ZF vs. Quiafe

[Kim Petersen]

Well, it appears that the transmission frustration visited upon so many others has befallen me and my SPF Mk I: The RBT ZF transmissions that Olthoff Racing had expected to be delivered are no where close to shipping. Apparently at a production rate still of only 3-4 per month, the demand continues to outstrip capacity.

Dennis is recommending a Quiafe box as a replacement for the ZF. He says that it is rated 100 ft/lbs more than the ZF and has a Torsen-type differential, which I gather is a good thing. The obvious benefit here would be near term availability. My car arrives next month.

The downside, from my lay perspective, is loss of a well known and much-heralded component the absence of which will affect the 'originality' and potential resale of the car. I'm also not clear about the relative strength and robustness of the Quiafe. Quite frankly I don't know a thing about them. For background, I'm installing an 351 strocker 427ci all aluminum engine from Keith Craft rated at about 578 hp.

Could anyone help to enlighten me (and others) about the pros and cons of going with a Quiafe tranny? My guess is that lot's of Superformance owners are going to face the choice of a Quiafe now or a ZF much, much later.

Thanks,

Kim

[chuck smith]

I cannot tell you any specifics on the differences or suitability of the Quiafe unit but I will comment that if it turns out to be a good replacement ,I would not hesitate to make the change. I personally have not been too impressed with the RBT ZF in my MK1 and would have no trouble moving to a different set up if it proved superior, if not as original.

[Ross Nicol]

I'd be interested in your ZF comments Chuck, always interesting to compare notes.Are you finding your ratios are not Ideal for touring on the road?
Ross

[Ross Nicol]

Kim I understand your dilemma.I just about fitted a Porsche G50 but jumped on the ZF when it came up at the right time.Quaife have a very good reputation though and I would feel confident their product will be good.
Ross

[jwelter]

Hi,

Last year we ran into serious issues with the drivetrain in our Ford RS200 rally car after upgrading to "E2+" configuration. The solution was a retrofit to a driveline by Quaife and it's been absolutely superb. We are running a Cossy BDT 2.2L powerplant that puts out over 700Hp and even with AWD and the brutal driveline shock encountered in rally cars the Quaife stuff has had zero failures.

I would not hesitate for a second over going with Quaife - I would suspect it is more costly than the RBT.

The other option is X-trac - we looked at them as well but not as well known.

Good luck!

JW

Originally Posted by kepetersen

Well, it appears that the transmission frustration visited upon so many others has befallen me and my SPF Mk I: The RBT ZF transmissions that Olthoff Racing had expected to be delivered are no where close to shipping. Apparently at a production rate still of only 3-4 per month, the demand continues to outstrip capacity.

Dennis is recommending a Quiafe box as a replacement for the ZF. He says that it is rated 100 ft/lbs more than the ZF and has a Torsen-type differential, which I gather is a good thing. The obvious benefit here would be near term availability. My car arrives next month.

The downside, from my lay perspective, is loss of a well known and much-heralded component the absence of which will affect the 'originality' and potential resale of the car. I'm also not clear about the relative strength and robustness of the Quiafe. Quite frankly I don't know a thing about them. For background, I'm installing an 351 strocker 427ci all aluminum engine from Keith Craft rated at about 578 hp.

Could anyone help to enlighten me (and others) about the pros and cons of going with a Quiafe tranny? My guess is that lot's of Superformance owners are going to face the choice of a Quiafe now or a ZF much, much later.

Thanks,

Kim

[chuck smith]

Ross, I would prefer some changes in my ring and pinion but that is not the reason for the discord on the ZF. It is not that it is a bad unit, but it is not that spectacular either. If any of these new units that are in development I am hearing about here on the forum work out, then I feel they would be perfectly acceptable to me when buying a car. I also agree that Kims choice of powerplant has already compromised the originality of the car so why worry about the tranny, it will be a great car regardless.

[Alan in Nevada]

If it were me, I would go with any useable transaxle reputed to be significantly stronger than the ZF. As I posted a week or two ago at Would this be sacrilegious? I have on good authority that the ZF doesn't hold up well to even 400-450 hp small-blocks when driven hard.

