300hp, Small, Lightweight.

In reply to Knurled:

To my knowledge, there's no issue whatsoever with that. As mentioned, loosecannon is running one of these stand alone on the original ECU. He had some problems with a vendor telling him the wrong specific ECU to use. Local to me is Del Long who has built several DM & EM cars using Ecotec engines with factory ECUs.

In reply to carguy123:

That is an issue with some of the newer FWD transmissions as the gears are spread out too much for autocross. The close ratio transmissions do exist.

carguy123 wrote:

Knurled wrote: The VW engine is slightly shorter in length and is lighter than a rotary.

Is there a way to run a VW/Audi engine without using Megasquirt or some other standalone?

Lots of ways. CIS is the easy button. Air goes in, fuel comes out. If you have a wideband oxygen sensor that has a programmable output, there is a simple wiring hack you can do so that you don't even need to do any fuel pressure tuning - you reroute the WOT switch to a relay instead of the lambda controller, and the relay switches the O2 sensor feed from the "narrowband emulator" wire and the programmable wire. Then you set the programmable wire to emulate a narrowband with a switchpoint at whatever you want your WOT air/fuel ratio to be. Tada, your CIS is now running closed-loop with a wideband.

Digifant is also pretty well hacked as is the pre-OBDII Motronic used on ABAs. Come to think of it, so is the OBDII stuff. Part of why I keep wanting to get a 1.8t B5 is that the computer is way hacked, and you don't need a chip burner to do tuning changes.

I guess I should have said was there a way to run the newer VW/Audi engines. So I think you said the OBD2 motors could be run in a transplant then? I have no idea what a 1.8t B5 means as far as years or models go.

I had heard they couldn't be run due to sensor/wiring issues.

Digifant definitely. Pre-OBDII ABA, maybe.

B5 cars (first generation Audi A4/4th-generation Passat, '98-04ish) computer, probably not.

Brain bender. If the B1 was the 1st generation Passat (Dasher/Fox), and the B2 was the 2nd generation Passat (Quantum/Santana/80/4000/quattro/Sport Quattro), why is the B5 the 4th generation Passat? (Because the "B3 Passat" was a long wheelbase Jetta, while the Audis went through a B3 and B4 chassis 80/90 before the lines re-merged with the B5)

I see that my Ecotec was mentioned, nice. Yeh, I use a newish Ecotec 2.0 out of a 2013 Buick Regal Turbo and with only a tune and VP race gas, it makes 350 hp/385 ft/lb to the wheels. It made 330 hp/330 ft/lbs on 91 octane. My engine uses the latest E39A ECM, which is not yet fully understood by the aftermarket. I would go with an older Ecotec out of a Solstice or Sky, it will make just as much power but there are plenty of standalone harnesses around for it and the E78 ECM is well understood. As for transmission, the Saturn trans is kinda big and maybe the ratios aren't great, but QuickTime makes a bellhousing with multiple bolt patterns for Muncie and Borg-Warner transmissions. I have a BW Super T-10 with the 2.64 1st gear ratio (W code). There's a list on Wikipedia for what these engines came in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine#LDK and here is a link to the bellhousing https://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/qti-rm-7041

I think the Solstice trans having iffy ratios might have something to do with it literally being the exact same trans they used in the Colorado just with a different bell housing.

Chadeux wrote: I think the Solstice trans having iffy ratios might have something to do with it literally being the exact same trans they used in the Colorado just with a different bell housing.

To me the transmission IS the car because it's what you have the most contact with. A transmission with too wide gear spacing or one that's notchy and slow to shift up or down ruins the experience.

I got to drive a V8 powered Locost and hated it because the V8 transmission was so much harder to use than in my S2000. It was heavy and slow shifting so that you wanted to just put the car in a gear and leave it there rather than maximize the rest of the car by working the engine like you could have with a smoother shifting transmission.

I've never seen a close ratio transmission for the Solstice

carguy123 said: I've never seen a close ratio transmission for the Solstice

No need for one, at least with the turbo engine, as it isn't peaky at all - stock maximum torque from 2000 rpm up.

The close ratio boxes will be found in conventionally tuned engines with more power at higher rpm.

The 6 speed box in my BMW Z4M 333 bhp @ 8,000) has 6th gear as 1.00 with the first five as an ultra close ratio set. Too pricy for use in the car we are talking about, though.

It is possible that a WC series T5 might work in that car - if so you want one from a car that originally had a V8, not a V6 as the latter had a bull low first gear that was unusable once you were running. I use a V8 T5 in my Jamaican bodied MGA behind a GM 3.4 V6.

wspohn you might be right for track days but in autocross when you are hunting tenths or hundredths of seconds you need the close ratio. Torque won't overcome the wrong gearing.

carguy123 wrote: wspohn you might be right for track days but in autocross when you are hunting tenths or hundredths of seconds you need the close ratio. Torque won't overcome the wrong gearing.

This is correct, my car has 385 ft/lbs in a 1850 lb car and the ratios were too far apart (30 mph drop between gears) for autocrossing. I swapped out the entire gearset to get 21 mph drop between gears.

One of the Japanese car review videos tested a new Solstice (N/A) versus a contemporary Miata (well, Roadster. MX-5?) and they said the transmission sucked, but the 2.4l engine made up for it. It was actually funny to listen to the pained way they admitted that the car was actually faster than the Roadster.

Of course, ALL engines benefit from proper gearing. But lighter duty transmissions also always shift better.