RWD

[solitaire]

Before I start... this is hypothetical money no object territory, it goes without saying that what I am about to ask below is very stupid

Is it technically feasible to convert an AE92 to rwd, as in - would it handle well at the end of it with relatively simple setup or would it be some horrible frankenstein car that ruined everything that was good about the ae92's and just end up being a fairly average rwd car?

Note: I am not actually thinking of doing it... im just curious.

[GTTpower]

Its possible, there was a 4WD converted AE92 for sale a while ago, lots of work and big $. Best bet would be to source an AE95/104/105 then convert as it had the tunnel and rear axle already set up.
In saying that though any transverse RWD car is going to handle like shit.

[.:O4AGTZ:.]

In my opinion, money to object of course it is possible. But the way they are designed I would say it is going to completely ruin the geometry of the car and it is going to handle like a pig if is at all even drivable.

[MAC_HATER]

see the whole money no object thing opens a huge can of worms

if i had millions of cash monies id buy a 1992 Telstar Ghia and convert the 12 valve FWD shitbox into a RWD KL-ZE spazzo

if money was an object anything 4WD should be easy to properly convert to RWD? since it has the Driveshaft tunnel?

[solitaire]

see the whole money no object thing opens a huge can of worms

if i had millions of cash monies id buy a 1992 Telstar Ghia and convert the 12 valve FWD shitbox into a RWD KL-ZE spazzo

if money was an object anything 4WD should be easy to properly convert to RWD? since it has the Driveshaft tunnel?

I am not sure if any ae92's came in 4wd but my question is around the fwd models, i guess my main curiosity is around wether the chassis being setup for fwd means that making it perform as a rwd chassis is cock eyed to start with.

This is purely from a technical perspective - i.e. shoving a dead horse up hill as its flawed to begin with?

[GTTpower]

A good example of a transverse rwd would be that VR4 that drifts in D1NZ, he seems to make it work.
If the viscous coupling craps out again on the EP85 ill be converting to rwd

[Vertigo]

i was wondering the other day what an AW11 would be like converted to front mounted RWD. lol.

[MR2BOY23]

i was wondering the other day what an AW11 would be like converted to front mounted RWD. lol.

lol

[shihad]

I know your just asking out of curiosity but its so hard to not say why not just use ae86.I believe matt dunns work made a successful 2jz ae101 so hopefully he has something to say.

hay matt how come you guys didnt use ae8* chassy instead always wondered?

[postfach]

If money was no object, you wouldn't have to resort to half assed fixes, and it wouldn't matter what chassis you started with (FWD, 4WD) because you could afford to chop the floor up and make a tunnel, sort the suspension geo out etc etc....

Money no object, you can do anything you want.

I'm sure it could be done on a relatively low budget if you stuck to basics and were capable of doing things yourself, too.

[GDII]

i was wondering the other day what an AW11 would be like converted to front mounted RWD. lol.

What about an AW11 or SW20 being twin engined 4WD? Like the Suzuki Cultus Pikes Peak hillclimb car. Just have trouble fitting the engine under the bonnet to hide it.

[touge_ae101]

hell yeah RWD ae92 would be awesome!

i'm thinking of doing it further down the track. st185 gt4 subframe and mount a 4age nth-sth (would almost fit fit reloc radiator) and slight massage of tunnel/firewall area.

would be awesome and with a cage to stiffen up the body and tie in to the suspension points, can't see why you couldn't get it to handle well with a good set of coilovers etc.

as for FR AW, have heard stories from whynot about a FR LS1 powered AW which was built for big skids. this would be fun.

[strx7]

the biggest use is altering the rear suspension geometry to be able to put power to the ground using only the rear wheels. look at any WRX, EVO, VR4 etc, fine for drifting as they just light up the rear end. but if you want to go fast its a different kettle of fish

[Malcolm]

there are a few things that I have against the idea of converting a FWD to a RWD:
- chassis stiffness - engine torque is reacted differently for a longitudinal vs transverse engine, without stiffening the engine bay in the right directions (and no, I don't mean a strut brace) and possibly the entire chassis if you're going for lots of power, you can get unwanted flex under power and engine braking/overrun which could screw with your suspension geometry and handling
- MacPherson strut suspension in the rear is a bit bloody useless if you would like to corner and put power to the ground at the same time. I'd consider a De-Dion type rear end as the best compromise between ease of installation and performance (although having said that I'm not sure there would be many setups you could find for a parts-bin type job)
- weight distribution could tend to be a bit too far forward, although this would depend a lot on how far back you can get the engine and the weight of whatever rear end you use.
- front suspension geometry in FWDs tends to be a bit different to more traditional RWD geometry, particularly in terms of scrub radius and steering geometry, I also wouldn't be surprised if the roll centres were typically at different heights. I have never looked in detail at the specifics on this, but I will suggest there could be room for improvement by converting to RWD front suspension geometry.

[postfach]

- MacPherson strut suspension in the rear is a bit bloody useless if you would like to corner and put power to the ground at the same time. I'd consider a De-Dion type rear end as the best compromise between ease of installation and performance (although having said that I'm not sure there would be many setups you could find for a parts-bin type job)

I'm sure you're probably aware, but a lot of the Fraser cars are running a De-Dion rear end, sure there aren't a heck of a lot of them about, but they don't seem to have issues finding the parts, so for a one off, with the right connections it shouldn't be much of an issue.

As for chassis stiffness, presumably the end goal of such a project would be to build a race car, so a well thought out roll cage/tube frame would probably provide the required extra stiffness. Not many people are going to choose to convert a FWD chassis to RWD for a street car.

Once you're at the stage where you're putting tubes all through your car, adding a few more to get the suspension geometry correct isn't going to be a big deal.

[Malcolm]

Once you're at the stage where you're putting tubes all through your car, adding a few more to get the suspension geometry correct isn't going to be a big deal.

provided you know what "correct" is

[wde_bdy]

At which point you just tube chassis it and get a far far better result for probably not much more cost.

Callum

[postfach]

Once you're at the stage where you're putting tubes all through your car, adding a few more to get the suspension geometry correct isn't going to be a big deal.

provided you know what "correct" is

[Flannelman]

Ive thought of this myself.

Only large problem for north/south engine/box placement is the location of the steering rack.

And the point on RWD is for more weight in the center of the car, so leaving it in FWD would not be a fun car to drive. Think Lead Tipped Arrow.

Or, as what most would agree, old V8 that can only be driven round corners by throttle oversteer.

[allencr]

If you were dumb enough to want do this, you wouldn't have been smart enough to accumulate the $$!