Printable View
But the Raptor kit (which is the only commercial kit available for subaru engines) is a centrifugal S/C so it wont give you much if any more low end power, you would have to use a Roots/Twinscrew/or maybe a Rotrex to see any low end benefit but all of this would require quite a bit of custom fabrication (its been done before though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve91T
Frankly i think a SCed ej22e would be a great little workhorse.
These small turbos provide huge area under the curve in the low end. I don't think you guys quite understand that. In an 1800lb or less car there is apt to be too much low end torque with small stockish turbos.
I am trilled to hear about the 818. Before i was planning on doing a 33 with a coyote and still may. The subaru engine is a little underwhelming. Crappy fuel econ for the power given. If the plan is to put a tdi in it then why not also do a vw 2.0l turbo. I will be interested to see what kind of fuel econ the subaru engines can get with less weight and only driving two wheels. Anything around 30mpg hwy would be awesome.
btw, looks like Bullet Cars did come out with a Rotrex SC based kit recently.....
http://www.bulletcars.com/supercharg...er-system.html
Haven't seen anything about this till now, but i am a huge fan of Rotrex SCs...
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned a rotary engine
^ probably because it doesn't have a simple transmission to use... otherwise i agree that it would be a really fun engine for an 818 sized car NA or Boosted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SccrMan13
go back a pageQuote:
Originally Posted by StatGSR
I believe you can fabricate an adapter plate to mount a rotary right to the Subaru transaxle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niburu
I know Kennedy Engineery has them for VW transaxles http://kennedyenginc.com/OtherAdaptions.aspx
so it's not a big stretch to think it could be done.
You people worried about 'low-end' are amazing. If you have lag, you're in the wrong gear. Adding the parasitic loss off a blower is no improvement. My plan on dealing with the horrible laggy power band of the little 4 cylinder is to DRIVE it.
I'm not worried about low end, it was just a question.
But I will argue that there is no such thing as too much low end tq. More low end tq will allow a higher gear around a race track, which means less shifting, which means faster lap times.
Steve
...Says the guy with a stroked SBC and a tweaked Powerstroke. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve91T
There's a lot of ways to go fast. Your example could be illustrated by pointing to the Audi R10 and it's 800+ lb-ft but I've personally watched the Penske Porsches slice and dice the mighty Audis with their <300 lb-ft at Laguna. The transaxle in the R10 is heavy because... wait for it... they make a metric @$$load of torque!
All this alternative engine talk is navel gazing unless you consider the total package. Trying to turn the EJ engines into something they aren't is a waste of time. It's a great powertrain, try it out before deciding it's not sufficient.
I doubt there is space but a audi a4 2.0l with front track might have worked as far as the layout is concerned. I am kind of underwhelmed with the subaru engines. They seem to be relatively expensive to play with. The new focus st engine would be good fun.
Attachment 5308 ... this hammer should be big enough ... LOL
Which would lead to the question: which weighs more, your wallet or your 818? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slopoke
beer .. all that hardware and its still under 275 pounds .... w/1K hp there would certainly be no wallet of substance after that purchase ... LOL
I'll believe it. Did not mean to suggest it was a heavy engine, simply that it would take cubic feet of dollars to pay for it... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slopoke
about 32K pounds sterling ... ( roughly 52K US )
So is this custom or... which shop did it come from? I have a Griggs '96 Cobra (1G sideways) in need of some attention...
it's a Hartley V8 with all the hardware from Holeshot Racing. The motors are made in southern Wisconsin and Holeshot Racing I believe is somewhere in the UK. Just type H1-v8 in your browser and google holeshot racing for the TT version
Yeah, most FWD traverse engine cars would work great for a mid-engine swap. To a certain extent, it makes more sense in terms of simplicity to use a traverse engine: No center diff to remove, you can re-use the donor shifter linkages etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by 16g-95gsx
However FWD cars don't have rear hubs with input spindles for drive axles. Thus, Subaru based kits make more sense, you get the input spindle on the rear wheels and don't have to worry about finding rear hubs that take the same axle or modifying existing axles to adapt them in length and spindle size with another model. Even when swapping Subaru transmissions with other Subaru transmissions between different Subaru models, that axle/spindle mating dance is one of the more painful challenges to overcome.
