[torsen] Re: 3B tranny same as MC-2 tranny?

[JShadzi at aol.com]

Ok, gettin' a little esoteric Dr. Gough?  =)

Generally I'd agree with you, BUT, in most I5 10 and 20v apps torque and HP are generally within 10-20% of each other, and, Torque is just an expression of HP and RPM, so we're not talking about _that_ different of entities.

Regardless, my kudos off to anyone who can break an Audi tranny because of power, breaking a tire loose is hard enough...

Javad

>I don't want to be a pain in the ass...but I have to point out that having
>500hp won't break the transmission. Horsepower won't break anything...Torque
>will.
>476hp @ 10,000 RPM is only 250ft/lbs of torque.
>380hp @ 2000 RPM on the other hand, wile being nearly 100hp less, is 1000
>ft/lbs of torque.
>Which will break the tranny? Not the high horsepower motor....
>Just keep this in mind, it really irritates me when people quote HP when
>talking about tranny and drive train failures.
>Mike
>
>
>> Bob, not sure where you're getting your info, but the standard 016 can
>> easily handle 350hp, esp. in the higher gears.  First gear is always an
>> issue, but south of 500hp I've never heard of a tranny failure due to hp in
>> the higher gears.  Would be nice to think you could break an Audi 4 or 5th
>> gear because of power, something to brag about really ;)
>>
>> Javad
>>
>>>Hope nobody minds me taking the thread in a slightly different
>>>direction.
>>>Let's assume one were to embark on a project to build a really high HP
>>>20V urq.
>>>I am talking beyond the 350-370 HP we see in rs2 clothing, and going
>>>north of 400hp with huge torque with a 2.5l stroker AAN.
>>>I have heard that the transmission is the biggest issue, in that the 016
>>>3rd and 4th gears can't handle power in excess of about 350 hp.
>>>Would that leave an 01E as the only remaining transmission choice
>>>capable of handling that much power?  Does anyone have any BTDT in what
>>>it takes to shove an O1E into a urq?  
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: QSHIPQ at aol.com [mailto:QSHIPQ at aol.com]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:08 PM
>>>To: benswann at comcast.net
>>>Cc: JShadzi at aol.com; quattro at audifans.com; 200q20v at audifans.com;
>>>auditude at cox.net; urq at audifans.com; torsen at audifans.com
>>>Subject: Re: [torsen] Re: 3B tranny same as MC-2 tranny?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm a locker guy thru and thru.  It requires more involvement from the
>>>driver, and you lose ABS function during activation (and don't forget
>>>that with the conversion you will need to run an ABS OFF wire), but it
>>>also depends on what you plan on doing with the car in terms of
>>>performance and/or driving environment.
>>>
>>>As a rule, lockers are predictable at the limit (read U all the time),
>>>Torsens aren't.  What you need to assess is where you drive.  Don't
>>>forget to factor that *at the limit* is at the limit of adhesion, which
>>>isn't always in a performance environment, read: it's strictly a HP/CF
>>>ratio.
>>>
>>>Ben, you've had both, trust your instincts.  
>>>
>>>Scott aka "torsen boy" Justusson
>>>In a message dated 3/5/2003 12:18:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>>benswann at comcast.net writes:
>>>
>>>> Scott, Q-Phile,
>>>>
>>>> Now for the question that perhaps should go to the T* list.  Is there
>>>> any merit to doing this, or is the t* system in there
>>>> really better,
>>>> even though it doesn't feel like it to me.
>>>>
>>>> Any BTDT?
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Audifans torsen mailing list
>>>Send posts to: mailto:torsen at audifans.com
>>>Unsub/Manage your list options:
>>>http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/torsen
>>>
>