Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 4 2005, 03:43 PM

I've been thinking about what it would take to do a Subaru install
into my 914, and making it as inexpensive (and as home-brew) as
possible. I have a friend who is a machinist with a lot of enthusiasm
for the project, and a nice shop. He's done a couple of adapter plates
before, so I'm confident in that part. What I'm more curious about is
the flywheel. My idea for this is to take the stock Subaru flywheel
and machine it down to a radius of 4-5-ish inches, and then bolt a
stock Porsche (okay, VW) flywheel to it. So the Subaru FW becomes
just an adapter hub. Then, the thickness of the adapter plate is
chosen to get the input shaft to reach the proper position in the
friction plate/pilot bearing.

What do all you hybrid gurus out there think of this ? Am I
overlooking anything glaringly obvious ? (I haven't seen the pieces
in person, just in Haynes & on EBay.) Sure, the assembly will have to
be balanced carefully, but I think we (he) can handle that. The
engine I'm looking at is an EJ25 (165-ish HP) or, more realistically,
an EJ22 (130-ish), so it won't be an axle-snapper like some of you SBC
folks are driving.


Another issue is the engine mount. I've seen pics of Scott's, and
another one (tube steel) that I think Friid had made up, but not the
ultra-secret Renegade design. One idea I had on this is to not use
the stock Suby engine mount points, but instead make the adapter plate
several inches wider than the bell housing. Then each side of the
adapter plate could have an "L" shaped bracket bolted (sideways) onto
it; the bottom of the L would bolt vertically onto the plate at two
points, and the back of the L would point (horizontally) forward to
hang from a cross bar, either in the conventional (lower) position, or
up high across the top of the engine bay. This would take essentially
all of the torque off of the mounting bar bolts, and would leave an
open path for the shift linkage. In practice, I'm sure there would
need to be a little cross-bracing to prevent side-to-side motion, and
also to keep the L from straightening. Again, oh learned ones, what are
your opinions on this setup ? I *think* that suspending an engine
from the adapter plate is essentially what all the Subaru airplane
folks do.


I'm really pretty excited about the idea of putting a Suby in my car.
And it would be even more cool if it turns out to be affordable.

Please let me know what you think....

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 4 2005, 04:08 PM

No comments on the flywheel idea. The Kennedy prices for these parts aren't all that bad, and they're known quality parts for bits that are pretty critical for a successful conversion.

The adapter plate mount is an interesting idea, and really it would end up being pretty similar to the U-shaped bar used by Scott and fiid. If you reinforced the crossmember between the rear shock towers and hung some rubber mounts there, then used some tube to connect the rubber mount to ears on the adapter plate, you'd have a very compact and light mounting setup.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 4 2005, 04:21 PM

Interesting... So you're saying that the supports would go from the adapter plate towards the rear of the car, not forwards ?

Also, I'm not real knowledgeable about the 914 chassis, or it's terminology. When you say the "crossmember between the rear shock towers", do you mean the sheet metal panel that forms the rear of the engine bay, or something lower down & farther back underneath the trunk ? I've only got a foggy recollection of what that area looks like. But it sounds like a great idea : put in the reinforcement there, like you suggest, and then basically "hang" the adapter plate from there. IIRC, then the hangers would be basically straight vertical.

Posted by: Mueller Oct 4 2005, 04:22 PM

for the flywheel, you could machine out the center section of a stock 914 f/w, and weld in the center section from a suby flywheel....it might be easier to just make a new center section (the bolt circle) and weld that into the 914 flywheel...I believe that is how it was done years back when the conversions started to hit the market

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 4 2005, 04:30 PM

Maching the suby plate down to make it an adapter plate isn't an awful idea in my book.

It solves the problem of how to make up the difference between 901 bellhousing and suby bellhousing. Of course the assembly should be carefully balanced after it is bolted together. Note that the bolts used to bring 901 Flywheel and Suby flywheel together are going to have a stronger influence on imbalance since they are going to situated OUTSIDE (radially) of the suby-to-crankshaft bolts. Of course, getting clearance for the friction plate needs to be considered in picking where they end up.

Make sure its very well balanced, and use locktite on the bolts. Make sure they are torqued to spec. Don't want all those parts flying apart. Wouldn't hurt for your machinist friend to put locating pins and holes between the two plates, keyed so you can't assemble them in the wrong orientation (as the clock turns)....

Let us know how it works out.

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 4 2005, 04:30 PM

I like the engine mounting idea. The engine mounts on the subaru engine are as I recall, about 2/3 of the way back or more anyway, so its not like you are moving the stress point back a whole lot. However, you now have a big stress at the joint of that L shape. the weight of the whole engine is going to be pushing down right there. Also, at the point where you meet the stock engine bar, you'll have to fabricate something pretty rigid, because there will be a tendency to push that bar out at an angle. Even if all of that is rigid, you may get some wierd oscillations or resonances in the structure. But what you could do is go straight up from the adapter plate and weld in a large heavy plate into the trunk and bolt it to that. You'd have to see what kind of stuff in the vicinity you'd be stressing..

As far as the flywheel goes.. I have both at home and I will take a picture tonight of them and post it here. Its possible this would work, though the tricky part will be cutting new teeth for the starter. As it is normally the subaru flywheel is basically a flat flywheel, versus the 914 design where the pressure plate and so forth sit almost inside the flywheel's perimeter ring. I'm not sure how things would work for the clutch, especially using a porsche design which is made to have that raised outer ring.

Maybe there's some other manufacturer that uses the flat-plate design and you could use their components???

Also I think you'll have to move the flywheel out on a hub which will need to be welded to the flywheel in all likelyhood.

Anyway, that adapter plate/engine mount is a good idea, and if you get it to work you would probably be able to sell them, especially if it was compatible with Kennedy flywheels.

