between the engine and gearbox, then the torque through the gearbox would suddenly jump by a factor of three. That is not the case at all. In the situation as I have described it (a typical driving scenario), the effect of adding the epicyclic gearing where you have noted, would not change the torque through the gearbox. Everything all the way from the wheels to the input shaft of the gearbox has stayed the same, so torque has not changed anywhere, in that instant, up to the point of the gearbox input shaft. But now the engine is turning three times faster, so ignoring losses, inefficiencies and all other factors, you have now reduced the torque that the motor has to produce, at that instant, to one-third of what it was an instant ago, because it is spinning three times faster! I said you have to ignore all the other factors, because of course there are other issues that come into play, such as the engine's ability to breathe, etc.
But yes, if it were possible to create the situation in your question, where an engine was turning at a fixed RPM, and producing a fixed amount of torque (and torque is not a function of RPM, it is a function of load), thus producing a fixed amount of power into a gearbox -- then if you suddenly introduced a 3:1 gear reduction at the output of the engine, and you could do this without changing the power demand on the engine -- then yes the speed of the gearbox would be reduced to one-third, and the torque on every component would increase by a factor of three. IF, you were able to create such a situation, which you couldn't in real life because in the case of a vehicle anyway, you would be asking for an instantaneous acceleration to three times the velocity, so power demand would be anything but constant.
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
If we're talking final drive ratios then the load would increase from the output flanges as you've changed the ratio at that point?
MG |
No. The load from the output flanges, towards the wheels, would stay the same -- nothing has changed there. But, from the pinion shaft back, towards the engine, the torque would change. I hesistate to say the 'load' would change, because it is 'load' that produces torque, and the load is constant, presumably. Say if you wanted to switch back from 6.17 to a 4.86 ring and pinion ratio, the effect of that would be to increase the torque demand, all the way back to the engine, by about 27%. Off-roaders prefer the higher (numerically) ratios because they can crawl better over the rough stuff. The reason they can do this is because the higher ratios enable them to run their engines higher up on the torque curve (higher engine speed). Conversely, the highway cruisers like the low ratios, because as long as they have sufficient torque available, they can reduce engine RPM toward a region where the engine's specific fuel consumption is optimum. The reason you hear complaints about inadequate power from people who have gone too far with the higher gearing, as that they have reduced their engine RPM too much -- there is no longer enough torque to meet the demand of overcoming wind resistance and highway grade.
Mike, I know you don't need this much exposition, it is for a bigger audience that might be interested. Clear as mud?
RonC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, quite a reply with careful explanation. Thankyou, that clears up a lot of it. I understand it but I don't have the where with all to explain it as cleary as that so thankyou.
Basically (for me!!) a 6.17 creates more torque on internal gearbox components than a 4.57 and adding the Subaru Hi-Lo feature does the same thing when in 'Lo' in comparrison to 'Hi'?
Worms, why not use the Subaru setup? Simple, they don't go slow enough! If Subaru made a gearbox which meant I could drive at a lower speed than a 6.17 Syncro in G gear with 33inch tyres, I'd be buying one now! Also they don't have difflocks. I've had a Subaru Impreza Gearbox in pieces recently (now sold) with a view to carrying out the reverse cut crown and pinion but as the producer has yet to carry out any testing on the product, I'll sit on the wall and watch for a while yet.
I have looked into using the Audi Quattro setup in the same way (I actually bought one, stripped it and looked into what would be needed), but for the same reasons, it was sold.
I've looked into using a variety of gearboxes from other vehicles, mounting a diff underneath the bellhousing and using a transfer box (like a stock Landrover etc) but there just isn't anything which is affordable (I say that loosely as I already have Syncro gearboxes lying around) and would fit into the Syncro chassis without a serious amount of fabrication. The work I've done in Limey is tiny in comparrison to fitting a totally different 4WD designed system to it.
In all the above gearboxes which run the opposite way to the direction that I need, I've also looked into using them along with reduction boxes at the hubs. I have a set of VW Split van reduction boxes kicking around from that idea but the ratio is only 1.4:1 and the expense in fabricating them to work reliably is more than I can afford. Plus I'd have to re-invent the brakes after fitting them and I've no idea actually how strong they are. I've also looked into Portal axles from Unimogs, Pinzgauers etc and even hubs from JCB 2CX or Telehandlers but 2nd hand they fetch about £500 each, they usually run internal oil covered brakes and again, the cost in fabricating everything to fit is astromonical. If I had a machine shop and enough time and knowledge to use everything, I'd serious consider it but then the van would be capable of a max speed of about 40mph as the reduction through these epicyclic hubs is somewhere between 4 and 6:1.
