New Motor for RF GT40

[Ron Earp]

But not IDFs, which is what I have at the moment and am concerned about.

And, on your results the single plane with Holley (don't know which type of either) was over the Weber's results at 6900 RPM and was going up when you guys stopped at 7k. For my motor I've got more cam and RPM potential thus I'm thinking I'll see a bigger difference since I am really shooting for high RPM performance while trying to minimize low-end torque.

That thread is here, good stuff!!!!

http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/36834/an/0/page/0#36834

 

[Andy Besic]

Ron,
Although I don't know your exact gearing I understand your want for rpm because of a short overall final drive. I am wondering if your worry is unfounded in that the lack of total flow will only come after 6500 to 7000rpm in your motor capable of more rpm. I ask you could you not shift at 6500 or wherever your peak HP ends up 1st through 4th, be fast and easy on your motor but still have the ability to "overrev" your motor on a slight HP loss in 5th on tracks long enough to actually get to that RPM?
I am asking as driver with experience driving a GT40 with a Renault box that topped at 140mph with 410 hp that could only hit the 6500rpm limiter in 5th on Road America's long straight.
If you are going for 140mph+ on a track how do you plan to stop and turn the beast?
My .02 is tune the webers you have to give as much as they can, drive the car and I'll bet you will be looking for ways to stick and stop before you'll want more top end.
Bottom line is you gotta go with Webers. They look and sound like Paul Walton's Avatar /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Andy

 

[Tim Kay]

[ QUOTE ]
They look and sound like Paul Walton's Avatar


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell what she sounds like but who cares, she's got the look.
I just wish Paul would get her to turn around. This teasing has got to stop /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Bill Musarra]

Sandy and all,
I dug through my saved magazine articles and found this slightly old article in Engines Magazine which might be of interest to all about cam selection. Makes for an interesting read.
Ron, if this is an inapropriate post feel free to pull it and I will repost and send it to whomever wishes it.

Bill

<img src="http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/135/135525
/folders/197008/1684403Webcam1003.jpg">

 

[Ron Earp]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron,
Although I don't know your exact gearing I understand your want for rpm because of a short overall final drive. I am wondering if your worry is unfounded in that the lack of total flow will only come after 6500 to 7000rpm in your motor capable of more rpm. I ask you could you not shift at 6500 or wherever your peak HP ends up 1st through 4th, be fast and easy on your motor but still have the ability to "overrev" your motor on a slight HP loss in 5th on tracks long enough to actually get to that RPM?
I am asking as driver with experience driving a GT40 with a Renault box that topped at 140mph with 410 hp that could only hit the 6500rpm limiter in 5th on Road America's long straight.
If you are going for 140mph+ on a track how do you plan to stop and turn the beast?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I'm not really looking for top speed per say only in fifth, but long pulling time in gears 2-5 all around. With a sort of "standard" engine and a Audi box one would only have from around 4000-6200/6500 RPM to work with. By extending the engines' RPM limit I should have from around 4000-7500/7800 RPM to work with, more flexible and more enjoyable on the track to drive. Plus, the big bonus, it'll sound really good!

As far as top end with track like RA and VIR, well, our Z cars and BMW ITS cars hit 140mph now and stop and turn with no problem with higher weights than GT40s, less wide R rubber, and FAR inferior brakes. So I'm not worried about using the GT40 as a track car and since it is a track car and not race car I don't have to drive it full on all the time. I've got the race cars for "disposable" track time, the 40 will be for enjoyment/training instead of competition.

 

[Andy Besic]

Ron,

I see your point. The biggest problem with a short gearbox in our High hp/weight ratio is in any given gear redline comes to fast!
I can't wait to see and hear your car develop with your experience in racing road and strip.
Do you have an expected delivery yet?

Cheers,
Andy

 

[Ron Earp]

You're right on that - I imagine first will be useless on the all out acceleration, I believe the UK counterparts have found that to be true. I don't know about delivery date to be honest, I was thinking the first RF cars were coming in around October (mine is not in that bunch) but thus far I've not heard any news so I expect things have been delayed.