-Tony

Posted by: WRX914 Oct 4 2005, 04:43 PM

Your ideas sound interesting... I hope it works out well for you. As far as the engine choice, you could not of made a better decision. The WRX engine in the 914 chassis is a real attention grabber. I know you will be happier than heck with the conversioned power plant. The 914 is just plain fun to drive. Couple that with about 275 hp at close to or under the stack weight and you get a lightweight mid engine car that really hauls ass! My 73 teener is currently getting completely rebuilt; Steel gt flares new paint under the hood and exterior. New carpet, seats, stereo, signal lenses, freshly chromed bumpers, custom geared 914 limited transaxle by Brad Meurer, new Kenisis K17 wheels with Falken tires. Simply put, I can not wait until it is done. I will be sure to post pics of my love affair when I am completly done.

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 4 2005, 04:51 PM

The mount wouldn't go forward or backward. It would go straight up.

If you had ears on the adapter plate (no L-section, just bits of the plate extending out past the bellhousing), you could hang the whole assembly from those ears. The area immediately above where those ears would be is the raised section of the rear trunk floor between the shock towers. So, reinforce that area some, and just hang everything from there.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 4 2005, 06:01 PM

Okay, so at least it sounds like the ideas aren't totally crazy.

About the mounting, it sounds like a plan : Leave some ears on the
adapter plate, and hang the engine from a reinforcement of the
trunk/engine compartment wall. Will the stock shift linkage now work
as-is, or is the Suby oil pan in the way ?


About the flywheel, I like Mueller's idea about welding in a new
center section to the stock 914 flywheel. I wasn't sure if welding a
flywheel was kosher from the point of view of warpage, but I'll ask
about it. Also, if I go with the bolt-together approach, I like
Brian's idea about the locating pins. Might make for more balancing,
but probably woth it.

Tony, I'm not sure if we're on the same page. The way I'm picturing
it, the 914 flywheel remains basically intact, and it is held in the
exact same position with respect to the 914 transaxle bell housing and
starter, so there are no teeth to cut. The whole challenge is *how*
to hold the flywheel in that position. I haven't done any homework on
this yet, so I'm not sure how much axial distance needs to be made
up. But the differences in Suby vs 914 design and the thickness of the
adapter plate combine to make one critical distance : the distance
from the mounting surface on the end of the Suby crankshaft, and the
plane that the rear (tranny-side) surface of the 914 flywheel needs to
be held in. If the distance is about the same as for a stock 914
flywheel, the "weld-in" approach of Mueller looks more appealing; if
the distance is rather large, then the "bolt-on" approach looks
better. I also don't know quite where the friction plate presses on
the flywheel, but "common" sense would say its mostly out near the
edges. Hopefully there's room closer to the center for the weld-in or
bolt-on solution.


audioculture : that sounds like a cool project. I'm actually planning
to stick to a "mere" 165 HP (or maybe just 130) non-turbo engine. I
just wanna be able to get up to 30 or 65 MPH quickly. There's no way
I could have a 275 HP 914 and not get into trouble......

And a little note : I'm just tossing the ideas around right now
(and hoping my 2.0 L doesn't turn into chunks). This may or may
not turn into an actual project. If it does, you'll definitely
know.

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 4 2005, 06:34 PM

okay I think I understand now. I was imagining that you were going to use a subaru flywheel. What you are describing is basically the thng that KEP sells, and what I have for my conversion that I'm working on. the amount of spacing added to the 914 flywheel seems to be about an inch to an inch and a half. Like I said I'll post pictures tonight. That is for a spacer that is pretty thin, maybe 3/8"... I'll measure both of these for you and post it as well. Overall, the flywheel back surface (the surface facing the engine) sits roughly 2 inches from the crankshaft end of the subaru engine. The KEP flywheel is welded together and I _believe_ they use a custom made core section.

-Tony

edit: here's a http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=31579&hl=subaru with the progress on my subaru conversion (EJ25)
(also a CSOB conversion, and full 914 restoration as well)

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 4 2005, 11:33 PM

Stock flywheel


Attached image(s)

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 4 2005, 11:33 PM

KEP flywheel


Attached image(s)

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 4 2005, 11:35 PM

Looks like the spacing is just under 1.4 inches from the flywheel to the top of the mounting spacer thing.

I forgot to measure the thickness of the adapter plate. Dangit.

Anyway, here's the other side of the flywheel


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Mueller Oct 5 2005, 12:17 AM

for the swap you could do what was mentioned in another thread....sell the 914 transmission, and just use the suby transmission.....cheaper and easier

think of it this way, what happens if the relationship between you and your machinest buddy sours? or he changes professions and now all of sudden you need that custom flywheel again due to some unforseen damage??

it'll be a one-off design and you'll be looking at paying big bucks to have a shop reverse engineer it for you...

Posted by: MattR Oct 5 2005, 12:44 AM

Has anyone experienced problems with harmonics by moving the flywheel out that far?

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 5 2005, 09:49 AM

> for the swap you could do what was mentioned in another thread....sell the 914
> transmission, and just use the suby transmission.....cheaper and easier

Hmm... Has someone actually done this ? Wouldn't that mean making custom driveshafts ? Also, I don't have a suby transmission, so it may not be cheaper... What about weight ? Is the suby transmission lighter ?

> think of it this way, what happens if the relationship between you and your
> machinest buddy sours? or he changes professions and now all of sudden you need
> that custom flywheel again due to some unforseen damage??

Good point. Maybe we'll make 2.

> Has anyone experienced problems with harmonics by moving the flywheel out that far?

Yeah, I was kind of wondering about that as well. I'm suprised at how deep-dished the stock 914 flywheel is; adapting it for a suby makes it stick out pretty far. But (physics hat on ...) what contributes to harmonics is the moment of inertia about an axis perpendicular to the crankshaft, and this is still dominated by the flywheel radius (which the suby crankshaft was designed to handle) and only slightly by the protrusion of the flywheel away from the engine (which the crankshaft wasn't designed for). So if the flywheel has a radius of 8.5" and protrudes back about 3", then its the same as a flywheel of radius sqrt(8.5^2 + 3^2) or 9" . It's hard to imagine that that makes a critical difference (physics hat off).

