Audi question

What Audis had a non-transverse FWD transmission?

B5 A4s, C5 - A6s

4000, 5000 IIRC

edit: (non-transverse = longitudinal )

Arent they all non-transverse? I'm pretty sure they are all laid out like that...

EDIT: with the exception of the TT. Because its just a VW rebadged.

In reply to cxhb:

Basically: Yup

EDIT: the A3 as well is transverse

RossD wrote: 4000, 5000 IIRC edit: (non-transverse = longitudinal )

I knew that I just had a brain fart.

I didn't know that most Audis were like? Why do they do that?

Much like Subaru, they did that because it is easier to do AWD/4WD since you can combine the front differential with the transaxle and still have the ability to add a center and rear differential and driveshaft much easier than you can with a transverse drivetrain.

Plus, there was likely some thought that having the motor longitudinal would help with packaging and make the car seem more like its contemporaries from BMW and Mercedes (both classically front engined, RWD cars)

Realistically, mounting the engine like that made for nose heavy, understeering pigs that the engineers had to work around to resolve (relocate the radiator, battery, lighter front sheet metal, etc) Adding a center differential and going to Quattro drive allowed for more oversteer and reduced the issues of the overworked front tires. Kind of like the 911, lots of work went into to engineering around a problem that shouldn't have been for as long as it has been.

BTW, the Audi FWD 5-speed transaxle found its way into the back of most Porsche 924s, 944s and 968s from 1981-on. albeit minus the clutch parts, etc. So someone did think about how to ultimately solve the understeer problem of the Audi's and the oversteer problem of the 911. I can imagine the Audi and Porsche engineers being really happy to finally be able to find a solution to their respective problems :)

AWD was never a thought in Audi's brain when they built the Super 90 and the 100LS, the beginnings of all things modern Audi.

My folks owned 2 of them. Engine was longitudinal then. Why? Dunno.

A lot of fwd manufacturers did that back then . Audi, SAAB. My guess is it was easier to work with than transverse given off the shelf bits.

Keep in mind that the first "modern" Audis were designed with help from Mercedes, a company that didn't build a FWD car, much less a car with a transversely mounted engine until....was it the first "A class"/smart cars?

VW, who bought Audi from Mercedes used the inline engine in the Dasher/Passat at first.

But I agree it was most likely because with the exception of REALLY small cars like the BL Mini and the FWD Fiats...all other FWD cars (barring, strangely enough, GM's big FWD Eldorado and Toronado of the same period as the Audi 90 and 100) had longitudinal engines with the gearbox directly behind, or in Saab's case, in front of the engine.

this is the reason why i am using a B5 variant to use in my $2011 Challenger, because its a longitutinal setup which enables me to use it in an older mid-engine car...

turboswede wrote: Realistically, mounting the engine like that made for nose heavy, understeering pigs that the engineers had to work around to resolve.

DING! DING! We have a winner here!

(signed Former B5 VW owner)

96DXCivic wrote: What Audis had a non-transverse FWD transmission?

All of 'em that weren't AWD. Not counting the TT or A3, of course.

They suck, though. I know someone who can break 3rd gear by rolling into the throttle, and he's only making about 300hp.

Now, the best 2wd Audi transaxle is found in the 944...

turboswede wrote: Much like Subaru, they did that because it is easier to do AWD/4WD since you can combine the front differential with the transaxle and still have the ability to add a center and rear differential and driveshaft much easier than you can with a transverse drivetrain.

Audi was longitudinal for a looong time before they started their AWD shenanigans.

Looking back, most Euro FWDs were longitudinal... Hmm.

Knurled wrote:

96DXCivic wrote: What Audis had a non-transverse FWD transmission?

All of 'em that weren't AWD. Not counting the TT or A3, of course. They suck, though. I know someone who can break 3rd gear by rolling into the throttle, and he's only making about 300hp. Now, the best 2wd Audi transaxle is found in the 944...

Well considering I would only be looking to put like 100 something horsepower thru one not that big a problem.

Ok I don't know if anyone knows the answer to this but what is the lightest one.

Also a potentially silly question what would it take to hook one up to a motorcycle V-Twin not sure what V-Twin.

Input splines are semi-common (Think smaller Ford and Chrysler clutch splines)

Adapter plate would need to be made, obviously.

Map the Audi bellhousing, and the V-twin, overlap and machine.

Then you get to adapt the flywheel to the clutch and starter.

The original 924 only made about 95hp and the Lambo/GT40 replica folks are putting V8's up to them. I'd say it will work just fine for your needs.

I believe they are all about the same size/weight. Aluminum case, etc.

Keep in mind that many in the yards will be AWD/Quattro since that is what Audi mostly sold here due to the cost of importation and promoting their engineering expertise.

So could a 924 tranny be used for a FWD application?