The information I've read is that a Torsen differential is a mechanical locking differential of tough and durable design, but expensive. I think that the military Humvee uses a Torsen differential. Google and Yahoo for Torsen and see what you find out, bearing in mind that a "Torsen-type" differential may not be exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by kepetersen

The downside, from my lay perspective, is loss of a well known and much-heralded component the absence of which will affect the 'originality' and potential resale of the car. For background, I'm installing an 351 strocker 427ci all aluminum engine from Keith Craft rated at about 578 hp.

Ford ran the ZF's only in the Mark I's with the 289 small-block at a rated 380 bhp. (The 485-500 bhp Mark II's and IV's had the Kar Kraft T44 transaxle. This should tell you something.) I would agree with Mr. Smith in that since you won't be running a "period" engine in your Mark I, I wouldn't worry about not running a "period" transaxle.

My question would be: Can Dennis Olthoff engineer the Quiafe transaxle into your car substantially as well as a ZF, and at a reasonable cost?

[Frank Catt]

Guys, we will be fitting one of the very first ZFQs to an SPF here in the UK, and as we are a few miles from the Quaife factory I am sure any problems will be resolved very quickly. As this development goes along we can keep you posted at every step, and give the first impressions in driving it. I am totally confident, as is Dennis Oltoff, that this will become the unit to use, as I am also not inspired by ZF/RBT in cars over 400BHP, although they work well they are not as good as we expect from the new box. I will certainly be trying to persuade existing ZF users to change over as and when necessary. Frank

[John Lowe]

Its worth checking out the ZFQ thread (Chris Melia) In manufacturer and company announcements and his web site. I am also eagerly awaiting Frank Catts feedback.

John

[Kim Petersen]

Guys:

I'm looking forward to this thread continuing, but I just have to thank Ross, Chuck, JW, and everyone else who have contributed their well-considered opinions on this topic. When I first heard that my choice was six weeks and a Quaife (correct spelling -- sorry for my earlier mistake) or six+ months and a ZF, I was truly bummed. But from what I'm hearing is an almost unanimous view that this has been a blessing in disguise: The Quaife unit is stronger and better than the ZF! Now I just have to determine the cost differential between the two ...

By the way, Dennis wrote me that the Quaife they will be using is "a direct replacement for the ZF". He's going to fill me in more next week, but I'm reading into this that Olthoff has sorted out the engineering issues, speaking to Alan's good point. I'll update you when I hear more.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there that would would rather wait half a year (or more) for the ZF rather than install a Quaife?

Kim

[Ron Earp]

Kim, have you had a look at the Manufactuer's Annoucements forum about the Quaife transaxle?

Ron

[Kim Petersen]

Thanks Ron! Great complimentary thread.

Kim

[jwelter]

I would not wait and go with the Quaife. I think Frank hit it on the head as well - people will be replacing ZF's with the Quaife unit as it will become the transaxle of choice.

So who's going to be the first to put 900Hp into a SPF GT?

JW

Originally Posted by kepetersen

Guys:

I'm looking forward to this thread continuing, but I just have to thank Ross, Chuck, JW, and everyone else who have contributed their well-considered opinions on this topic. When I first heard that my choice was six weeks and a Quaife (correct spelling -- sorry for my earlier mistake) or six+ months and a ZF, I was truly bummed. But from what I'm hearing is an almost unanimous view that this has been a blessing in disguise: The Quaife unit is stronger and better than the ZF! Now I just have to determine the cost differential between the two ...

By the way, Dennis wrote me that the Quaife they will be using is "a direct replacement for the ZF". He's going to fill me in more next week, but I'm reading into this that Olthoff has sorted out the engineering issues, speaking to Alan's good point. I'll update you when I hear more.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there that would would rather wait half a year (or more) for the ZF rather than install a Quaife?

Kim

[jwelter]

PS:

Quaife transmissions for motorsport

I suspect the unit is the 25G which doesn't have a link to the spec sheet yet....

JW

[Chris Melia]

Hi Guys

The ZFQ is a completely new transaxle specifically built to be a nut and bolt replacement for ZF, with GT40 configuration and ATB differential as standard. The ZFQ bolts directly to the ZF GT40 bellhousing and uses the same clutch, gear shift and output shafts.

Regards

Chris.

[Ron Earp]

This thread might be a good choice for the Transaxle forum.

R

[wanni]

GearFox VS RBT and Quaife shall be considered as well, in my opinion.
Only if I am not unpolite.
This looks a neutral thread

[Chris Melia]

Wanni

this is called thread hijacking.

read the thread title, ZF vs. Quaife.

regards

Chris.