Tony, thanks for the pictures and info. It really helps me to visualize the issues involved. Just for the record, I wanted to say that I DO NOT want to reverse engineer someone else's product, so I think the kind of info that you posted about the KEP flywheel ("just under 1.4"", "maybe 3/8" or so") is about as much as I'd like to know. It gives an idea of what the problem to be solved is, but doesn't speel out someone else's solution. And, like I said before, I don't plan on going into the flywheel business, so this shouldn't (I hope !) raise any problems.



Also, I'm still wondering about the shift linkage. If the engine mount doesn't interfere, will the stock linkage work ? Does the suby oil pan get in the way ? ( I know some folks have shortened theirs, but IIRC, this was partly to allow the engine to ride lower.

Posted by: banksyinoz Oct 5 2005, 09:57 AM

QUOTE (jsteele22 @ Oct 5 2005, 07:49 AM)

> for the swap you could do what was mentioned in another thread....sell the 914 > transmission, and just use the suby transmission.....cheaper and easier Hmm... Has someone actually done this ? Wouldn't that mean making custom driveshafts ? Also, I don't have a suby transmission, so it may not be cheaper... What about weight ? Is the suby transmission lighter ?

check out the suby tranny thread
done auto
done most of six speed

Posted by: 914turboford Oct 5 2005, 10:23 AM

If it were me I would definitely use the Subaru trans. I've done 6 engine/drivetrain conversions and have never used an engine/trans adapter plate. It is way easier to make custom axles than a custom flywheel and adapter plate. And, as mentioned, you don't have custom one off parts (except for the axles). Right now I'm putting 200 hp through my hybrid 911/Ford Escort driveshafts. I made mild steel couplers on my lathe and mig welded the axles into the couplers. I then measured the out of round on v blocks and trued them up in my h press. I've driven the car at about 110 mph and there is no vibration even though I never had them balanced.

You can get a 2wd Subaru trans at the junk yard for less than $100. I think the 2wd's were fairly common in the first gen pre 94? Legacy's.

Also, 914 transaxles were crappy when new and are worse now, IMHO. My 914 shifts way better than a stock 914 did when it was new.

I hate to sound dogmatic but my advice is definitely, absolutely, go with a Subaru trans.
Brian

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 5 2005, 10:59 AM

But to get the transverse setup to work, you had to seriously cut up the rear trunk, and no doubt moved the CG back significantly, as the engine is located well aft of the stock location.

I've heard the Soob transaxles are somewhat weak even in the stock application. The 2wd versions aren't all that common these days, considering they've been all 4wd for quite a while now. I suppose you could remove the center diff and block off the tailshaft, but now you're talking trading off the flywheel/adapter plate (which can be bought off the shelf from KEP for most engines you care to name) v. having to engineer your own transaxle mounts, your own shift linkage, fabricating axles, and futzing with convering the 4wd transaxle to 2wd, etc.

I also don't think of the 914 transaxle as "crappy". The tailshift linkage design wasn't the best idea, but with a side-shift linkage, the setup works a lot better than the only two Ford gearboxes I've driven ('90 Exploder and late 80s Sierra, which stands as the WORST gearbox I've ever had to use, by a large margin). The transaxle itself is plenty robust for the application it was intended for: less than 200ft/lbs of torque pushing less than 2500lbs of car.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 5 2005, 11:40 AM

Using the suby trans sounds interesting (I'll search for the thread) but I definitely don't wanna cut into my trunk, and when I replaced my rear wheel bearings, I swore I'd never do it again

The 901 transaxle isn't the smoothest thing I've ever shifted, but I don't mind it. As mentioned it's rated at way more HP and Torque than I'll ever throw at it, and I don't have to futz with the shift linkage.

So for now, I think I'll stick w/ the engine adapter approach. But ya never know.

Posted by: 914turboford Oct 5 2005, 12:36 PM

I'm not saying he should install a Ford 2.3 turbo like I did. It sounds like he is pretty set on a Subaru engine. I don't think he would have to cut the trunk with a Subaru trans. I don't think the Subaru trans are week. I've never heard that. Also, they are easier to find than 914 transmissions. At our local self serve JY there are probably one or two 2wd EJ Subaru transmissions and there have only been 2 teeners there in the last 5 years.

Here are some advantages/disadvantages of my setup. I can work on my car. I don't have to lay on the trunk to adjust the points. I don't have to work in an impossibly tights space under the car to adjust the valves.

Easy to obtain 250+ hp with 400 not unreasonable. All wear parts obtainable at Kragen. Cheap and easy to find parts. Engine can take 25 psi boost with a stock long block. Center of gravity is both higher and further back. I like the further back CG. I prefer a little oversteer. I have stiff sway bars front and rear and have the car pretty low and I am quite sure I am ahead of 90% of the teeners out there in the handling department. I did cut up my trunk floor and my right coilover tower and reinforced all of this with a nice, light cage. I know my car is stiffer than a cageless teener.

But this is about the Subaru conversion. The shift linkage will be about the easiest thing you ever do. It took me literally less than one hour to design and fabricate mine. Engine mounts are very easy as well. Usually one of the easiest parts of any conversion, IMHO. To me the hardest part of an engine conversion is the plumbing. Exhaust, coolant, power steering (NA to you), fuel, etc.

In the end, though, you should do it the way you want. It's going to be cool whether you use the Subaru or the teener trans.

