Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way.
Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Transaxle/Transmission Ratings, Torque or Horsepower
Brian Mifsud
post Oct 3 2005, 01:27 PM
Post #1


Mechanical Engineer
***

Group: Members
Posts: 981
Joined: 3-March 03
From: Penngrove, CA
Member No.: 384
Region Association: None



Something discussed long ago way way back to "Porschephiles"...

In many posts, I've seen people rate transmissions/ transaxles by maximum horsepower. I believe that this is misleading and incorrect. As far as I know, gear and shaft diameter as well as gear tooth size (thickness of gear) within a transmission dictates how much torque one can manage from input to output (assuming decent alloys are used in gearmaking). Too much torque fed into a transmission, and shafts can deflect, or gear teeth can shear, and either way, we have a failure.

HP = Torque x RPM X (some constant I forget)

Let's say I have 2 engines, both rated at 100hp max. One is a slow reving 250CU V-6, and the other is a 1000CC superbike engine. The 250 CU engine will put out roughly 200+ -odd ft-lbs peak, and the superbike engine will pretty well max out at ~60 ft-lbs (BTW, after years of reading the spec sheets in car and driver, I've noticed that most engines put out ROUGHLY 1 ft-lb torque per cubic inch regardless of style).

Both engines will get to the 100HP rating, but at different torques input into the transaxle.

Of course, if I run a transaxle at very high rpm, I will get lot's of heat through bearing and gear friction. Eventually, it will fail, but I believe for different reasons depending if it was a low torque/high RPM engine feeding it, or a low RPM high torque plant.

My understanding was that the 901 was dependable for 200-odd ft-lbs. Of course, the factory will probably go one step further and rate them at a certain RPM to include the heat buildup from speed.

Well, anyhow, I believe this to be true. Of course you'll reply if you know better than I and I humbly admit I don't know it all.

Also, does anyone have the actual specs from the factory for the 901 and it's varients?

Thanks

Brian
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies(1 - 1)
Brian Mifsud
post Oct 4 2005, 10:56 AM
Post #2


Mechanical Engineer
***

Group: Members
Posts: 981
Joined: 3-March 03
From: Penngrove, CA
Member No.: 384
Region Association: None



Have any of you V-8 guys done the research and found out what the 901 was rated at in foot-lbs? Or has it been more a case of break and replace?

Thanks

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd May 2024 - 10:03 AM