# TT wide body kit.



## R5T (Apr 7, 2010)

http://audittrs.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/dmc-widebody-kit-project-coming-to-life-very-soon

http://audittrs.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/dmc-widebody-kit-news


----------



## nilreb (Mar 17, 2012)

i would like a stock v6 front / rear bumper but wide body.


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

Are all of the vents, front spoiler, rear spoiler and rear diffuser supposed to be funtional? If not it would just be a waste.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

:thumbdown:


----------



## idwurks (Oct 25, 2003)

I think some parts of it could work but I just don't get this spoiler. I would rather do an actual racing spoiler than that heavy air brake back there.


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

I'd rock the arches. But that's it. That front and rear bumper.. :vampire:


----------



## 1fast2liter (Apr 4, 2005)

Ick. Theirs one on YouTube thats a orange roadster that's sexy. But this one looks like it had down syndrome. 

Sent from my SCH-R950 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

the sides and rear are nice..

made a reputable company too...I'd rock the qutr panels if you could get it w/o the front bumper...but it looks like you'd have to do some molding to make that work since it's wider all the way down the bottom of the fender


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

So fugly. Call me crazy I'd rather pay Matt and have a wide body custom made for 10 fold the price and my left nut then even think about that


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

I came across those pictures a while back and wasn't too impressed. Besides the funky bumpers, the flares just don't look right. If a street TT is widened, it really should be done to the point where it looks like the factory produced it that way. These cars are a little difficult to modify, due to the risk of ruining the near perfect design. I am a purist I guess. Big grills just don't belong on the mkl's. The rounded design of the car make it hard to add any sort of angled, hardline features to it. This kit looks like quality work, but not anything I can consider to look fitting of the car at all.

I really would like to widen someone's car. Come hang out with me this summer, and I will hook you up! I obviously have some projects to finish up, but would like to make "weld on" widened fender sets...


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> I really would like to widen someone's car. Come hang out with me this summer, and I will hook you up! I obviously have some projects to finish up, but would like to make "weld on" widened fender sets...


This guys is getting in line.


----------



## chrisc351 (Feb 17, 2011)

I like the idea of the wide body, the TT could use a more of an aggressive look. If it were up to me though, I would leave the front and rear bumpers alone and focus on the arches. One of the biggest problems with any of the aftermarket TT bodykits is that they aim to change things too much overall making things look ridiculous and completely ruining the body lines. I think what makes the Vorsteiner M3 look so aggressive is the wide rear, so something OEM looking while thickening up the rear fenders would make it look really aggressive.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

chrisc351 said:


> I like the idea of the wide body, the TT could use a more of an aggressive look. If it were up to me though, I would leave the front and rear bumpers alone and focus on the arches.



That was my goal. I think I did a decent job at it. Doing it again would only make them come out better.


----------



## 1fast2liter (Apr 4, 2005)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> That was my goal. I think I did a decent job at it. Doing it again would only make them come out better.


Thats not bad with a boser hood would look mean

Sent from my SCH-R950 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JsTT225 (Nov 23, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> I really would like to widen someone's car. Come hang out with me this summer, and I will hook you up! I obviously have some projects to finish up, but would like to make "weld on" widened fender sets...


I would love to ship mine to you for some widebody love. Been following your build for quite some time and have even lost some sleep thinking about trying it myself.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

Interesting look. 

But in my opinion...when it come to wide body


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

^^ That is my TT dream project. I think I will be looking for a salvage car towards the end of the year to start on one.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> ^^ That is my TT dream project. I think I will be looking for a salvage car towards the end of the year to start on one.


All carbon I hope


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> I came across those pictures a while back and wasn't too impressed. Besides the funky bumpers, the flares just don't look right. If a street TT is widened, it really should be done to the point where it looks like the factory produced it that way. These cars are a little difficult to modify, due to the risk of ruining the near perfect design. I am a purist I guess. Big grills just don't belong on the mkl's. The rounded design of the car make it hard to add any sort of angled, hardline features to it. This kit looks like quality work, but not anything I can consider to look fitting of the car at all.
> 
> I really would like to widen someone's car. Come hang out with me this summer, and I will hook you up! I obviously have some projects to finish up, but would like to make "weld on" widened fender sets...


You know I'm only a state away, maybe we can set something up this summer :thumbup:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

PLAYED TT said:


> All carbon I hope


Depends on the depth of my pockets after getting the chassis, motor, and rear axle sorted out. No matter what, it will end up majorly lightened. Depending on the cost of the salvage car, I am thinking around 6k will get me pretty close to a rolling chassis. I had plans to build a little tube chassis car before buying the TT. There are forums for "locost" cars. The same ideas can be applied in this type of build. The nice part is, you get to skip out on building the entire body from scratch. A DTM TT is as sexy as you can get too!



Dowski12 said:


> You know I'm only a state away, maybe we can set something up this summer :thumbup:


That would be cool. You would need to make sure you have a wide set of wheels before we can start. :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Canards!