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 5 2005, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (914turboford @ Oct 5 2005, 10:36 AM)

I'm not saying he should install a Ford 2.3 turbo like I did. It sounds like he is pretty set on a Subaru engine. I don't think he would have to cut the trunk with a Subaru trans. I don't think the Subaru trans are week. I've never heard that. Also, they are easier to find than 914 transmissions. At our local self serve JY there are probably one or two 2wd EJ Subaru transmissions and there have only been 2 teeners there in the last 5 years. Here are some advantages/disadvantages of my setup. I can work on my car. I don't have to lay on the trunk to adjust the points. I don't have to work in an impossibly tights space under the car to adjust the valves. Easy to obtain 250+ hp with 400 not unreasonable. All wear parts obtainable at Kragen. Cheap and easy to find parts. Engine can take 25 psi boost with a stock long block. Center of gravity is both higher and further back. I like the further back CG. I prefer a little oversteer. I have stiff sway bars front and rear and have the car pretty low and I am quite sure I am ahead of 90% of the teeners out there in the handling department. I did cut up my trunk floor and my right coilover tower and reinforced all of this with a nice, light cage. I know my car is stiffer than a cageless teener. But this is about the Subaru conversion. The shift linkage will be about the easiest thing you ever do. It took me literally less than one hour to design and fabricate mine. Engine mounts are very easy as well. Usually one of the easiest parts of any conversion, IMHO. To me the hardest part of an engine conversion is the plumbing. Exhaust, coolant, power steering (NA to you), fuel, etc. In the end, though, you should do it the way you want. It's going to be cool whether you use the Subaru or the teener trans.

A couple of Subaru tuners have complained about the weak transaxle, at least in the era before the WRX was available in the US. The 2.5RS transaxle, for example, was known to break even in the stock application. The 2wd transaxle was intended for the granny market, basically, and doesn't take abuse kindly. It's not likely to be a huge deal, really, but using the Subaru transaxle really just trades one easily solved problem (adapter plate/flywheel) for another, and doesn't seem to gain you much. I think it ends up being a wash, at best. The advantage of the 914 transaxle is you can buy parts rather than fabricate them, which can be a huge advantage for those people who don't have ready access to machine tools or the ability to use them. Something that takes you an hour to do may be completely beyond the ability of many.

QUOTE

I am quite sure I am ahead of 90% of the teeners out there in the handling department.

That's a pretty bold statement.

One of the things I like about the Subaru conversion is that weight distribution isn't affected much over the stock setup. Scott Thatcher's fabulous radiator setup even leaves both trunks unmolested, and ends up with overall weight and distribution of weight that's nearly identical to stock.

Posted by: d914 Oct 5 2005, 01:28 PM

I think that the weak suby transaxle is more related to the drivers and the use. Modified wrx's being used for 1/4 mile dragsters and power shifting with no upgrade to the tranny equals " weak tranny's".

I'm also biased, I'm looking into the suby tranny thing...only real oustanding issue is the cv's and the rear fire wall. waiting on budget!!$$$

Posted by: 914turboford Oct 5 2005, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 5 2005, 11:05 AM)

QUOTE That's a pretty bold statement.

I know it is pretty bold. I did not say better than 90% of the teeners on 914world.com. But I believe the statement to be true. Most 914's I see around are bone stock. Most don't even have sway bars. I have a 911 front end, under body 911 front sway bar, Rear 7/8" bar with spherical bearing end links and aluminum blocks for center bushings. I am pretty confident in my statement. But I obviously don't know for sure.

Posted by: banksyinoz Oct 5 2005, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 5 2005, 08:59 AM)

But to get the transverse setup to work, you had to seriously cut up the rear trunk, and no doubt moved the CG back significantly, as the engine is located well aft of the stock location. I've heard the Soob transaxles are somewhat weak even in the stock application. The 2wd versions aren't all that common these days, considering they've been all 4wd for quite a while now. I suppose you could remove the center diff and block off the tailshaft, but now you're talking trading off the flywheel/adapter plate (which can be bought off the shelf from KEP for most engines you care to name) v. having to engineer your own transaxle mounts, your own shift linkage, fabricating axles, and futzing with convering the 4wd transaxle to 2wd, etc. I also don't think of the 914 transaxle as "crappy". The tailshift linkage design wasn't the best idea, but with a side-shift linkage, the setup works a lot better than the only two Ford gearboxes I've driven ('90 Exploder and late 80s Sierra, which stands as the WORST gearbox I've ever had to use, by a large margin). The transaxle itself is plenty robust for the application it was intended for: less than 200ft/lbs of torque pushing less than 2500lbs of car.

you do not have to cut the trunk!, engine and box will fit however the drive shafts will not be square to the box/control arm but the rear extension of the box can be removed allowing the shafts to become square and the engine will fit ,however the sump will sit low (too low for my liking) so a windage sump will be fitted

i too will have shafts made i dont care what from as long as they are strong $$$$$$$$ do the job properly once

the shift linkage will be a nightmare but i think it will be worth every headache

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 5 2005, 05:33 PM

We're talking transverse engines here, not Subaru engines, so just so there's no confusion.

914turboford cut up his trunk, and pretty seriously, too. The half the engine is behind what would be the rear trunk wall. He has photos elsewhere. Tidy job, just not my cuppa.

Fitting any transverse engine would be a challenge without cutting the trunk at all. If you push the engine forward enough to clear the induction plumbing, the shafts would be pretty seriously angled, which will cut into CV joint life pretty seriously.

Posted by: banksyinoz Oct 5 2005, 05:41 PM

ok with ya now
the suby box and engine has the same problem but the other way ,the shafts have too much angle but the problem can be solved by shortening the unused part of the box

Posted by: MattR Oct 5 2005, 06:03 PM

QUOTE (914turboford @ Oct 5 2005, 10:36 AM)

I am quite sure I am ahead of 90% of the teeners out there in the handling department.

Are you including the rusted parted out rollers?

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 5 2005, 06:22 PM

QUOTE (banksyinoz @ Oct 5 2005, 03:41 PM)

ok with ya now the suby box and engine has the same problem but the other way ,the shafts have too much angle but the problem can be solved by shortening the unused part of the box

With the Soob engine/gearbox, you should be able to position the whole assembly anywhere you want, the only limitation being the induction plumbing hitting the rear trunk wall, which is a problem on some Soob engines, and not on others.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 5 2005, 11:15 PM

Holy Crap ! Its a project !

