Looking for 020 final drives

[Knestis]

The gearbox failure we had at the VIR 13 was the output shaft busting in half...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9700 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9700)

...so I'm shopping for new final drive gears. That was a MkII diesel gear and I would like to go lower. Anyone got any bits laying around?

K

[Bildon]

available ratios

3.94 16V
3.94 02A/02J
4.20 8V
4.20 16V
4.24:1 02A/02J
4.53 8V
4.64 8V
4.64 16V
4.81 8V
4.81 16V
5.07 8V
5.07 16V

[Sandro]

Not sure if you are interested in a new gearbox but a friend is selling this:

020 transmission with peliquin diff,490*ring and pinion and .80 5th gear.100mm out put flages for axles. This box is brand new just gone through by shawn @ Kraftswerk,comes with spec pressure plate lightened flywheel and clutch net duel friction disc .the fly wheel disc and p/plate were used once since installation to drive my car on and off of the trailer.$2,000.00 for everything.


Im not too familiar with the IT spec rules so I dont know if changing the 5th gear is legal. But for the price of a new R&P this might be worth it if you are rebuilding yours. Just thought I would let you know. I think he might have lowered the price so if you are interested I could double check.

[Knestis]

The IT rules are pretty restrictive. I have to run the stock-for-a-MkIII gearbox parts and 1-5 gearset that came with it (a CHE/DFQ or CHB/DFN code) and stock mass flywheel. The Peloquin is a fine answer for the street but it's not on my list of choices for racing.

If that's a NEW final drive, that's a good thing. However, it sounds like you might be talking about a MkII 'box, since a .80 5th and 100mm flanges wouldn't be changes to the right one for my car.

Out of curiousity though, where's it located?

K

[Sandro]

Its in Southern Cali about 30 min from Los Angeles

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I've got a 3.89 at home, and possibly a 3.94. Give me a ring or shoot me an IM and we can talk about it.

[Eric Parham]

...so I'm shopping for new final drive gears. That was a MkII diesel gear and I would like to go lower.
[/b]

Was that already a 4.25 eco-diesel R&P? They're only about $450 at the dealer, but I've heard that the used ones (from street cars) last better for some reason. I think the code is AVX.

[Conover]

I think all three of the eco diesels ever made are already parted out, and if you get a used one check it out good. The AVX is only in that 91 eco diesel and used ones are hard to find. If the dealer really sells them for $450 that's reasonable, for some reason I was thinking that the dealer wanted more like $600 for them. We have a 3.89 in stock but want to be closer to 4.00+
Kirk's dead player R&P was a 3.94

[JamesB]

3.94 are reasonably avaible from mk2 trans codes. www.scirocco.org/gears has the best list I can find. I have yet to find a listing of mk3 final drives but I think its limited.

I don't know how the 3.94 works for you guys, but for my gear stack I think its one of the better choices though others tell me I should have gotten a 4.2. I just think the 4.2 would run out of legs at places like VIR.

[Bildon]

James you hit the nail on the head. Depending on your 5th gear, tire dia., torque peak etc you have to determine whether the 4.xx will work for you. We tell our customers to go with the 3.94 if they are not going to build 2 boxes or if they have a lower budget. The 4.2 with a good LSD does pull like stink though :023:

[JamesB]

Oh I agree, a 4.2 would be killer to have at SP, but I was already hitting the end of my legs with the 3.94 at VIR on the front strait. Not the same issue on the back since that hill slows my brick down. I am happy with what I ended up with after killing 2nd gear in the original locker trans.

[Greg Amy]

...I was already hitting the end of my legs with the 3.94 at VIR on the front strait.[/b]

In 4th, I hope. I was shifting Kirk's 3.94-equipped Golfie into 5th going by S/F... - GA

[JamesB]

I was hitting 5th shortly after track out of hog pen and by brake marker 6 there was no pull left int he car in 5th gear.

[shwah]

A2 vs A3 gears are a bit different no? That might explain James running out of gear (also possible tire diameter differences 13" vs 14" wheels if he is running 13s.

The 3.94 is great for my A2, although I have not taken it to Road America yet. I have considered trying a shorter gear, but want to see how a fresh motor works with the 3.94 first.

[Greg Amy]

A2 vs A3 gears are a bit different no?[/b]

Better be! 'Cause I was going through that last turn in third, grabbing FOURTH on track-out, and shifting into fifth at start/finish. Of course, it appears that Kirk is *still* not running an RPM input into his DL-1...

