transaxle in 2002 GT40

G

Guest

Guest

• Jan 21, 2002

• #1

Guys,

What do we know about the "6 speed Tremec RBT" transaxle in the 2002 GT40 as reported in the latest Car and Driver?

Anyone have a website on this one?

 

G

• Jan 22, 2002

• #2

$15,995.95
All synchro-mesh gears
Limited Slip is standard
165 pounds in weight
Can be run upside down
The ring gear can be flipped
Can equip with 94 mm CV joints

Gear Ratios for the RBT-6
3.7 Ring and pinion
1st gear: 2.86
2nd gear: 2.06
3rd gear: 1.47
4th gear: 1.18
5th gear: 0.958
6th gear: 0.704
Optional 6th gear: .642
http://www.pim.net/rbt6.html

That is what I can find regarding the RBT 6 trans.

 

C

• Jan 22, 2002

• #3

Hi all

6 speed ZF is nice but how about the Quaife?

 

C

• Jan 22, 2002

• #4

The new Quaife MK2 6 speed Sequential Transaxle Gearbox, for £8675 or the MK1 for £7975 go to www.quaife.co.uk Tese boxes are happy upto 700BHP and will run inverted. orders of Five or more and you get 20% discount.

Chris

 

C

• Jan 22, 2002

• #5

You can also go to www.quaifeamerica.com
If you can get the price in the USA then please post.
Chris

"]http://www.quaifeamerica.com/transmissions/transax.htm[/IMG][/url]

 

C

• Jan 22, 2002

• #6

play it again Sam

 

W

• Jan 22, 2002

• #7

Converted is $12,951 for the sequintial and $11,906 for the regular.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Wayne Presley ]

 

D

Dave Wharran

• Jan 22, 2002

• #8

Yep, looks like an RBT (ZF) transaxle set up for a GT40, ie inverted from what the Pantera runs. The cover looks like a kissin' cousin to the one I just bought from Lloyd for a ZF-2. The axles look to be set up for CV joints instead of the universal joints the Pantera uses. The ZF's built for BMW M1's also used CV joints and a different mainshaft than the Ford compatible unit. Last I talked to Lloyd, all the internal parts from a -2 box would fit into an M1 housing...and in fact if a new housing were ordered, it would be an M1 casting that is a bit stronger than the -2.
The 6 speed box hasn't been out all that long.
see http://www.rbttrans.com/


The pictures of the gearbox in the Pantera http://www.pim.net/rbt6.html show it in its upside down (or rightside up depending on your point of view!) configuration.
Dave

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: DaveWharran ]

 

M

Mark Worthington

• Jan 23, 2002

• #9

Here's a picture of the transaxle that Ford used in the 2002 GT40 concept. Looks different than the pictures of the RBT 6-speed. I believe the Car and Driver article said the transaxle was a Tremec/RBT 6 speed.

 

W

• Jan 23, 2002

• #10

Ok, why would the trans be inverted on a pantera but not a gt40?

 

Peter Delaney

GT40s Supporter

• Jan 23, 2002

• #11

Good question Wayne - I know that Porsche G50 units need to be inverted as they used to run infront of the engine in those "squashed Volkswagens". But why would a Pantera unit need to be inverted unless the 351 runs in the opposite direction from a 302 (unlikely, I would have thought).

(Forgive my amateur status in these things, but I am still trying to understand the info in the thread relating to cross-over headers - brain-strain !).

 

B

Bob Putnam

• Jan 23, 2002

• #12

For the GT, the transaxle was inverted to lower the engine relative to the axle centerline. CG and height advantages.

It required a very shallow pan or a drysump to maintain a reasonable ground clearance. Fortunately, the ZF case allows the ring gear to be switched to the other side of the pinion quite easily - like an early VW bug.

The transaxle was also used in a couple of industrial applications (what the heck is a Fendt Roller?), using the "inverted" configuration like the Pantera.

 

R

• Jan 23, 2002

• #13

I believe an inverted RBT-5/6 box would position the driveshaft centerline something like this (and please correct me if I am wrong!!)
Sump height= 5.5",(ground clearance) + 5" (crank centerline above floor) +3" ( diff center above input shaft)= 13.5".
Rear tyre loaded radius: probably about 320 mm, or 12.6".
Therefore the driveshafts would have 0.9" droop to the hubs at static ride height...
And probably around none flat out in 1st gear!
Rob

 

W

• Jan 23, 2002

• #14

Thanks, I had not considered the necessary offset between the the pinion and ring gear centerlines with helical gears.

 

C

Gary Gibbs

• Jan 23, 2002

• #15

I wonder if G-Force would be interested in a transaxle design based on their ultra strong 5 speed racing transmissions. They currently produce for a relatively small high paying market. Their transmissions are rated at ~1500 hp and 16,000 rpm with clutchless shifts. They are used by most prostock teams and thus see a lot of abuse, etc. They offer mag cased versions, etc. It would seem that there is a good market for a ultra high strength transaxle.

 

L

• Feb 15, 2002

• #16

CCX: Those things are HEAVY

 

C

Gary Gibbs

• Feb 18, 2002

• #17

Their GF-5R five speed (lightweight version with magnesium case) is 100 lb with shifter. That does not seem to heavy. Not sure how much the diff, etc. add to the final weight.
What are the typical weights of the other useable transaxles?

 

G

Guest

Guest

• Feb 19, 2002

• #18

Believe they range from 90 lbs (Porsche 914)
to 140 lbs (ZF), so 100 lbs isn't too bad for
just the trans.

The problem is that transmissions bear little
resemblance to transaxles. The only thing reusable is probably the gears. The shafts, ring and pinion, and case and other internals would have to be tooled up.
The tooling costs could easily be $ 100k
or more and for such little volume (how many would they sell a year?) most companies
are not interested.

Of course if someone has a friend at G-Force
and can convince them to do this as a labor of love, who knows!

MikeD