So I just checked Ebay before going home for the evening, and I saw an EJ25 engine from a 2000 Forester with 39k miles. Item was listed with a "Buy It Now" option for $500. That's less than half of what I've seen 'em going for, so (after some painful deliberation) I went for it. The ad had no pictures, but the seller does only car parts and had all good feedback.

Its gonna be pins and needles for a while; wish me luck !

p.s. Any tips on how to ship an engine cheaply ? Any good/bad/interesting stories to learn from ?

Posted by: Hydra Oct 6 2005, 01:17 AM

Just to clear everything up, i've been working on my subaru conversion for more than 7 months now, and have considered everything from an EG33 to an EJ20, mated to a suby tranny or a 901/914....
Now, IMHO your best bet is an EJ20, cheapest of all, 150ish bhp stock (as opposed to 120 for the EJ22), and a subaru tranny... the tranny is 100$ max, and since the 914 is 30% lighter than a subaru, it won;t be stressed as much, except if you mount tyres bigger than 255's.
As for the linkage, your best bet would be to fabricate a cable shifter setup, i'm working on a cheap and straightforward design right now, so if you are interested, email me and we'll take it from there.
When it come to mounts, this is the easiest part of all, just need some steel tubes and a welder, the suby tranny mount design is pretty easy to adapt, for the engine you might need some extra bracing running under the engine to which the mounts will bolt straight up.
What lapuwali said about induction plumbing, the best way to circumvent everything and all of the suby ECU crap, would be to use MegaSquirt II, this way you'll only use the lower part of the induction plumbing, and there will therefore be no interference whatsoever with the trunk.
You will definetly need a shorter sump, and an exhaust install, all home made...
i am actually fabricating an adapter that would mount the 914's CV joints to the suby tranny output shaft, more on this later this month...
Going the suby-all-the-way route, will be IMO the soundest idea as a start and on the long run.
just my 2 cents.
good luck
Nick

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 6 2005, 10:11 AM

QUOTE (Hydra @ Oct 6 2005, 12:17 AM)

Now, IMHO your best bet is an EJ20, cheapest of all, 150ish bhp stock (as opposed to 120 for the EJ22), and a subaru tranny... the tranny is 100$ max, and since the 914 is 30% lighter than a subaru, it won;t be stressed as much, except if you mount tyres bigger than 255's. (snip) What lapuwali said about induction plumbing, the best way to circumvent everything and all of the suby ECU crap, would be to use MegaSquirt II, this way you'll only use the lower part of the induction plumbing, and there will therefore be no interference whatsoever with the trunk.

Hmmm, didn't know about the EJ20 coming in non-turbo form. The NASIOC forum only mentions :

> USDM EJ20: US Domestic Market WRX. Found in 2002+ WRXs. Rated at 227hp
> and 217 ft-lbs. Turbocharged, intercooled, open deck, and decent heads.

and I wanted to stay away from turbo. Anyway, for now I'm planning to go w/ the EJ25 ('cuz I bought it) and the stock 901 tranny ('cuz I have one, and it sounds simpler.) I'm also gonna use an SDS EFI system which I have laying around from an old project, but I'd like to give MegaSquirt a try someday (I love the idea of an open-source, modifiable EFI system.) But I'm definitely curious to see how the suby tranny option works out for others.

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 6 2005, 10:21 AM

Congrats on the engine acquisition! Sounds like you got a good deal on the motor.

You should start up a progress thread. Its nice to have a log of what you've done and others benefit greatly too.

-Tony

Posted by: Matt Monson Oct 6 2005, 12:43 PM

Kind of OT, but I just want to put something out there that I don't think is very known in the 914 community. There is a company up in the NW that makes a camshaft for the Ej22E engines. They are called Delta and they get their cams from Comp. They run $130 a pair, and they are welded on regrinds using your cores. When coupled with a clean breathing intake and a decent exhaust headers, they put the Ej22E about about 175chp. This is a pretty good jump for very little $$$, especially since an Ej22E out of a '90-94 Legacy can be had for a coupe of hundred $$$ while an Ej25 runs $500-1200. And installation is a breeze. Because they are rocker w/HLA heads, you just pull the rocker assembly, slide the cams in and bolt it back down. Be sure to bleed the HLA's while they are out. It does require changing the timing belt, but I would do that with any junkyard engine I bought, anyways.

Furthermore, you can take an EJ25 bottom end, and mate it to the EJ22E heads for a nice bump in both CR and displacement. It puts you at 10.8:1 with a phase I '96-98 EJ25 bottom end, and more like 11.2:1 with a phase II '99-current bottom end. That, along with the Delta cams puts you around 200chp. Bottom ends can be found for $200-400. I have built a few of these and thrown them into 2500lb Imprezas. They make for fun little cars. And in a 914 that is around 500lbs lighter, I am sure they would be a kick...

Posted by: Mueller Oct 6 2005, 01:41 PM

QUOTE

But I'm definitely curious to see how the suby tranny option works out for others.

maybe I'm getting old/lazy or something, but a Suby automatic transmission sounds appealing

supposed to take more abuse than the stick versions...I know there a few drag racers that are swapping out the manual trannys for the automatics.....

Posted by: Matt Monson Oct 6 2005, 02:03 PM

Actually,
The 8 and 9 second drag cars that ESX and Rigoli Racing runs use auto trannies. Subies auto trannies are way stronger than the manuals...

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 6 2005, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Matt Monson @ Oct 6 2005, 11:43 AM)

Furthermore, you can take an EJ25 bottom end, and mate it to the EJ22E heads for a nice bump in both CR and displacement. It puts you at 10.8:1 with a phase I '96-98 EJ25 bottom end, and more like 11.2:1 with a phase II '99-current bottom end. That, along with the Delta cams puts you around 200chp. Bottom ends can be found for $200-400. I have built a few of these and thrown them into 2500lb Imprezas. They make for fun little cars. And in a 914 that is around 500lbs lighter, I am sure they would be a kick...