Either that, or James is shifting at 4000 RPMs! ;)

[JamesB]

I run 205/55/14 hoosiers.

But my gearing is shorter then the A3 gear ratios. So with my 3rd gear I was hitting fuel cut (rev limiter) before track out, so I was forced to shift at apex a little early and just carry 4th out of hog pen. But it worked, I still passed a few cars comming out of hog pen in the race and found out exactly how well an MK2 can outbreak some of the ITB hondas.

From the rule book (and yes my gearstack is legal.)

Chassis 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
A2 3.45 2.12 1.44 1.13 0.89
A3 3.45 1.94 1.29 0.97 0.80
or 3.45 1.94 1.37 1.03 0.85

So if you have the CHB/DFN right now we are very close, but if you had the long CHE/DFQ that would explain a huge difference.

[Knestis]

...if you have the CHB/DFN right now, you've found a somewhat rare bird, based on what i can determine. I'm still not convinced that those gearboxes should be listed for the 2.0 MkIII. It's been a long time since I looked at the documentation but it's stuck in my memory that there's an issue there...

K

[JamesB]

I dont know where that short trans was out of. Maybe the cabrio due to its heavier weight?

But your right, my recollection is shot greg, I was hitting 5th at S/F but I was comming out at 4th. Just took some time to think about it. May was a long long time ago.



I bet if you looked for APW you might find a few.

[shwah]

James, sounds like you need to defeat your rev limiter.

Also, note that there are 2 different 2nd gears that were delivered in the A2. They changed to a taller gear at some point to enable 0-60mph without hitting 3rd gear. I think it was a 1.94.

[JamesB]

Yes I do. The reason I have not is cuz I already blew one head off the car without that. Also whats the use of defeating a limiter if your out of your power band before the limiter?


And given there is only one gear ratio spec line for your gearstack if you ever get protested you will loose.

[shwah]

And given there is only one gear ratio spec line for your gearstack if you ever get protested you will loose.
[/b]

Nope. The spec line is wrong, which is understandable given the number of cars listed. If it is delivered as original equipment on the car listed on the spec line it is legal. It may require an appeal, but it would ultimately be ruled legal. It is supported by the factory shop manual, the dealer parts listing and every 1.8 liter A2 sold from 1989 (or maybe earlier) on.

It is actually quite likely that more cars were delivered with the taler 2nd gear than the one listed. There is no mention of the spec line in the Transmission rule, only stock gears.

4. Transmission/Final Drive
a. Any final drive ratio is permitted provided it fits the stock differential/transaxle housing without modification to the housing.
b. Any limited-slip or locked differential is permitted.
c. No alteration to the stock transmission gear ratios for the make, model, type and engine size of automobile is allowed.
d. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by similar items performing the same fastening function(s).
e. Shift lever may be bent above tunnel or floor.
f. Traction control, if available, must be disabled by disconnecting or removing all the wheel speed sensors.

[Sandro]

here is a list of all the various 020 boxes and their gears, its a great chart to have

http://cars.vwsport.com/gears/

I just got a box with a 3.94 so I will be swapping out my 3.67 R&P doubt you are interested in it but if you are let me know

[JamesB]

Ahhh good to know. But my 2nd gear has never been an issue for me to need a taller one. I guess as long as you have a stack that is spec line for a specific trans code your set. The rules dont seem to let you mix and match in my interpetation.

[Knestis]

Nope. The spec line is wrong, which is understandable given the number of cars listed. If it is delivered as original equipment on the car listed on the spec line it is legal. ...[/b]

Sorry, Chris - and I border on Rules NERD behavior here - but that's not entirely how it works. We race to the published rules, including the details in spec line in the ITCS. There's no appealing something based on the fact that it's been omitted from the ITCS. That's why we HAVE the ITCS, so every protest doesn't require digging out VW documentation to find out what's allowed.

If we've got paperwork that indicates other gear ratios meet the requirements that you quoted, we need to submit them under "Errors and Omissions," to get them added to your spec line. Until that time, we can run ONLY the ratios in the book if we want to have a defensible position in a protest.

K

[Conover]

In 4th, I hope. I was shifting Kirk's 3.94-equipped Golfie into 5th going by S/F... - GA
[/b]

It's under one of the frequency channels, look again.