But if someone wanted a powerful, durable naturally aspirated 4 cylinder, there are many better donor options than Subaru drive trains and all of them are traverse FWD setups. N/A Subaru's have always lagged behind the industry in power and efficiency vs. the competition. Even the new Impreza had to sacrifice power to catch up to the fuel economy of everything else in it's class. Meanwhile Hyndai's 2.0T puts out more power than the current WRX and has better fuel economy than the base Impreza.
I think Dave said longer term he wanted this chassis to accept a wide range of donor powertrains. Since it's already being developed for TDI's or Ecoboosts, that opens up the options in terms of having room available, sounds like the space will be there. The challenge will be the axles, suspension linkages and hubs, getting them the right length and size to match up and having the proper clearances to put a drive axle through the suspension parts. I feel confident that FFR can work it all out though.
Considering DSS already makes custom drivetrain parts for FFR's other platforms I don't think it would be hard to get a set of custom axles done up using Subaru outter splines. Again, I understand it's more work, but this is what I enjoy doing so immediately my mind goes away from what I am directly given but rather what the end result CAN be.
I think you mean "transverse"Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonDrums
Ah yea, same difference. Traverse has the same definition "something that lies across" I always get them mixed up. At least I didn't say trans-gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by crackedcornish
Even with the Subaru drivetrain, custom CV shafts or custom CV parts are going to be required.
The front shafts fit the transmission, but not the rear hubs. The rear shafts fit the hubs, but not the transmission.
So I'm not getting why rear hubs from the Subi need to be used. For that matter almost any fwd engine/trans/spindle/brake system could be used as a whole unit. Just don't steer the hubs. Lock the toe using what ever method the designer wants. F5 is designing the suspension. I think they should add a link to fix the toe and use the big brakes from the front of the Subi on the rear. That way F5 can put huge brakes on the front. Win-win...
isn't that what Pontiac did with the Fiero?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelff
They need to be used because this is a low-cost single-donor car. The front hubs from the donor need to be used as well as the rears. Can't steer the rears, so those have to go in the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelff
As far as brakes, my humble guess is that the WRX brakes will be overkill for most builds. I'm interested to see how FFR deals with the brake bias issue resulting from moving the brakes from a front-engined porker to a mid-engined flyweight, but bigger brakes is unlikely to be the answer.
There were hints at the Open House that a brake manufacturer (Wilwood?) might get involved. Not sure what that'll mean for the base kit, but it'll be interesting.
What I was hearing from the previous posts was the stock rear hubs were going to be used in the rear of the 818 with fabrication of axles or.....
I really hope that this design is well thought out and done well. I wouldn't expect anything less than that from F5.
Having major companies involved is a huge plus. They know that if their products are used in the base kit they sell parts too. Wilwood, awesome. I'm guessing that's one of the reasons that Ford is providing engineering too. I'm sure that Ford would love to sell a drop in engine/trans/axle/hub package.
Just shows the power of doing good engineering and putting out a great product. Others want to hop on board.
If you look at the chassis as displayed at the Open House, it's pretty clear that's exactly what they did. They just left out the axles :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelff
That's news to me. I know Dave has talked about putting a Ford gas-sipper in there at some point, but where did you read that Ford is providing engineering support?Quote:
I'm guessing that's one of the reasons that Ford is providing engineering too. I'm sure that Ford would love to sell a drop in engine/trans/axle/hub package.