Matt, thats great stuff to know. If only I had known yesterday.....

But anyway, I'm happy so far with my EJ25 purchase decision. Turns out I was mistaken before : it only has 30k miles. I spoke w/ the seller. She said it was her daughter's Forrester and was in an accident 3 years ago where the airbags deployed. I don't know much about those beasties, but apparently when they go off its big $$$$ to fix. Mom decided not to, and finally got tired of having the car sitting around. I'm gonna get the whole shebang, including exhaust/intake, alternator, sensors, wiring harness (cut, but I'm going aftermarket EFI anyway), and maybe the radiator. The listing was for a MY 2000, with Dual OHC. The NASIOC site says that DOHC was changed to SOHC in 1999. So maybe she was off by a year ?

Anyway, I'm sure a doubling of horsepower will keep me grinning for a few months, and then if I get bored I can look into the EJ22E heads...

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 6 2005, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (Mueller @ Oct 6 2005, 12:41 PM)

maybe I'm getting old/lazy or something, but a Suby automatic transmission sounds appealing supposed to take more abuse than the stick versions...I know there a few drag racers that are swapping out the manual trannys for the automatics.....

Yeah, I'm feeling pretty old that way too. I got my other car ('97 Saab 900 turbo) at an auction, so I couldn't be too picky about details. It came w/ a squishbox. Now I've come to really like it. No way I could shift that fast and smoothly, and it has an electronic feature ("sport mode") that lets you alter the shift points. I also really enjoy being able to parallel park with a cup of coffe in my hand. And although tranny whine has always been the death knell of elderly Saabs, the automatic is supposed to be bulletproof. (But who shoots that low ?)

For my 914, I wanted a car that was pretty much the opposite : something zippy for getting around town, 0-35 MPH w/o turbo lag is way more important than top speed, and comfort isn't really an issue. Also, something I can diagnose and fix w/o paying $$ to someone w/ proprietary $$$$$ computer software.

Posted by: Matt Monson Oct 6 2005, 04:21 PM

Actually,
The Forester and the Outback kept the DOHC for a year beyond the other models. So, it is likely a DOHC engine. Personally I prefer the SOHC heads, but they are both good engines. Let me know if there is anything Subaru you need as this progresses. I have a garage full of parts, sensors, valve covers, exhaust components, etc. I even have an ECU if you need one. And I would happily lend a hand here and there when I am not busy. I can live vicariously through your build since my employment kind of prevents me from putting an engine into my 914.

And putting Ej22E heads onto a complete EJ25 is going backwards. Your heads flow better than an LS-1. I am currently making 225 hp with the EJ25 in my car, and I have a set of heads out for work that should help me hit that magic 100hp/l mark. Since you are local, I can definitely help you tune your engine for more power once it is in the car...

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 6 2005, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (TonyAKAVW @ Oct 6 2005, 09:21 AM)

Congrats on the engine acquisition! Sounds like you got a good deal on the motor. You should start up a progress thread. Its nice to have a log of what you've done and others benefit greatly too. -Tony

Thanks, Tony.

I'll look into starting up a progress thread. I do enjoy reading other peoples' threads, for fun and to answer specific questions. Maybe some day I'll even remember to bring my camera out when I start a job and keep my hands clean enough to use it. But no fair laughing at my paint !

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 6 2005, 04:32 PM

QUOTE

I'll look into starting up a progress thread. I do enjoy reading other peoples' threads, for fun and to answer specific questions. Maybe some day I'll even remember to bring my camera out when I start a job and keep my hands clean enough to use it. But no fair laughing at my paint !

No problem. I won't dare laugh at your paint. The car I'm soing the conversion on has black hoods, black doors, a primered fender and the body is silver.

-Tony

Posted by: BMartin914 Oct 6 2005, 08:17 PM

So are you really going to do this Jeff???

It's not for me, but I'd like to see someone local give it a go.

My TIV makes me smile so much, I can't imagine replacing it with anything but a six...but that's just one man's opinion.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 7 2005, 10:26 AM

Well, I've sent the $$ off for the engine, so its starting to llook like its a go. Steve, my machinist friend is sounding really psyched. I think we're gonna go with the adapter plate engine mounting idea and putting a fabricated hub w/ bolt circle on a 914 flywheel.

I do like the TIV with its sounds (and smells), but I'm thinking mine is on its last legs, and this whole project may end up costing less than a decent rebuild. And there's no denying that I want the power; nothing insane, but a good impressive pull up to cruising speed or zipping out of a turn. There's a feeling of luxury when you have your foot partway down on the pedal and know that there's plenty more power right there under your foot.... And I'll be able to run away faster if people start teasing me about the way my car looks

I don't know how fast this thing will procede, though. I've got 2 contracts outside of my day job, and I've fallen a little behind on them. So I'll probably do bits and pieces on this when I can. And I want to keep the car driveable until the last posible moment.

Posted by: brant Oct 7 2005, 10:44 AM

Jeff, do keep the car driveable as long as you can.

This is in no way a negative statement about you ...

but it is just a COMMON cycle that I've seen happen OVER and OVER.... People start a new project or conversion with a full head of steam. The car gets torn apart and put on blocks. Life interferes, people have babies, change jobs, divorce, loose a family member. The project turns out to be 3X harder than initially thought, and 5X as expensive. Rust is discovered? The car sits for 5 years, they loose motivation and then its sold in pieces.
(usually all of the above has to be overcome at once)

Don't let this happen to you!
I know you are an honorable man, and I DO want to see this neat project come together..