[JamesB]

See thats what I thought. But true if the ACH or similar came in an 8v golf with the other gearstack then it should be submitted.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk's right, you need to get the additional ratios added to the spec line. You may be able to win an appeal if you can prove that it's a legal gearset, but expect a change to the spec line to be forthcomming after that.

And from someone who went through the issue of getting ratios corrected, be prepared to get absolute documentation. IIRC, it took 4-5 months to get the close-ratio gearset removed from the 1.7 ITC Sciroccos. They still list 1984 1.7 cars even though there never were any, but that's another story. B)

[Greg Amy]

It's under one of the frequency channels, look again.
[/b]
Ah, yes, found it: Frequency 1. If, however, you input that to "RPM" input instead, you can actually chart which gear the car is in using the .car data. Plus, when you go to integrated video you can actually display the gear selected on the "dashboard"...

[Bill Miller]

Ah, yes, found it: Frequency 1. If, however, you input that to "RPM" input instead, you can actually chart which gear the car is in using the .car data. Plus, when you go to integrated video you can actually display the gear selected on the "dashboard"...
[/b]


Weenie alert! Weenie alert!!! :lol: :biggrinsanta:

[JamesB]

Man you kiddies make me wish I had money for DA.



Ah, yes, found it: Frequency 1. If, however, you input that to "RPM" input instead, you can actually chart which gear the car is in using the .car data. Plus, when you go to integrated video you can actually display the gear selected on the "dashboard"...
[/b]

[Bildon]

>>when you go to integrated video you can actually display the gear selected on the "dashboard"...


So when are we going to see one of your data infused cinematic masterpieces? :114:

[Conover]

Ah, yes, found it: Frequency 1. If, however, you input that to "RPM" input instead, you can actually chart which gear the car is in using the .car data. Plus, when you go to integrated video you can actually display the gear selected on the "dashboard"...
[/b]

IT used to be in RPM but it wasn't showing up for some reason, I double checked for signal at the DL-1 and still it wouldn't pop up under the RPM input in the software. Kirk is supposed to be updating the firmware on the logger so maybe that will help.

[Bildon]

I've trouble with the RPM inputs as well. Where are you "tapping" in for your RPM signal?

[Conover]

"camshaft position sensor" hall signal. Tapping into the wire at the ecu end of the harness with solder and heat shrink, and poking it through the firewall, the prob was in the DL because it works on the Freq channel and I saw a good signal on the end of that lead, so. . .
I think something is up with the logger, maybe a fresh OS will help0 it out.

[Greg Amy]

So when are we going to see one of your data infused cinematic masterpieces? :114:
[/b]

Here's some that Jeremy Lucas did from the July Watkins Glen weekend. I'll find some time to mess with it after school's done for the semester...

http://fasttechlimited.com/videos.htm



"camshaft position sensor" hall signal. [/b]

Is that enough voltage? FOr the NX I tapped into the line that goes into the tach on the factory dash. The wire that feeds RPM sig into the ECU did not work..

[Conover]

Maybe that's it, I can try that, but I swear it was working at one point, configured in that way. We'll try that for next time. Where's the Doc when you need him? Kirk, wasn't it working before?

[shwah]

Sorry, Chris - and I border on Rules NERD behavior here - but that's not entirely how it works. We race to the published rules, including the details in spec line in the ITCS. There's no appealing something based on the fact that it's been omitted from the ITCS. That's why we HAVE the ITCS, so every protest doesn't require digging out VW documentation to find out what's allowed.

If we've got paperwork that indicates other gear ratios meet the requirements that you quoted, we need to submit them under "Errors and Omissions," to get them added to your spec line. Until that time, we can run ONLY the ratios in the book if we want to have a defensible position in a protest.

K
[/b]
Sorry but a mistake in the spec line does not trump a written rule in the ITCS. If it says you can, you can, regardless of any missing information elsewhere in the good book. It doesn't just say you can, it says you have to run a stock gear set, and that is what it would be. So, I submit that the rule is not omitted from the ITCS and is quite clear, but the 'cheat sheet' at the end of the book has an omission.

Agreed that it may have to go to appeal to be resolved if a protest occured, but the better solution is correction via errors and omissions. From what I can tell my 86 GTI came with the listed 2nd, but I would bet that plenty of cars are out there with the 1.94 and don't know it.