I haven't come around to the conclusion of using the stock Syncro 6.17s lightly as I don't think they're really strong to use long term, they're worth a lot more than the 4.86's (and right now I need money!!) and if I screw up a crown/pinion, I'm looking at $1500 for a new set from Albins.
I still don't know if the Subaru Hi-Lo reduction idea will work and unfortunately I don't have the necesary equipement to weld up gearbox housings so this will have to be farmed out = cost!
Ok everything costs but right now I'm hardly earning after moving to a new career and this is giving me a lot of time to think seriously about how I'm going to build this project without spending thousands on fabricating something which won't work.
Sorry for the long reply
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Worms
Samba Member
Joined: May 19, 2009
Posts: 279
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
Worms, why not use the Subaru setup? Simple, they don't go slow enough! If Subaru made a gearbox which meant I could drive at a lower speed than a 6.17 Syncro in G gear with 33inch tyres, I'd be buying one now! Also they don't have difflocks. |
Told ya I was a 2WDer
Have you thought of using a torque converter? maybe not the hole automatic, but a torque converter is good for torque multiplication / low speeds Save the clutch too. The Semi-Auto beetles did away with 1st gear and basically had 2nd, 3rd and 4th with a clutch and tourque converter . I'm just bouncing Ideas... I didn't say they were GOOD!
Allan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Allan,
Thanks for the idea. I've looked into using an auto transmission in conjunction with a completely different setup but again, there's nothing off the shelf which will come close to what the Syncro gearbox does.
Auto transmissions and Torque Convertors are the one area I have never looked into in the Automotive trade so I don't know enough about them to know what's possible.
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syncrogreg
Samba Member
Joined: November 08, 2009
Posts: 742
Location: USA (Nashville TN)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SyncroGhia wrote: |
Hi Allan,
Thanks for the idea. I've looked into using an auto transmission in conjunction with a completely different setup but again, there's nothing off the shelf which will come close to what the Syncro gearbox does.
Auto transmissions and Torque Convertors are the one area I have never looked into in the Automotive trade so I don't know enough about them to know what's possible.
MG |
Hi MG,
you can stop looking for my subaru boxer diesel as I found one! I bought it this morning and should receive it within 30 days. You could take a look of my thread in the future if you want to see some pics that I will upload soon.
GSB
_________________
conversions: www.boxeer.com Common rail TDI and NOW PDK transmissions!!
travel pictures:
http://instagram.com/crepeattack/
- the Pastis build: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=434656&highlight=subaru+diesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SyncroGhia
Samba Member
Joined: August 21, 2009
Posts: 2458
Location: Highnam, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still looking at this info as I may be having an engine swap around with vans.
I'm looking at using the 2.2 20V Turbo AAN into Limey and then an Audi 4.2 V8 into the Bluestar but only if I can get the 4.2 to sit under the stock lid.
The clearance issue from throttle body to bulkhead isn't an issue as I can move the whole lot (gearbox and engine) back to suit as the V8 is quite short.
MG
_________________
T3 Syncro 16 S6 Westfalia Limey SOLD
T3 Syncro 6x6 SOLD
T3 RS6 Bluestar
T3 Tristar Syncro 16 SOLD
T3 Tristar Syncro RHD SOLD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dredward
Samba Member
Joined: May 24, 2007
Posts: 1081
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hellenic vanagon wrote: |
Running for 5 years an AUDI 2.8 l, V6 (174 HP), withouy problems, I have learned my lesson: this power is not enough for the SYNCRO!
So I am going a new project SYNCRO & BITURBO V6 & MTM 4th stage= 420 bhp! (2.7 l AUDI S4),(Still under construction).
This is the beast:
On the car:
[b]Underneath & left intercooler
Left side exhaust & catalyst & fuel pump:
[b](Between others), differential's valvoline radiator
Right side exhaust:
|
Any up-dates?!
_________________
Cars owned: 1979/89 scirraco, 1983 gti, 1984 gti, 1986 gti, 1990 gli, 1989 cabriolet(2.0,16v conversion), 1992 gti, 1982 Westy, 1987 syncro Westy(w/ 1.8t conversion stg1 chip), and finally 2004 r32.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