I'm counting on you man!

brant

Posted by: effutuo101 Oct 7 2005, 11:11 AM

You should get one of Kevins chop jobs. Just get the rear end. Get all of the details sorted out for mounting with a complete mock up. Then over one fine weekend, drop everything into your car and finish up the rest the following weekend.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 7 2005, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (brant @ Oct 7 2005, 09:44 AM)

Jeff, do keep the car driveable as long as you can. This is in no way a negative statement about you ... but it is just a COMMON cycle that I've seen happen OVER and OVER.... People start a new project or conversion with a full head of steam. The car gets torn apart and put on blocks. Life interferes, people have babies, change jobs, divorce, loose a family member. The project turns out to be 3X harder than initially thought, and 5X as expensive. Rust is discovered? The car sits for 5 years, they loose motivation and then its sold in pieces. (usually all of the above has to be overcome at once) Don't let this happen to you! I know you are an honorable man, and I DO want to see this neat project come together.. I'm counting on you man! brant

Good point, Brant. I am gonna keep an eye on that. I went through that cycle a while back on an old Saab 900. Started by fixing the windshield squirters, and before too long I was converting it to a turbo and rebuilding the tranny. The latter is a job I wouldn't recommend to beginners; I botched mine anyway, and the car sat for a couple of years until I moved and had to get rid of it. (But I kept the SDS EFI!) Took a few more years off from working on cars. So now, despite the temptation to launch into a restoration effort, I'm planning to always stay within easy reach of making the car driveable.

Posted by: scott thacher Oct 7 2005, 02:30 PM

well i kind of like the adapter to engine mount idea but..

there is always a but !

you better make the adapter plate out of steel, i really dont think AL would hold the weight and the torgue. what i mean is if you built tabs off of the plate and then tried to mount to the tabs i would say they might bend or tear. if you made it of stell it might really be the way to go.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 7 2005, 04:10 PM

Yeah, I was thinking that after hearing how thin the KEP plate is. Aluminum would probably hold the load if it were stationary, but with all that vibration I'm certain it would crack. So some kind of steel (I don't know much about different grades, but Steve does) that meets the relevant mating surfaces and has 2 (or 4 ?) ears sticking out. I'm still just picturing this all in my head -haven't seen the engine or tranny split apart - but I'm thinking it might be possible with this setup to remove the engine from the adapter plate and drop it without having to mess w/ the tranny. Maybe pull the engine/radiator as a pair ?

I'm glad to see you join this thread, Scott. Besides following in your footsteps on the Subaru swap, I went to the RRC last month and walked (drove) off with the coveted "Golden Wheelbarrow" award, which I understand was created at WCC for you in honor of your trans-continental jaunt in an unproven "experimental" vehicle. I, OTOH, just drove halfway across Colorado in a beater 914. But I have to agree with the group consensus : of all the cars present, mine had the most "potential"

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 7 2005, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (scott thacher @ Oct 7 2005, 12:30 PM)

well i kind of like the adapter to engine mount idea but.. there is always a but ! you better make the adapter plate out of steel, i really dont think AL would hold the weight and the torgue. what i mean is if you built tabs off of the plate and then tried to mount to the tabs i would say they might bend or tear. if you made it of stell it might really be the way to go.

Hm. If the adapter plate is 1/2" thick Al plate (like the KEP plates), that's going to end up being as strong or stronger than the magnesium ears at the end of the transaxle. Mg is 1/3 the strength of Al, and castings are always weaker than billet. I think you're severely underestimating the strength of that Al plate.

You're also still going to want to rubber mount the engine somehow, probably by putting rubber between the trunk floor and the tube that connects to the adapter plate.

Posted by: Mueller Oct 7 2005, 05:01 PM

how about something like this for the motor mount?

the bar is bolted to the adapter plate..the little "wings" attach to the engine mounts under the suby motor, and the other end of the bar attaches to a bulk head mount....

the factory 6 uses a single bolt on bulkhead mounts and has been used for bigger/heavier six motors


Attached image(s)

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 7 2005, 05:19 PM

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Oct 7 2005, 03:20 PM)

Hm. If the adapter plate is 1/2" thick Al plate (like the KEP plates), that's going to end up being as strong or stronger than the magnesium ears at the end of the transaxle. Mg is 1/3 the strength of Al, and castings are always weaker than billet. I think you're severely underestimating the strength of that Al plate.

You may be right there, but you have to admit this is one piece that you definitely do NOT want to fail! The transaxle mounting ears were engineered by folks with advanced knowledge and experience in this sort of thing, whereas this is my very first stab at it. I think (don't recall, but I'm pretty sure) that the tranny mounting ears are nicely curved and transition to the casing w/o any stress risers (sharp transitions where tensile forces concentrate and a crack can start). And since it is so far back, compared to the TIV mount, this mount will be carrying way more than 50% of the engine/tranny load. Fortunately, most of the vibration will be in the up/down and left/right directions, with front/back (of which there is less in the first place) being contained more by the tranny mounts.

My main reason to shy away from Al is that if you take a piece of it and bend it, it doesn't take long before you get a crack or tear. Mild steel seems to fare much, much better. Also (again, I still haven't done my homework) I was picturing a much thinner (than 1/2") plate. Given the axial distance from suby crank flange to the rear edge of the ring gear, it seems that the adapter plate should be as thin as possible. And if using steel allows doing away with a full under-the-engine type mounting bar, it could be even be a net weight savings or at least a break-even.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 7 2005, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (Mueller @ Oct 7 2005, 04:01 PM)

how about something like this for the motor mount? the bar is bolted to the adapter plate..the little "wings" attach to the engine mounts under the suby motor, and the other end of the bar attaches to a bulk head mount.... the factory 6 uses a single bolt on bulkhead mounts and has been used for bigger/heavier six motors

Hey, that's a pretty interesting idea; there's a lot that I like about it. Much of the engine weight is supported farther forward (at the stock Suby mount points), and no risk of bent bolts like was feared with the sideways bar strategies (connecting to stock 914 mount points on the chassis.) The force on the engine adapter plate will be much smaller in magnitude, will point straight downwards, and have less vibration to contend with. This would swing my vote back towards an aluminum adapter plate (see previous entry in this thread). I think that the suby engine casing doesn't surround the flywheel 360 degrees, but is open at the bottom; so it would be possible to have a thin adapter plate and still have a meaty section at the bottom for bolting the bar into. Also, the bar doesn't interfere with the shift linkage, another plus. I think (we'll have to see) your idea could be used with a mid-engine radiator setup, which I really want to do.