Dave said that he was "working with Ford engineers" on the possibility of allowing a Direct Injection Ford motor in the 818
well maybe after you convert it to single turbo.... in stock form i hear the VOD (Valley of Death) in the power band is quite horrible... maybe it wouldn't be so bad in something like the 818 though, but if you want to upgrade that engine the first thing you should do is ditch one of the turbos...Quote:
Originally Posted by 16g-95gsx
can the rotors and calipers be swapped front to rear on a wrx?Quote:
Originally Posted by thebeerbaron
^ you still want larger front brakes regardless of where the engine is.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebeerbaron
$40 adjustable prop valve?
One of the things that Mustang guys used to do was take the front calipers and move them to the rear then, put bigger calipers on the front saving the purchase of rear calipers... I like having a proportioning valve on my car anyway. If Dave is talking to FRP Ford Racing Products engineers, they are the group that sells crate motors and the standalone harnesses to go with them. Good move on Dave and F5's part.
My 2cents, if there were Wilwood calipers peeking thru the wheel I would be happy!!!
The Subaru brakes cannot be swapped front-to-rear.
My (educated) *guess* is that CV shaft conversion parts are cheaper than brake conversion parts, especially if FFR can get the volume up.
Yes, you still need larger brakes up front with mid-engined balance - however the F/R size ratio should be alot closer on the 818 than a stock Subaru. Maybe WRX rears and non-turbo Impreza fronts would be a good comprimise?
The closer you can get to "proper" balance without a proportioning valve, the better the brakes will feel (confidence and modulation) across the range from slow stop to emergency braking. ("proper" is not static and changes depending on intended usage, weight transfer, tire sizes, car balance, etc..)
A pressure limiting proportioning valve (the most common type) is usually set up for threshold braking. This allow proportionately more rear bias as brake pressure is decreased. Obviously this can get pretty funky in trailing throttle situations. This is one reason the Electronic Brake Force Distibution was widely accepted on performance cars early on, even on cars that eschewed full on Stability Control for a while.
I feel a twin turbo setup on a 4 cyl is a horrid idea in the first place. I would plan to replace any of the overly heavy factory manifolds and turbo setup with aftermarket tubular components anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by StatGSR
I for one would love to see the four banger from the new focus st as an option. I had been planning on building a hot rod with the new 5.0 which should get great fuel econ since it already does so well on the much heavier mustang, but the price point is much lower on this. I think part of me says that if i am gioing to spend that much time and money on a car i want it to be all new stuff.
All this "turbo lag" and "lack of displacement" talk again... Sheesh.
STOCK STI in 6th gear, doing 65mph on the highway, will reach min boost (1psi) almost instantly, and will climb to peak boost before you can even check the gauge to watch it.
Do turbo engines have "turbo lag"? Yes. But I've said this a million times already, they don't make any less power under the curve when compared to NA counterparts, as can be seen in dyno, after dyno, after dyno. The more power you ask it to make with extra PSI, the more ON/OFF the power will become. Asking a 2.5 liter engine to make 700hp will never look like getting a 7 liter NA engine to 700hp. That doesn't mean it can't be FASTER on the track. It's just about a SYSTEM configuration.
In the end, the 818 will get out of it's own way even at 35mph in top gear. It's just simply physics and I've seen the real worlds results to back it up. A 2.5L turbocharged motor in a 1800 pound vehicle will have ZERO issues being a very pleasant street car, even at 400+ whp. In fact, I've driven a 600+hp 3 liter 2500 pound vehicle that was probably the MOST streetable car in that power to weight range I've ever been in. I'd gladly give the keys to that car to my wife, or even grandma. A well setup SYSTEM when it comes to a turbocharged vehicle will still be so responsive that someone like your wife will never want to put the pedal to the metal. It's simply TOO responsive still. Same as how a big V8 makes someone ginger with the throttle, a high HP turbo engine isn't much different, especially if the displacement is still decent for the weight of the vehicle.
To those questioning if the 818 is "right" with the scoobie engine, just wait until there's videos posted of them complete. I won't be surprised to see people putting down low 3 sec 0-60 times within the first few builds, and doing so with very little aftermarket parts.
A Saab "H" motor from a C900 would probably fit pretty easy...
Saab engines would be great fun