Date:         Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:20:38 -0700
Reply-To:     Evan Mac Donald <macdonald1987@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Evan Mac Donald <macdonald1987@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts on conversions (kinda LONG)
In-Reply-To:  <46756E94.70302@verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Yes, the rear controlarms ARE in the way. The inboard pivot points are too close together for anything except a Renault 5 engine & trans. BTMT

***************** <vw4x4@VERIZON.NET> wrote:   ""If a standard FWD new transaxle is put in, it results in 1 forward speed, and 4 or five reverse speeds. ""


How do you figure this??????? Moving a front wheel drive
to the rear would work perfect.
DO NOT rotate the drive train. Just move it to the rear. I've stated
that this would be the best
setup here before. VW should have done this. A buick/old/chevy 3.8
L would be perfect.
A Nisson Maximum engie and transaxle is very compact and would be my
second choice.
Mated at the axles, cutting the rear deck out, and height would be some
of the critical issues.
Otherwise your going to get the same gas milage with a ton more speed
and HP. Silghtly
increased weight would mean better traction. One issue I have not
looked at is the
room needed around the front of the engine. rear control arms may be in
the way. If not
this may be my next converstion.


JOE. w





Evan Mac Donald wrote:

>For whatever reason, lots of us are rather unhappy with the waterboxer. This leads to various engine substitutions, some more successful than others.
>
> But all of these still have a weak point - an "Achilles Heel", and that is that whatever engine you choose, you are still feeding the same transaxle! This transaxle forces whatever engine goes in there to run like a waterboxer - high RPM at most cruising speeds. This undoes most of the advantages of newer, more efficient engines, by forcing the newer engine outside its "best" zone. Most of the gearbox ratios can only be changed by a little. It helps, but does not solve the overall low ratio problem. If a standard FWD new transaxle is put in, it results in 1 forward speed, and 4 or five reverse speeds. This is a result of the differences in configuration and relation of engine/transaxle, and chassis between Vanagons and most other front-engine, front-drive vehicles.
>
> Here is an idea. Please help find the logical flaws, and then maybe work on the problems of practicality.
>
> Honda engines in general, rotate the opposite of just about every other engine. What say we take a Honda manual transaxle, and mate a newer, standard rotation engine to it. That should result in a newer, stronger engine, AND more efficient gearing. All of this going in the right direction! Some of the advantages should be parts and service availability and lower cost (than a Porsche transaxle, anyway!) A bad point might be that the trans won't take kindly to running "backwards" all the time. Bearing preloads, and gear face angles are all set up with a certain expected orientation, and reversing them all may not work.
>
>
> Not quite a Phrydae thought, but its out there...
>
>
>