Ron

 

[Bill Musarra]

Ron ave you ever considered the 930 box for your car??

Bill

 

[Chris Kouba]

Bill,

Can you look into page 35? It appears as a red "x"- maybe the link is not valid? I am curious to read the whole article.

THANKS!!

Chris

 

[Ron Earp]

Hey Bill,

I've thought about all the boxes to be honest, but, I sort of stuck with the 016 for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that I want to objectively evaluate the box with a strong motor and see what happens. There is so much hearsay and bench racing about transaxles it is ridiculous.

So, I have a brand new 016 with a brand new Quaiffe - certainly about as good as it will get for the "average" GT40 builder considering a 016. I changed the motor to suit the box - lower torque rating, more rev capability, instead of changing the box to suit the motor. I'll put it together, evaluate it, and objectively let everyone know my experiences. If it just won't cut it then I'll put the feedback here and with RF and move on to a Porsche/ZF box and try again. All I need is a car to put it in!

 

[John B]

Not to hurt your feeling Ron... but it seems that it will be a waist of time and money to hear your results. There is enough data for the last 40yrs. to confirm that the ZF is the way to go for a high output motors. I think you will be adding to the "hearsay" by posting your results. Let me save you money and time. With your 016, rev it up to 3500 to 4000 and dump the clutch. I will bet that you will have a bunch of broken parts after 10 dumps when you get done.THERE! I just saved you money/time. You also stated that the BIGGEST reason you stuck with the 016 is to evaulate it. HUMMM! that is not a reason! A reason to stick with a certain box would be STREGTH,COST,REPAIR SIMPLICITY.ect..but not to evaluate it. So please spare the forum for which you did a excellent job creating. Don't clog it up with more BLAH..BLAH...BLAHHH with silly data which the normal person can reserch and find out on there own. OR.. Unless... your smarter than all of us backyard mechanics that need spoonfeeding.One thing for sure..and I will be honest. You didnt think about all the boxes. You stuck with the 016 because its the cheapest bang for the buck...be honest! with yourself and the readers before you insult us with your RESEARCH. I dont' want to offend you but please.Even with the standard Gt40..you dump the clutch or up shift at high rpms you will blow that tranny with a short period of time. I went with the 01E and then changed to the ZF because of the information that has already provided on your awsome forum.

Regards

 

[Tim Kay]

Gee Oliver, how is it in the short time you have been posting here it seems all you have to offer is blatant criticism. This forum has been very informative to all, and to your own admission, even yourself. Simply put, if it weren't for continual "evaluation" how could we improve.

Ron, I apologize for Oliver (hope this doesn't turn into another Oliver Twist Comedy Hour) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[John B]

I only make comments to those who make silly redundant comments. This includes your comment being silly. I have more positive comments than negitive. I'm only saying things that are true. You must not have read my response very well because what I said is true. Was it not? You appologize to ron for me..I appologize to you to because he must have you in his back pocket protecting him. like a dog on a leash.. I challenge you regarding my staments as incorrect regarding rons statment. I will bet you can't..By the way, what tranny are you running?


Oliver

 

Well, stap me. The bloomin Troll is bak an he asn't lurned ani noo spellin or maners yet. Oi troll man, doan yoo shout at mi maites and doan be rood all th fkin tyme. jus chill out an stop been bossi. Iss a obby rite? Iss for relacksashun and stuff, not gettin orl unfrendli an angst up. Bes fing yoo can do is go bak to yor troll hole.

 

[Brett James-McCall]

Oliver, Or whoever you are today,
I am intrigued what incident in your life has caused you to have so much anger and frustration in your life. Whilst I have watched your posts with considerable interest, I have to admit that I have become subject to the Halo and Horns approach in interview techniques - this has mainly stemmed from your Shoutbox efforts and futher aginast Fali F, who I would consider a (virtual) friend. I now grit my teeth wondering which other member of our community you are wishing to try and attack/belittle today. You may have a point that you come out with some facts and information. However, for me it has become white noise around the rest of your posts.

