project exotic

[littleme13]

so its been awhile since ive posted here. Went through some life issues and had to refocus. im hoping this is the right forum for my monstrosity of a idea.

im currently in the planning stages while I wait for a proper foundation to be found. I have lots of questions so I figured I would start a thread instead of trying to figure out what forum to post in because the questions are so "exotic".

So the plan I have in mind is simple, mid engine rear wheel drive turbo ranger. I want to use the 2.3 4 cylinder for several reasons. the rear transaxle will be out of a vw for the aftermarket support and ease of locating. I plan to use a thunderbird front and rear suspension but this is where the questions come. I know this isn't a bolt in affair. Hell nothing will probably bolt in.

My first question is- are there better irs suspensions then the thunderbird that are easily found? I know it will have to be modified to accept the vw trans. I don't want to use the vw suspension, I feel for handling it isn't as stable as the thunderbird. With relocation of the engine I am pretty much free to use what ever I want in front as the cross member can be removed and frame modified to fit anything.

Feel free to criticize and throw out ideas. that's why im asking now before I start the build.

 

[James86]

What VW transaxle are we talking? As in VW beetle? That's a rear engine design with the motor out back, and you're talking mid-engine. I don't think you can rotate the transaxle forward, and you'd have to figure out how to mate the outputs on the transaxle to the outer knuckles of your T-bird suspension. Why not just use the T-bird rear end if that's the suspension you're thinking of, or is there too little space between cab and rear end? Could you maybe gain space by using a regular cab on extended cab frame? I'd assume you would leave the radiator in the front core support, but I'm curious where the fuel cell would go since the factory tank is sorta sandwiched between the frame and propshaft where it sounds like your engine is going to sit, and that leave me to wonder how you plan to route clutch and shift linkages.

I'm just thinking out loud since I'm trying to picture this collage of parts...

 

[littleme13]

thinking out loud is what im looking for to make sure I address all issues before they become issues. the vw bug transaxle is exactly what I plan to use. they can be flipped by swapping the ring gear to the opposite side making it mid engine. I thought about using just the tbird rear but the engine and trans are too long to fit. fuel cell isn't to much of a issue as I can run a tank behind the rearend between the frame rails. as for clutch and shift linkages, its gonna be interesting but not impossible. Ive seen worse on some rock crawlers and trail rigs.

 

[RangerSVT]

Take a tranny from a fwd ford like the Taurus or tempo, they both had 2.3l engines. Rebuilt the trans, and weld the spiders together giving you a locked output. You should be able to run the 2.3l turbo clutches. You could go awd at this point, but to stay with your idea, just plug the front output (or leave just the stub part of a cv axle in) and run the rear output. I'm sure a driveshaft shop can modify a cv axleshaft with the splines for the tranny on one end and a u joint/flange on the other to hook up to the T-bird rear axle. Use a bronco 2 tank, easy fit, front mounted rad in the core support, two 1.5" aluminum pipes down the framerail for hookup. The shift linkage could be tricky, but easily done with cables. I've seen talons/eclipses that use this setup, I believe the older Cavaliers used this setup too....

SVT

 

[Lee in Texas]

I don't really see the point of doing this with a VW trans and a 4cyl. What advantage would you get? It won't be usable as a pickup, and you'll have a radiator in the bed or in the nose, making the front end all but unusable for carrying anything. If your goal is to be different, you will achieve that, but at what cost??

IMHO, a V-8 with a Porsche transaxle would be better. I know VWs can be built tough, but you can buy a stock Porsche for half the price of a built VW. Get really wild and use headers made for a V-8 speedboat. It won't be usable as a pickup, but it would be wild as hell.

 

[littleme13]

I thought about going with the fwd transaxle but im not sure of the weight being centered with the trans hanging off the side. I need this to be balanced as possible. as for losing the use of the bed, guess no one will be asking me to help them move lol. I want something different. why the 4 cylinder? again because its different. with the mid engine rwd setup I should have a good power to weight ratio and a very well balanced truck when im done. the biggest problem ive always seen with rangers is getting traction. this only becomes a bigger issue with v8s. by moving the weight to just behind the cab it should eliminate this and still hold enough weight over the front.