The main thing I'm concerned about is just how well the bar will prevent up/down motion of the engine. The P6 engines you mentioned mount to the bulkhead over a very short span, whereas this is a pretty long reach. I'm not saying that there is a problem, only that my first hunch is that it looks kinda spongy. OTOH, the stock 914 mounting scheme struck me as very "airy" at first. (I also thought those guys at CERN were blowing a little too much hot air when they called their cute little idea the "world wide web". )

BTW, I think it is so cool that you can just jot down your ideas in a 3-d CAD system. I just use words or wave my hands around.

Posted by: TonyAKAVW Oct 7 2005, 06:52 PM

I like the idea Mike, but I see two flaws with it and one spot where it could be improved. First flaw I see is that all of the rotational torque of the engine and transmission are now going to be placed on the transmission mounting ears. The distance between those is substantially less than the distance between the original engine mounting points on the car. Maybe the rotational torque isn't too significant, but it seems like suspending the whole mass from three points might be scary. Even the 911 engine mounts have _some_ spacing...

The second flaw was pointed out already, but could be improved by using both the stock engine mounts (repalced with solid blocks of metal) and the adapter plate as well. That would provide two points of attachment along the axis of the support bar which would stiffen up the structure a lot.

You could then fix the first problem by coming out into a Y shape and maybe even use the stock mounting locations??????

Oh, another thing... All of this would have to sit pretty low, because of the oil pan on the subaru engine... This would bring the center of mass of the engine up higher which kinda sucks.

-Tony

Posted by: lapuwali Oct 7 2005, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (TonyAKAVW @ Oct 7 2005, 04:52 PM)

I like the idea Mike, but I see two flaws with it and one spot where it could be improved. First flaw I see is that all of the rotational torque of the engine and transmission are now going to be placed on the transmission mounting ears. The distance between those is substantially less than the distance between the original engine mounting points on the car. Maybe the rotational torque isn't too significant, but it seems like suspending the whole mass from three points might be scary. Even the 911 engine mounts have _some_ spacing... The second flaw was pointed out already, but could be improved by using both the stock engine mounts (repalced with solid blocks of metal) and the adapter plate as well. That would provide two points of attachment along the axis of the support bar which would stiffen up the structure a lot. You could then fix the first problem by coming out into a Y shape and maybe even use the stock mounting locations?????? Oh, another thing... All of this would have to sit pretty low, because of the oil pan on the subaru engine... This would bring the center of mass of the engine up higher which kinda sucks. -Tony

I agree Mike's drawing won't work, but only because of the oil pan issues. Again, like Mike said the ORIGINAL 914/6 mounting system used ONE BOLT at the bulkhead to hang the engine, so 100% of the torque loads were fed through the transmission ears.

The KEP adapter plate is approx. 1/2" thick, and it's Al. They don't seem to have any problems with adding that additional spacing between the transaxle and the engine.

You are not going to bend 1/2" of Al without applying VERY serious loads to it. Just as magnesium is 1/3 the strength of Al, so Al is 1/3 the strength of steel. A 1/2" plate of Al is just as stiff and strong as a 1/8" plate steel, and weighs about the same.

There's no reason the "ears" on the adapter plate couldn't use smooth, wide-radius bends. Indeed, it would be a very good idea to do so. The only stress riser there would be the hole you'd need for the bolt to mate it do the tube you'd hang the whole thing from, and you could radius/chamfer the hole.

If the ears had 1/2" of material to either side of the hole, that would give you one full sq. in of material in each ear. Al has a tensile strength of 20,000psi, so both ears together would be able to hold 40,000lbs, or roughly 150 Type IV engines. I'd say that's a pretty good safety factor, considering the worst loads it would see short of a major crash would be about 2000lbs (engine flopping around from several G of flopping around over bad bumps).

Posted by: scott thacher Oct 7 2005, 08:23 PM

i was thinking of something like this, the ears are welded to some blocks that bolt to so kind of plate on the longs behind the suspension ears like my mount does


Attached image(s)

Posted by: effutuo101 Oct 8 2005, 10:13 AM

triangulation is the key. you will have to have a mounting system, but if you triangulate it, you will make it stronger.

Posted by: jsteele22 Oct 10 2005, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (scott thacher @ Oct 7 2005, 07:23 PM)

i was thinking of something like this, the ears are welded to some blocks that bolt to so kind of plate on the longs behind the suspension ears like my mount does

Yeah, I'm thinking along these lines too. Just one small change I might make :




Attached image(s)

Posted by: dimitri May 3 2006, 05:12 PM

I have converted my Vanagon Syncro over 4 years ago to a Subaru engine, in
particular an er27 engine, out of a XT6. This is a 2.7 l 6cylinder. After looking at
Kennedy components cost, the decision was made to do it myselfe. Measured engine,
trans, machined adapter. Had no access to large enough lathe. Had a machine shop
turn down the Subaru flywheel to fit Porsche 911 starter ring gear, used on 2.7 up
motors. actually starting with 1970 motor thru sc, the rest was machined to same
dimensions as Vanagon flywheel. Balanced and still running flawless after at least
70k miles. Dimitri

Posted by: fiid May 3 2006, 06:10 PM

Yeah - the back of the car kind of oscillates from side to side as it scrabbles for traction. Once the tires warm up a bit tho it goes away and you have to concentrate on shifting and not hitting anything now that you're doing 100mph.




On a more serious note - I haven't noticed any vibration back there that's caused me worry. I'm a little concerned about the other end where the EDIS wheel is bolted on the front of the harmonic balancer - but that smoothes out above idle anyways.

Posted by: jimkelly Aug 30 2009, 10:35 AM

link to suby conversion thread

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=40733

jim