|
|
#17
April 12th 2003, 23:59
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really don't mean to argue but something doesn't make sense. 10 lbs may make a difference..... fine. But if we're so concerned about weight, then why the Type 4? We all know you can get more power out of the same displaced T1 for less money and weight. You said the weight balances on the bellhousing anyway. That's the center of the car L to R. You'll obviously have more weight toward the rear...... 10 lbs. Move your battery to the front, and you've more than compensated. I would think you'd want the strongest parts for a race car, never mind a street car. I would think it would be much easier to save weight in body panels and such rather than sacrificing drivetrain longevity and/or reliability. BTW.... I have the KEP 915 to T1 flywheel.... not cheap!
__________________
Julian '74 Super "If you are under control you're going too slow" - Parnelli Jones 
|
|
#19
April 13th 2003, 15:29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not really, because I have done all the other weigth saving issues Julian mentioned already and for what the weigth of the type 4 itself is concerned: a type1 can not reach the same displacement of a type 4 period. This was my mean reason to go type 4 anyway: 2,7ltr is possible in a type 4 with 'street' reliability. Especially with a set of NOS Oettinger Nikasils :-) .
One further argument: an older mag cased 915 is way cheaper (at least over here, because the 911 2,7ltr cars are the least popular 911's) than the later alu cased gearboxes. The price is almost half! The money item is the least important in this case, for the same reason Julian swears to his alu cased 915: you want to make just the decision on such a project and for me that was the mag cased 915. In GB, a turbo'd type 4 with 911 heads and 300+hp drag races his stock magnesium cased 915 gearbox and hasn't broken anything after several seasons, so I don't believe I need even more strength. Tip: a G50 box is said to be even stronger... Well, each his own I guess. Walter
|
|
#20
April 13th 2003, 16:07
|
||||
|
||||
|
2.7L. or whatever. We're talking about a 10 lb. difference in the trans. making a difference. Whether you have a T4 or a T1 its still 10 lbs. My point with the T4 thing is that you really don't have a weight concern anyway. You said you'd use the mag case for the weight savings and sacrifice the strength. So why not use a T1 case and save some weight and sacrifice strength. A trans. is just as important as the engine. I'm no expert, but I know a 2.7 T4 is not a good choice for a "reliable street" engine. We also know that a T1 can't be built to the largest T4. Build a 1.9L T1 and a 1.9L T4. The T1 will get more power. My friend built a 1915 T1 turbo engine for less $$$ than an N/A, carburetted 2.7L, and will definitely out-perform it. AND....its streetable, not to mention it will last just as long if not longer. I have a 2276 T1 turbo engine that was around the same price as a T4 2.7 and will DEFINITELY outperform a 2.7L T1. Both engines have EFI, EMS, and dry sump systems included and are still cheaper. BTW.. I'm not against T4's either, I have one. So if you built a 1915 turbo T1, you'd be lighter, more powerful and would last just as long. AND you can still use the alu case. Again... I'm not saying mag cases are crap, I'm saying that the alum. is stronger. Its a fact. And 10 lbs. is really no big deal. There have been drag cars that use T1 boxes and they last for multiple seasons. The 915 overall is a strong box, mag or alum.
__________________
Julian '74 Super "If you are under control you're going too slow" - Parnelli Jones Last edited by lightning bug; April 13th 2003 at 16:10.
|
|
#21
April 13th 2003, 16:51
|
||||
|
||||
|
I did want to halt this 'debate'earlier, but was tempted again. I certainly will not go into a debate over which engine is better with respect to reliability of turbo's, turbo lag etc so I will stop here.
Like I said earlier, everybody has its own preferences, lets help each other with their respective projects and learn from other peoples experiences, rather than discuss what/which is better. Walter
|
|
#22
April 13th 2003, 17:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
That' fine with me. If you read my post completely, I mentioned the engines to compare the weight to their strength as to prove my point about the transmissions. I had no intention on going into a debate over engine reliability.
Quote: I certainly will not go into a debate over which engine is better with respect to reliability of turbo's, turbo lag etc so I will stop here. Not sure what you mean here either.
__________________
Julian '74 Super "If you are under control you're going too slow" - Parnelli Jones
|
|
#23
April 14th 2003, 15:04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello-
Just one quick point: the later boxes do _not_ necessarily have "better" gearing. It all depends what you want. The 3rd/4th/5th gear selections changed for the various 915 boxes, but the 1st stayed the same. As a result, the overall 5th ratio for the late and early boxes are very similar. The difference is that the spacing of the later boxes is closer, and the 1st gear is significantly taller. While the first point is definately good, the last one might not be. Let's look at some comparison numbers for 1st: Early VW box with 4.12 R&P: 33/8 x 38/10 = 15.68 Late VW box with 3.88 R&P: 31/8 x 34/9 = 14.65 Early 915 box with 4.43 R&P: 31/7 x 35/11 = 14.08 Late 915 box with 3.88 R&P: 31/8 x 35/11 = 12.32 More isn't necessarily better... Case in point: in my Fastback, my redline is going to be 9000rpm. The last thing I want is a really tall 1st gear! I'll accelerate better with an early box. Add that to the fact that my early box is a 923 (easy fitment with T4 components since it was on a 912E) and I have a winner. Take care,
__________________
Shad Laws Last edited by Shad Laws; April 14th 2003 at 15:11.
|
|
#24
April 14th 2003, 16:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the info Shad. I never said that the later had "better" gearing, just "stronger". Saying that one or the other has better gearing would be too vague. Strength on the other hand is a fact. If you look at my second post in this thread, it is all facts. And I gave my opinion based on facts. I don't want to start a war or get flamed or whatever, but I didn't start the debate. As said, I gave my opinion and it was contested. So I replied back. No hard feelings toward Wally or anyone else and I apologize if I came off too strong. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I really felt, and still feel strongly about mine. That is all.
__________________
Julian '74 Super "If you are under control you're going too slow" - Parnelli Jones
|
|
#25
April 15th 2003, 01:22
|
|||
|
|||
|
We all build our motors and trans for what we wish them to do. I have yet to see two engine combinations exactly the same. I am a weight freak. Yes the aluminum case is stronger, but I won't be running the power you are. I am looking for a fast reliable street car at a decent price. One problem is I bought the trans thinking it was a 901! It actually turned out for the good as it will bolt up to a T4 motor easier than a T1. The gear ratios are fine for me.
I was originally going to race this car; however my daughter wants a bug and she is going to end up with my daily driver leaving me to try to make my race car more docile. Next generation is an all out race bug.
|
|
#26
April 26th 2003, 13:28
|
||||
|
||||
|
good god you lot are so picky i have 2 cars 1 with mag case 915 1 with ally case 915 i coud not give a rats arse which one is better they are porsche boxes in vw bugs thats good enough for me . Lee L.A.P
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Linear Mode