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

The salvage car site I have been watching just auctioned off a couple front end collision TT's for under $1000. The lowest going for $400. Of course shipping on top of that, but a wreck can be had for under $1500 to my door. There are plenty of good parts to sell after that too. If I decide on a mid-engine setup, rather than front engine/rwd, I already have the built motor and trans. If I stop at paint with my car, this dtm dream car could get underway much sooner than later... Lose a coupe canards, and it could start tomorrow!!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> Lose a coupe canards, and it could start tomorrow!!


:laugh:


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

DeckManDubs said:


> Interesting look.
> 
> But in my opinion...when it come to wide body


funny thing is, if you made your car look just like that...ppl would still hate on it.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Not to mention the DTM was RWD and had a v8. That combined would be the tits


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

Krissrock said:


> funny thing is, if you made your car look just like that...ppl would still hate on it.



That is if you hand around with the "Rice crowd", I mean "Stance folks" 


If you show up to a track with 12" slicks, 400awhp, 2800lbs and aerodynamics to keep grip in check...I doubt there will be any hate.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Do you know of any front end wrecks for a reasonable price Noah?


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> That is if you hand around with the "Rice crowd", I mean "Stance folks"
> 
> 
> If you show up to a track with 12" slicks, 400awhp, 2800lbs and aerodynamics to keep grip in check...I doubt there will be any hate.


Even I couldn't hate that. I wouldn't put it past myself to fly out for a chance to drive it. I haven't been to Colorado Springs in....2 years maybe lol.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

talk to a dealer and throw them a few bucks to go to the auction with them...i've seen them go for pretty cheap, running cars too :thumbup:

you can always do something like this as well and part the pieces you don't need to recoup some cost: 

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...][]]&listingId=340549043&listingIndex=2&Log=0


http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...][]]&listingId=339984429&listingIndex=4&Log=0


http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...][]]&listingId=340666398&listingIndex=5&Log=0


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

I just talked to a guy in Denver about a shell he has. It's bare... Only doors and a hatch. He wants $900. It was a low mileage car with a clean body and title. The price is a little too high for me. Only because it doesn't roll, and has nothing to sell off. I really would like a wrecked one, and pay no more than $1500 to my door. All I need is a good body from the doors back, and good glass. The thing is truly going to get chopped up. The entire front end will get cut off, as well as the whole floor pan. A good amount of the interior structure will need to go too. 

I need to refresh my chassis fabrication and suspension geometry memory, but this can turn out pretty amazing. I think a mid-engine 16vt will be the way I will go. I already have a good amount of the parts, and would not disappoint. It would also end up as the most light weight option too. The main problem I can up the the engine in the back is setting up the upper control arms. The axle lengths available are not long enough to give me the room I need for a double arm setup. There is always the custom option, but that is beyond pricey! I can extend factory axles. That is really only a mock up option, and temporary driving option at best. 

No matter what I have to wait until this snow is out of the picture. I will need to build a chassis table. A good one time use table can be made from a good frame and thick mdf. Mdf is no good with moisture. I will get some money and a solid plan together during my couple month wait for the dry weather to return.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Just use two of the FWD 02M passenger side since it's much longer, or hybid some together. You could offset the motor mounts to get them where you want the wheels to be.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Audi 4000 axles are the longest I have found. It's been a year or so since I really thought about it, but I remember there being some sort of issue. I think it was the inner cv flange being a smaller diameter than the transmission flange. I didn't get to the point of my research to find out if the cv could be rebuilt with the large flange. That is about the time I bought the TT and stopped thinking about the project.


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

[QUOTE/]That would be cool. You would need to make sure you have a wide set of wheels before we can start. :thumbup:[/QUOTE]

That wouldn't be a problem. What size wheel would I have to run front and back?


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

18x13. **** it do center locks. With slicks. Doooo ittttttt


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

The purpose of the build would be to be wide for the looks? Or widening of a body/fenders to fit over and cover widened tracks and big wheels as a result of performance/racing needs?


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

Performance of course...which would be perfect in an UNLIMITED class like the one I'll end up in after doing this :thumbup:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The purpose of the build would be to be wide for the looks? Or widening of a body/fenders to fit over and cover widened tracks and big wheels as a result of performance/racing needs?


Well with the actual race car being a frankenstein A s4 v8 will require a wider track then what the stock TT body offers no? As far as the build idea its more for looks and covering wide ass wheels. Of course this is all assumed since I only graduated with a P.H.D. in vwvortexoligy :laugh:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Dowski12 said:


> That wouldn't be a problem. What size wheel would I have to run front and back?


I am running 10" et10 in the front, and 10.5 et0 in the back. I guess anything in that range will do.




PLAYED TT said:


> 18x13. **** it do center locks. With slicks. Doooo ittttttt


The dtm TT uses 10" up front, and I believe 10.5" in the rear. Anything wider would be difficult for packaging reasons. If you look closely at the fenders, my guess is 5-6" wide per side in the back and probably 4-5" up front.

You would need a relatively high et's, inorder to focus on the proper length control arms. Center lock hub may not be possible, again, for packaging reasons.






Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The purpose of the build would be to be wide for the looks? Or widening of a body/fenders to fit over and cover widened tracks and big wheels as a result of performance/racing needs?


