Porsche 928 Transaxle

Post by MJ » 06 Feb 2006 02:05 am

If T5's are performance engines why'd they decrease the capacity from 2.5 to 2.3?

Post by **foggyjames** » 06 Feb 2006 02:11 am

I think there was a cylinder wall thickness (or at least head gasket area - like a B230) issue with the 2.5 for turbocharged applications. The new turbo lumps are 2.5, but I don't know exactly how that is achieved, or what other alterations have been made to the block.

cheers

James

Post by MJ » 06 Feb 2006 02:35 am

Ah right, I guess more power needs a stronger engine.

Post by **Fuse** » 06 Feb 2006 07:08 pm

classicswede wrote:If I were to go BIG power I think I would look at other ways- more or less box up-front and conventional rear axle.

Well then it would just be the same to get 240.

Transaxle is one thing which belongs to the 360.

Haha lol.. for millionaires and such there's this option too:

http://www.hewland.com/

Hewland's racing trans-axle boxes...

LeMans cars and such use those.

For example price tag for LSG-A trans-axle sequential or H-gate gearbox is £28,200 That would increase value of your 300-series a bit.

Post by **volvorsport** » 07 Feb 2006 12:03 am

there are cheaper versions of those gearboxes , an FGB for example being an old F1 box would be suitable .

i still think a UN1 box would be the cheapest way of doing it .

quaife , staffs , and elite racing transmissions all do racing transaxles .

Post by **foggyjames** » 07 Feb 2006 02:07 am

G'wan then...how many torques can a UN1 take (in ball-park terms).

cheers

James

Post by **Ronnie** » 07 Feb 2006 04:27 am

All 928's came with an LSD post '89 - just an option before that (i think). The real problem with a 928 would be availability. It's very rare to find a manual - and the few around are sought after.

IMO shoehorning a 928 drivetrain into a 300 is overkill. A 928 is a proper supercar. If you really want to run 400hp it'll be cheaper and probably more fun to ditch the 300 and just buy the stock 928 complete!

I've been thinking about the 944 personally. That's a transaxle too - cars (and manuals) are plentiful, and it's a lot more proportional to the 300 in terms of weight, size and durability.

A 300 with a big redblock in front, 944 drivetrain, Pimped 5 link suspension (although maybe with a bit of travel rather than just "flex"!) - all wrapped up in a classic 3 door. That would be tasty....

Post by **Fuse** » 07 Feb 2006 09:51 am

Ronnie wrote: IMO shoehorning a 928 drivetrain into a 300 is overkill. A 928 is a proper supercar. If you really want to run 400hp it'll be cheaper and probably more fun to ditch the 300 and just buy the stock 928 complete!

Overkill=fun and some people just like to build things. That's why there are so many +500hp 240s in Sweden with racing transmissions and multiplate racing clutches etc...

I belong to those people who like to build stuff.. But my funds are currently kinda limited so I can't do anything overkill.

What I like about 300-series is that there are not many around built, not even in Sweden.

For me Volvos are not something which I would get rid of even if I would have more cash.. Sure if I would be rich I would have other cars too but I would still own Volvos because I like them and this is a hobby for me.

Post by **Chris_C** » 07 Feb 2006 11:10 am

Ronnie wrote:I've been thinking about the 944 personally. That's a transaxle too - cars (and manuals) are plentiful, and it's a lot more proportional to the 300 in terms of weight, size and durability.

Not to mention grand for nicking 52mm gauges that match the 300's dash better than the 200 ones do

Happily showing my ignorance, but what other cars out there are rwd transaxle? And how much would it hurt the world to get a standard diff, and actually shove the gearbox up front? Would it feel vastly different?

Post by **SteveP** » 07 Feb 2006 11:45 am

Pretty sure that Alfa 33's also have a rwd transaxle, rear engines Skodas and beetles do but thats rather different too...

Of the powerful 300s that are about (that insanely fast red one with the mustang rear axle for example) all have the gearbox mounted up-front. Probably most likely due to cost and availability of strong front mounted gearboxes.

I'd be all up for finding a strong replacement rwd transaxle if I were to go silly power (which I wont

), because as Fuse said - thats what seperates a 360 from a 200, other than the obvious.

Also, Griz is the one to ask about a 400bhp+ Volvo > Porsche

Post by **Ronnie** » 07 Feb 2006 01:07 pm

Losing the transaxle would seem to me to be a bit of a waste of one of the 300's prime assets!

Interesting what Volvosport was saying about the Renault UN1. A proven performance transaxle which you can find in an old Renault Traffic van!

Would see to be an appropriately cheap-ass solution

With the appropriate (probably very expensive) tweeks - 500hp can be safely transmitted through it:

http://www.bell-performance.co.uk/gearbox%20upgrade.htm

Post by MJ » 07 Feb 2006 07:24 pm

Well 340cbr just posted in another topic that his car weights 1015kg with the B172k motor (front - 573kg back - 442kg), so more weight needs shifting to the back to get a perfect BMW acceptable 50:50 ballance, and moving the gearbox would affect this

And it's just something cool and different

Post by **SteveP** » 07 Feb 2006 07:29 pm

Which BMW has a perfect 50:50 balance? I'm sure they'd be no closer to balance than the 300s

Post by MJ » 07 Feb 2006 08:01 pm

Isn't BMW all ideological, must be RWD and have as near to 50:50 as possible, or perhaps I'm thinking of another make...

Post by **SteveP** » 07 Feb 2006 08:13 pm

Yeah its true, but I'm sure that their '50:50' weight distribution is no closer than the weight distribution of the 300 series.