Engine and Transmission availability UK

Rick Chattell · 05-04-04, 08:35 AM

Hi Guys,

Just a thought. I am always interested to hear where people have sourced engines and trannies from and how much they have paid for them.

Would it be a good idea if we had a resource on the web of suppliers, costs and feedback from those who have used them. I am thinking that this would be of huge help to those future owner/builders, who need to ensure quality and value for money.

Apologies if this has been done before, but if it has, I can't find it!

Best,

Rick [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Ron Earp · 05-04-04, 08:38 AM

German Transaxle, in Oregon (US), has brand new Audi boxes for about $1200 each. Still have some, I think. Search this forum, you'll find their info when I posted it last year.

Ron

Malcolm · 05-05-04, 05:04 AM

In the latest edition of the GTD40 Club magazine Terry Hoyle Engineering are selling some new crate engines. The prices are not published but I understand that to move them the haggling start point would be about £2500.

Lynn · 05-05-04, 10:39 AM

Ron,

Wow, $1200 each? Doesn't this make the "if it breaks, I can buy 10 Audi Trannies for the price of one Porsche/ZF/RBT/what have you" argument a bit weaker since it was made at a time when they were ~$300.00 each.

If the price of these transaxles has quadrupled in a couple of years, people may want to start considering a stronger transaxle since there is no longer such a huge price difference. Or are used ones still readily available for the ~$300 price range? Whadayathank?

Regards,
Lynn

andys · 05-05-04, 01:00 PM

Lynn,

$1200 is actually a very good price for a brand new gearbox. If you were to buy a lot quantity, the price drops to about 1/3 of that; a risk few dealers are willing to take. To date, seems few or no complaints regarding durability have been leveled againt the 016 (anyone?). The good news is that rebuild costs (should there be a need) at German Transaxle are nothing less than very reasonable.

Andy

Malcolm · 05-06-04, 07:29 AM

Rising gearbox costs is not necessarily new. The renault box rocketed in price, new and second hand, when Lotus chose it for their V8 Esprit. Price doubled overnight for a new box! Possible slight exaggeration but you get the drift!

The only query I had thought was relevant on the Audi boxes was in the lower gear ratios, not durability. However I thought Ron recommended to use a diesle gear set as it had longer legs than a petrol derivative. Not an Audi expert as am a biased Renault user!

Ron Earp · 05-06-04, 08:10 AM

$1200, that was for a brand new one in the crate. You can still buy them used, and for less than $300. I've bought a few for people over the years and shipped to to them (NOT the diesel boxes which I got from Germany and don't mess with anymore) for various prices: $125, $250, $175, $225, $160 depending on the yard. Yep, I think you can still get 10 for the price of a good Porsche setup! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Iron Sheik · 05-06-04, 12:16 PM

Three of us here in US will be receiving (from UK) 3 Renualt UN1s for about $400 each (don't know the shipping cost yet). The Renault boxes weigh under 100lb each. With a 3.44 final and a useable first gear.

Ron, what kind of box to you have in your Lotus? Is it the UN1?

Jerry · 05-06-04, 01:36 PM

Rick,
the cheapest place for engines in U.K. that ive found so far is Real Steel. The price they quote in their adverts for a 302 GT-40 SVO new engine assembly is £3148 (£2822 if your in their gold club) these prices include VAT. Water pump, dizzy and inlet manifold are not included which cost about £380.
If any body knows of any cheaper then let us all know!!!
Real Steel can be contacted on 01895 440505.

Malcolm · 05-07-04, 05:45 AM

Jerry

The enigines I mentioned above will not have VAT charged on them. They are also complete from filter to sump plug with all ancillaries. Apparently one 302 has now been sold.

Lynn · 05-07-04, 12:27 PM

Thanks for clarifying for me everyone. To me the bottom line is that the Audi transaxle is a valid and viable option as a midengine transaxle for use with a V8 engine. My mantra has always been that "when building a midengine car, the transaxle always has been and probably always will be the real issue." So, the more choices that are out there the better. So, when I saw the $1200 Audi price on scanning Ron's post (vs reading it :-), I was concerned.

Someone else made the point that with any transaxle you chose, unless you are willing to spend large piles of cash, you will always want to be judicious with the throttle on launch. So, while torque specs may say one thing, the practical use of the available transaxles is just not that much different. Another point to make on the ability of a transaxle to handle torque is this: if you had a number of cars, each with a different transaxle and a magic engine that you could obtain infinite torque from, and you jacked up the rear end and you applied increasing amounts of torque, each transaxle would reach a point where something would break. These points would certainly be different, but I feel pretty confident it would be a value larger than the specified torque capability. My point is that the weight of the GT40 will be directly proportional to the point at which a given transaxle will break upon the application of increasing torque values. And I said all of that to say this, the Audi and other transaxle have been used in GT40 replicas successfully for a while now and, as the length of time that they continue to be used increases, the more confidence a prospective builder can have with his choice. I think that this is a more appropriate way of deciding which gearbox to use vs published torque rating data.

While I picked a Porsche (my chassis was designed aroung this) I am hardware agnostic. My earlier post might seem to indicate otherwise.