I will pull together some documentation and send it off.

Looking at the spec line more closely they also have errors in the brakes. Rear disk is 227mm not 244mm, rear drum may also be 180mm drum as this was delivered until the late 80s. I expect that this is not uncommon and similar items are in error throughout the list. That does not change the rules.

[Knestis]

The RPM input WAS working last year, with that same signal. I thought the wire had just gotten tweaked, started tracing it and we checked that there was a pulse there with Cameron's "smart" test light. As a second test, i went to the freq input. It worked so I quit changing it, although I'm still a little worried about my DL.

Chris - I'm not telling anyone how things SHOULD be, just how they are. The fact that the ITCS is thick with mistakes is actually an indicator of the general health of the protest/teardown/enforcement situation in our category. THAT'S how little we collectively care, that an error in the brake diameter will be there for years...

Thanks for doing you part to help fix that!

K

[Thor]

I have a barely used 4.23 eco diesel ring and pinion laying around. Could use the money to build a new short block after my *** built engine holed itself in 4 places.

Thor

[Bildon]

Here's some that Jeremy Lucas did from the July Watkins Glen weekend.
[/b]

Nice video, who does your alignment? :P
jk! I know it was just the wheel.

[Bill Miller]

Sorry but a mistake in the spec line does not trump a written rule in the ITCS. If it says you can, you can, regardless of any missing information elsewhere in the good book. It doesn't just say you can, it says you have to run a stock gear set, and that is what it would be. So, I submit that the rule is not omitted from the ITCS and is quite clear, but the 'cheat sheet' at the end of the book has an omission.

Agreed that it may have to go to appeal to be resolved if a protest occured, but the better solution is correction via errors and omissions. From what I can tell my 86 GTI came with the listed 2nd, but I would bet that plenty of cars are out there with the 1.94 and don't know it.

I will pull together some documentation and send it off.

Looking at the spec line more closely they also have errors in the brakes. Rear disk is 227mm not 244mm, rear drum may also be 180mm drum as this was delivered until the late 80s. I expect that this is not uncommon and similar items are in error throughout the list. That does not change the rules.
[/b]

I agree Chris, they should fix it. But I disagree w/ you about a spec line not trumping a 'general rule' in the ITCS. It does in fact trump the 'general rule'. You look to the general rules first, and then you look to the spec line. There are cases where the spec line countermands the general rule.

In this case, it's an E&O thing, but it would have to be resolved through appeal and a subsequent rule change.

Kirk,

Did you get my IM?

[Eric Parham]

The question of E&O versus spec line is actually very interesting, and does not seem to have a clear or easy answer. In this case, there are really at least 4 different 1-5 gearsets that are theoretically legal for the ITB A2 Golf. One of the others used to be listed (the one with the 1.03 4th), but fell off the end of the spec line at some point. There are at least 2 for the ITB A1 Rabbit GTI (0.89 or 0.91 5th). Many other cars have similar original gearsets that are not currently listed on their spec lines.

My approach has always been to send the comp board the specs for any car I intended to run so that they could simply correct or supplement the spec line, or tell me why not. I'll call that the "A" approach.

The approach of many others has been different, and for various reasons. Some feel that they've discovered a legal spec that gives them an advantage over those with the same type of car who don't know about it. I think I have an ethical dilemma with that reasoning (or maybe it's just my ego), but I do understand it. Others, including at least one past member of the ITAC, have told me not to bother getting alternate specs listed because it just ruffles the feathers of the folks who drive other types of cars in the same class, whether or not those others subscribe to the same approach. I'll call the approach of not requesting a literal spec line allowance (whether intentionally or out of ignorance) the "B" approach.

I have been told several times that it's legal if it can be supported with "proper" documentation, and there's no actual requirement to have it listed on the spec line. The definition of "proper" may depend on the ever-changing direction of the wind, but I guess that's the chance you take if you subscribe to the "B" approach. If we were to say that only the "A" approach is acceptable, what of the folks who might be running the missing spec but original parts and don't even realize they fall into the "B" approach category?

EDIT: I'm not totally against forcing the "A" approach. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do so would be to penalize the driver EVEN IF s/he has documentation that is deemed "proper" and EVEN IF a subsequent rule change is effected via E&O. I've never seen it happen that way and don't expect it in the future.