 

[James86]

If you go with a rear fuel tank (or a bronco II tank if I'm not mistaken) it fits behind the rear axle by default anyways, so that would shift weight to the back just on it's own. For a REALLY interesting project, it could be interesting to find a repairable Intrepid. The HO's put out 258HP stock, have a pretty meaty torque curve, and have the transmission UNDER the motor with a chain drive, so you have a fairly short motor/transmission package, and a 24-valve OHC will probably respond better to porting and intake/exhaust mods than a small 8V inline 4, but with boost, I suppose head flow becomes slightly less relevant

This is an interesting discussion so far and fun to picture.

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

Take a tranny from a fwd ford like the Taurus or tempo, they both had 2.3l engines. Rebuilt the trans, and weld the spiders together giving you a locked output. You should be able to run the 2.3l turbo clutches. You could go awd at this point, but to stay with your idea, just plug the front output (or leave just the stub part of a cv axle in) and run the rear output. I'm sure a driveshaft shop can modify a cv axleshaft with the splines for the tranny on one end and a u joint/flange on the other to hook up to the T-bird rear axle. Use a bronco 2 tank, easy fit, front mounted rad in the core support, two 1.5" aluminum pipes down the framerail for hookup. The shift linkage could be tricky, but easily done with cables. I've seen talons/eclipses that use this setup, I believe the older Cavaliers used this setup too....

SVT

That wouldn't work, it would have 2 final drives. It'd be torquey and slow.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2

 

[stmitch]

This idea has been rattling around in my head for the last year! Not sure which 2.3 you were planning, but I wanted to use the duratec, since its lighter and has higher potential. So all of my research was based on that engine.
I thought the vw transaxle seemed like the best option to me too, without spending huge money for a racing transaxle. There are mid engine cars with the duratec 2.3 that would have a perfect transaxle/suspension, but it would be extremely expensive. The dune buggy guys are the ones to see for trans adapter plates, etc.

The 03-04 Cobra IRS has better geometry than the mn12 from the t-bird. It may be easier to just fab a cradle for the transaxle though. And make your own suspension mounting points using dirt track race car parts.

93 and newer trucks with the short bed have approximately 37 inches from the front of the bed, to the centerline of the rear axle. Not sure about the Lima 2.3, but the duratec 2.3 is 19.5 inches long. That would leave 17.5 inches between the rear of the engine and the stock axle centerline. Totally doable!

I won't have the budget to do this for many years, so please do it! I need to see it happen just to get it out of my head.

 

[James86]

What about this thought? I've read online that a 2.3T will bolt to the MTX3, so maybe do the FWD transaxle route since it's been done (2.3 Turbo in a Tempo - http://www.feoa.net/threads/turboing-a-ford-tempo-same-has-a-1st-gen-escort-no-56k.65871/ ) and you never specified really if you want it longitudinally mounted or transverse. There are plenty of MR/RR cars made from the get go with a modified FWD layout ranging from the Pontiac Fiero (2.5 Iron Duke or 2.8 V6) to the Noble supercars (turbo 3.0 Duratec). I think you might need to hammer out your intended layout before deciding what pieces will fit where.

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

I think you should just drop a Northstar in there transaxle and all, slap a Caddy emblem in the grill, and call it done.

Or a 4.6 and transaxle from a Continental

Or a 5.3 and it's transaxle from a Monte SS

If I was to do all that it would have to be something with torque, not a hamster wheel with a leaf blower on it.

The ultimate would have to be a Nissan 3.5 V6, those things run amazing stock.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2

 

[littleme13]

not fond of the fwd transaxles to be honest. and for the record I like hamster wheels and leaf blowers lol. I have thought about building a fully custom rear, still a possibility if I don't like the tbird setup. I need to take measurements and see what kind of room I have to work with. one of the reasons I want to run the vw trans is if I decide to go v8 later on or any other engine I can swap the adapter plate and not have to rework the entire thing. just motor mounts and small stuff.

thank you all for the replies. its always nice to bounce ideas off people who have a clue lol

 

[Die.Fledermaus]

The trend in the ACVW world is to getaway from a front engine VW transaxle due to strength, cost and availability.
As much as I don't care for the general platform, if I was to do a front engine/middle direct connect setup I would look hard at the suabru WRX era transmissions (5-6 speed and auto), modern, strong, plenty of good parts and OEM parts. Apparently it is easy to eliminate the 4wd feature turning it into a very tough 2wd gearbox.

 

[littleme13]

does anyone happened to have the length of the center of rear axle to front of bed? im wondering if there is any difference between a short bed standard cab and an excab shortbed? and what the difference is with a long bed?

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

Long bed is 7', short bed is 6'.
Both have the axle centered
Cab configuration means nothing

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2