Regards,
Lynn

StuartB · 05-09-04, 10:33 PM

Lynn, we have found that it seems to be more related to the type of engine and the traction that the car can achive, more than just an outright torque figure produced by the engine.
As an example, a gearbox that is fine behind a 4 cylinder engine producing, lets say 300bhp/300Lb torque, and by all accounts doing just fine cannot be relyed on to be fine behind a V8 engine producing exactly the same power, and you`ll find that if you put that same gearbox behind a V12 with the exactly the same power it won`t last the day out, nothing kills a transmission like a V12.
We think that it`s just a result of pulsing, they may be less in intensity but they are absolutley relentless, think of the process in slow motion, metal that is being twisted and hammered needs a degree of recovery time, if it can`t have it, it will break. If you then start to take into account all the variations of what you can transmit BACK into that box from the fat grippy rubber that was never in the design spec` for what that gearbox was going to be fitted to in the first place you start to get an idea of how relavant published torque figures realy are.
But then I could be wrong [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Lynn · 05-10-04, 09:49 AM

Stuart, no doubt you are right. The torque figures are good guide of relative strength. And, no doubt the kind of engine will result in different breaking points. Again increasing the coefficient of friction by using sticky tires will change the breakage point. All of these variables will have an effect on where the exact breakage point will be, as does the weight of the vehicle. And that was the point I was trying to make, I suppose, however in-elegant I did it :-) The torque figures are a guide only since they don't say N ft lbs with infinite resistance or with 0 resistance for that matter (other than the internal mass of the mechanism). And this maybe exactly where I am errant in my thinking: perhaps the torque figures do have an implied conditional setting that I am not aware of? If anyone has the answer to this, please edify me/us! Lacking this, the one thing that remains constant and directly proportional to the relative breaking point through out is the weight of the vehicle. (Well actually the mass, but I think we can agree that we'll calculate this on earth at sea level in a period of relative galactic calm.) So, the bottom line to this point is: Your mileage may very. Or, although the your transaxle may have a figure of 286 ft.lbs. torque it may happily deal with 350ft lbs. No doubt it will break before a transaxle rated for 350 ft. lbs. would, but neither of them may break until 450 ft. lbs is applied. (And, I gaurantee that shorter the time period over which it is applied to more likely will the breakage be. Do the terms shock loading or clutch popping ring a bell.)

Regards,
Lynn

andys · 05-10-04, 02:39 PM

How power pulses affect the gearbox is something Scott at Rennegade Hybrids has much experience with. Many of their conversions are for the 914 V8 that utilize the stock 901 gearbox. As such, they've discontinued a GM V6 kit, since these motors (even fire V6's) destroy the gearbox much sooner that a mild V8. Give RH a call if you need more info.

I think you guy's have hit it right; vehicle weight and tire size mostly dictate the point at which breakage will occur. As for shock loading; how about the BMW style rubber donut CV? I don't know much about them, but perhaps this would help to minimize it.

Andy

Trevor Booth · 05-11-04, 10:46 AM

Noted with interest the comments on gearbox selection. From a dumb engineers point of view. Torque is torque no matter how applied, the gearbox loading is directly proportional to the ability of the wheels tyres suspension of the vehicle to transmit torque. weight is not the critical factor but traction is, consider a 1000 kg vehicle with 195 section tyres or a 500 kg vehicle with 315 section tyres. they both could have similar traction values. If you have an engine with 400 Nm of torque and a traction ability of 200Nm of torque that is all that the transmission load will be. Naturally you will have lots of wheelspin and blue tyre smoke!! On the subject of different engine types destroying gearboxes, this is due to the harmonics of the engine which can be likened to a reversal of torque and producing a cyclic load on the gearbox at a high frequency. Different engines produce different harmonic frequencies at different RPM which are called 1st, 2nd, 3rd (etc) order harmonics. This is what does the damage. Engine/Driveline designers use varying means to dampen those harmonics, Harmonic balancers on the front of the engine, springs in the clutch plate, counter rotating balance shafts etc. It is a very complex area and not easily,quickly or cheaply solved. The voice of experience of other users is a good guide. Fortunately V8 are relatively easy on transmissions in the harmonics area, a well balanced engine with the right Clutch plate and a harmonic balancer is a good start. But it will all go out the window ( or in this case the gearbox)if you repeatedly drop the clutch at 4000 RPM. I understand that the Kar Kraft transmission used in GT40's had std ford internals , why do you think that was.

StuartB · 05-12-04, 08:58 PM

`I understand that the Kar Kraft transmission used in GT40's had std ford internals , why do you think that was.`

Bloody penny pinching accountants [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Robert Logan · 05-13-04, 07:56 AM

Maybe Kar Kraft worked it out that the Ford 9" diff is the best and I believe this is why Holden (General Motors) use the FORD 9" diff on their V8 Touring Cars here in Australia. For those Holdenites out there who would try to tell us all that the diff's are from Harrop Engineering, go and visit their workshop and look for yourselves at the internals and even the center housing and then tell me which is the BEST !!!!!!!!!!

Go FORD,

Best wishes,

Robert