When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Since you are proficient in wiring it would likely be more cost effective to do it yourself. However, tracking down all the correct connectors etc can be a pain. I’m guessing the harness will be around $500, although it depends on what loom / heat shrink we use etc. some of that stuff is $2.50 a foot, crazy. Will also vary drastically based on how many we can have made at one time.
Do you know if they offer pigtails for their ECU's? I'll probably be doing all the wiring myself at the same time I strip out all the old wires from my car.
Do you know if they offer pigtails for their ECU's? I'll probably be doing all the wiring myself at the same time I strip out all the old wires from my car.
Well I read most of the PE3 manual and I'm pretty much sold on it. Totally understand why you'd go with it over a MS setup.
I'll be keeping tuned. Thanks for the info!
Sure thing! For a track car like mine, it’s going to be a lot of fun to play with traction control, no lift shift, boost by speed/gear etc. Weird to think of a 944 with traction control!
Sure thing! For a track car like mine, it’s going to be a lot of fun to play with traction control, no lift shift, boost by speed/gear etc. Weird to think of a 944 with traction control!
It's also weird to think of a 944 with 5 cylinders, baha.
I do hope to Autocross mine more, but not as often as before. I have a dedicated AutoX car (92 Civic Hatch) thats already fully outfitted with Progress Coilovers & sway bars, full poly bushings, B18 swap, etc.
Our local group makes 2 large trips per year to a bigger track further south, about 7 hours from here, and I hope to take the 944 to that.
I hope to do a similar thing to you, where it'll start NA, and eventually get boosted.
I saw what they were talking about earlier when I pulled my 07K for the swap. The coolant port on the back has 3 outputs, and they're all angled outwards. It's designed for the lateral setup for front wheel drive cars, so the ports are made to be accessable. If you were to drop the engine in as it is, the plastic port would hit the firewall, so ideally what we need is a low profile replacement with like a 90° elbow for a hose to hook onto in order to run it back to the radiator. Of course, there's the exhaust to worry about too, because running it on the other side would mean weaving it around the intake, and that side of the bay is already pretty much taken. So there might need to be a metal pipe in place of rubber hose so that nothing melts, but that all depends on your radiator you choose.
I think there will be enough room to route the coolant line(s) from the back of the engine around the driver side, under the intake manifold and brake booster.
As for the fitting in back, there’s a little over 60mm (almost 2-1/2”) from the mounting face of the fitting to the standing seam on the firewall. So, there should be plenty of room for a fitting. It might be tough to remove with the engine installed due to the long studs that it mounts on, but maybe that’s not necessary. We can just treat this fitting as a permanent piece of the engine that moves the coolant port to a more accessible location.
The reason I have not released the bellhousing design yet to get a prototype made is I’m working to resolve some high stresses caused by the bending load transferred through the torque tube from the transaxle. I’m designing for 600 ft-lb at the crankshaft, and 2nd gear (using 944 S2 gearing, which is much shorter final drive ratio than turbo trans). Basically, at the wheel, you have about 8X the torque, which 4800 ft-lb. That torque is transferred as a bending moment through the torque tube and bellhousing into the engine and it’s mounts. Here’s what that looks like in bellhousing stresses (notice the torque tube bending as well). The current design almost passes. I think the solution will be slightly thicker steel around the rear mounting face.
How many of you guys think you want to start with the 997TT throttle body? I'm wondering if the first batch of intake manifolds should all be factory drilled for the 07K throttle body (which also fits 96-98 VR6 cable throttle). Keep in mind anyone that wants to upgrade to the 997TT TB can use an adapter than iAbed makes.
How many of you guys think you want to start with the 997TT throttle body? I'm wondering if the first batch of intake manifolds should all be factory drilled for the 07K throttle body (which also fits 96-98 VR6 cable throttle). Keep in mind anyone that wants to upgrade to the 997TT TB can use an adapter than iAbed makes.
I would prefer to keep the TB cable driven and not mess with fitting a drive by wire throttle pedal. I like the OEM 944 bottom hinged pedal!
We we could always look at using a fox body mustang TB. They are cable driven, have a TPS, some have provisions for IAC if needed, available in multiple sizes and really cost effective.
....I’m designing for 600 ft-lb at the crankshaft, and 2nd gear (using 944 S2 gearing, which is much shorter final drive ratio than turbo trans). Basically, at the wheel, you have about 8X the torque, which 4800 ft-lb. That torque is transferred as a bending moment through the torque tube and bellhousing into the engine and it’s mounts. Here’s what that looks like in bellhousing stresses (notice the torque tube bending as well). The current design almost passes. I think the solution will be slightly thicker steel around the rear mounting face.
Alan,
Doing some experimenting of my own, it doesn't look like Solidworks takes into account the "weld" tool under the "insert" toolbar when doing the stress analysis. I did some playing around with simple 1/8" carbon steel, and the colors are fun to see how they change depending on if you add a fillet or not in the design. Not sure if this will help, and you probably already know about this and are accounting for it on the side, but I'll email you some screenshots of my experiment.
A thicker backing plate might help, but if the side plates aren't strengthened as well, wouldn't the load just be transferred to those and re-locate the failure points?
Side-note, I'll probably be going with the VR6 cable drive, just so I dont have to cut any holes in my floor pan for a new gas pedal, so the 07K pattern on the intake is fine with me.
Doing some experimenting of my own, it doesn't look like Solidworks takes into account the "weld" tool under the "insert" toolbar when doing the stress analysis. I did some playing around with simple 1/8" carbon steel, and the colors are fun to see how they change depending on if you add a fillet or not in the design. Not sure if this will help, and you probably already know about this and are accounting for it on the side, but I'll email you some screenshots of my experiment.
A thicker backing plate might help, but if the side plates aren't strengthened as well, wouldn't the load just be transferred to those and re-locate the failure points?
Side-note, I'll probably be going with the VR6 cable drive, just so I dont have to cut any holes in my floor pan for a new gas pedal, so the 07K pattern on the intake is fine with me.
Spencer, those aren't welds in the stress concentrations. They are bends in the 1/8" sheet metal. I think I will bump up the thickness of the part (outlined in red below) to 3/16" and that will solve it. A little weight hit (which I was hoping to avoid) but I think it will be worth it for the added strength in this area.
years ago TonyG witnessed the trans wiggling up and down over an inch each way during a run on an elevated dyno, his 6.whatever liter V8 was bending the torque tube just as you describe.
stock 944 BH has a fairly thick "pad" where the TT attaches so i think you're on the right track.
01-28-2019, 12:41 AM