Whilst you have the right to express your views and opinions like all the other members here, please try to remember that when someone writes something down to another, it maybe that they are personal friends in real life and they understand the undertones that are not there in the absence of body language/tone/facial expression.

I and many others offer apologies for people here on the forum, not because they are dogs on leashes as you you so 'kindly' put it; but because they consider most of the people they interact with to be friends; it certainly is the case for me.

Chill out man, life's too short.

Brett

 

[Hershal Byrd]

Oliver,
It is very disparaging to see a fellow enthusiat post this way. We all like to think that each of us are capable of posting without mild or strong ridicule. Respect for one anothers thoughts and opinions whether right or wrong. ask questions and state your case but please try some diplomacy.
Dr. Earp is one of my closest friends. He enjoys a good debate as well as the next guy. His opinion is highly regarded as he is a scientist and knows the proper procedures for running tests and comparisons. The most amazing thing about Ron is his easy going and likeable candor. Although you have never met him, you should look forward to the honor.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from here.

Hersh /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Mike]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless... your smarter than all of us backyard mechanics that need spoonfeeding.One thing for sure..and I will be honest. You didnt think about all the boxes. You stuck with the 016 because its the cheapest bang for the buck...be honest! with yourself and the readers before you insult us with your RESEARCH. I dont' want to offend you but please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oliver, or whomever you are, if you had any sense you'd know the motor that Ron has assembled is about a $13,000 motor. I sort of doubt that the choice between a $2,000 transaxle or $7500 transaxle would stop him from having whichever one he wanted.

Rob Anders
just looking....

 

[John B]

I respect peoples sugestions. As long as is stated once. Not again and again again again again ect... I'm sure the doc is a nice guy like me. But a scientist? A scientist reserches and applies a theory to what has been learned. The scientist should have read his own forum before like he has stated to other people regarding redundant information. The stament was not to be hurtful...only factual. All these shouts have been attacking me as I write the truth. Not one shout has been to dispute the stament that I made regarding the good Doctor.

Oliver

 

[John B]

13,000 is a cheap motor. Sorry!

 

[Ian K]

Oliver, please note what Ron said:

[ QUOTE ]

I've thought about all the boxes to be honest, but, I sort of stuck with the 016 for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that I want to objectively evaluate the box with a strong motor and see what happens. There is so much hearsay and bench racing about transaxles it is ridiculous.

So, I have a brand new 016 with a brand new Quaiffe - certainly about as good as it will get for the "average" GT40 builder considering a 016. I changed the motor to suit the box - lower torque rating, more rev capability, instead of changing the box to suit the motor. I'll put it together, evaluate it, and objectively let everyone know my experiences. If it just won't cut it then I'll put the feedback here and with RF and move on to a Porsche/ZF box and try again. All I need is a car to put it in!


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like he's doing his research, has altered his
motor to fit the transaxle, and is looking forward to
evaluating his results firsthand.

But, as to your standards for reasons why to stick with a
certain box:

STRENGTH - Ron is waiting to apss judgment here. The 016 is
definitely capable of handling under 400 lbs/ft, so his set up
is not much of a stretch here.

COST - The 016 is by far the cheapest alternative. Fitting
any other transaxle on an RF is going to cost you time, money,
and effort - it's built around the Audi.

REPAIR - Again, the 016 wins here - cost to repair any of the
other beefier transaxles surely outweighs the replacement cost
of an 016 (under $300 at most wrecking yards).

SIMPLICITY - He already has the 016 and all necessary adaptors
and mounts for it. What's more simple than that?

So, since all four of those parameters are met, Ron can
easily "evaluate" the box all he wants. The issue of which transaxle
has been done to death in this forum, so rest assured, Ron has
done his research so far.

And name-calling with respect to the guy who started this forum
in the first place is in very bad taste.

Ian