This would be a purpose built track car. Everything would be functional, as it is with the dtm cars. The differenced in my case would be motor choice and placement. Mainly for cost reasons, and it would seem that I would have more luck getting to the 50/50 weight ratio with a mid mounted engine. It would have double control arm, with inboard suspension. The spindles would have to be custom made to get the proper, kpi, scrub radius, castor, and roll center. I will have to find a wheel that is suitable, and a hub/bearing to work with my axle choice. Buy the factory spindle, then have a machine shop lathe me a set of bearing carriers. That will have to be the starting point to everything. As you know, a proper track built car has to be built around the suspension, and not around the frame/car. I'm sure you can provide me with a wealth of info on figuring the spindle specs and the suspension boxes for the starting point.


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> . Of course this is all assumed since I only graduated with a P.H.D. in vwvortexoligy :laugh:


Lmao!!!


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> Do you know of any front end wrecks for a reasonable price Noah?


Try iaai.com 

Thy have plenty on their :thumbup:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

That does look like a good site. They are all in a TBD status.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4291629-Build-RWD-Jetta-PIC-HEAVY


Reading material for those interested in seeing a tube chassis build.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

First big question would be the drivetrain layout: will this be mid-engine RWD like the DTMs or attempting to retain the much more optimal AWD layout? The reason I'm asking is because a front mounted engine with AWD will raise the final on-track performance by a decent factor. I'm not trying to influence or dictate the direction you take with such a custom build but since you'd be most likely racing in open classes that allow anything to run, I think retaining AWD would net more benefit per dollar/hours invested in building it. A mid-mounted engine (with good power) and RWD will have traction and handling challenges and limits (obviously just in comparison from the existing layout) on our chassis because there's not much that can be done with the wheelbase length. What I'm trying to get at is you could build a much easier/cheaper custom race car with the existing AWD layout using the VW/Audi parts bin... and have much better final results than the proposed plan. This is what I'd build:
- A sick transverse 1.8t stroked motor with a Frankenstein transmission mixing the 5sped/6speed gears

- Part ways with the OEM box haldex controller and use one of those European user programmable controllers

- Shave and totally re-do the suspension pick up points to allow unequal length double A-arms front and rear 

- Use the budget/time to concentrate on lowering the motor and moving it further back in relation to the front axles... and maybe machine center lock hubs for the cool factor. 

In any case, I'm in if you're crazy enough to carry through with the project as you originally proposed it! I'll be the free overall project/suspension consultant!  

BTW, just to fit big wheels/tires without chopping the frame inboard calls for a wide body (that's regardless of the suspension bits and design used). To run 12" wheels and 335 rubber on this frame requires to have the wheels sticking out pass the original fender lines. 

This is my car a long time ago with 17X10.5 front and 17X11 rears wrapped in 315 all around. It definitely could have used some wide body like that DTM car, or at least some wide fenders.






















even now, with 17X9.5 rears, much higher offset, and the wheels move inward considerably, it doesn't look right under the stock body work


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

The plan is a mid engine/rwd. The reason is, I have a built motor and a O2A trans. I want to simplify the build down to a stripped car of all vag wiring and computers. Then use a universal fuse block and harness, and megasquirt for management. I understand a different drivetrain would give me a better racer car, but this will end up on a certain budget. I also just like the thought of a midengine car. It will mostly be a build for the fun of it. Running the car on a track will just be for the fun of the drive really. Nothing too serious.

After looking at the DTM car closely, you can see that they extended the wheel base forward. It looks like a good 5-6". I don't know how much of a benefit it gives the car from a handling stand point though. 

The frame itself will be completely removed. Fitting 12+ inch wheels, with all the rubber they can handle would only be limited by the new tube frame that the engine will be mounted to. Being a mid engine with double a-arms, you only have x amount of room between the chassis and spindles. It will be a little difficult to squeeze a reasonable length arm set in the rear without moving the engine further forward, giving you too high of and angle for axles. This is just the concerns I have in my mind's eye. It may all work out fine when I am able to take measurements. 

I am going to shoot for a near exact match to the body of the dtm cars. All but extended the ass end out and fender vents. I have done a bunch of reading on creating aero downforce. With a full under pan and diffuser in the rear, plus some other things, it may have a decent chance for traction...every once in a while.:laugh: 

I had a mid engine Corrado build going a few years ago in a past life. It is just a project that I MUST have again. I'm in a much better place in life now, and want to start it all over with everything I have learned since the last round.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> The plan is a mid engine/rwd. The reason is, I have a built motor and a O2A trans. I want to simplify the build down to a stripped car of all vag wiring and computers. Then use a universal fuse block and harness, and megasquirt for management. I understand a different drivetrain would give me a better racer car, but this will end up on a certain budget. I also just like the thought of a midengine car. It will mostly be a build for the fun of it. Running the car on a track will just be for the fun of the drive really. Nothing too serious.
> 
> After looking at the DTM car closely, you can see that they extended the wheel base forward. It looks like a good 5-6". I don't know how much of a benefit it gives the car from a handling stand point though.
> 
> ...


OK, makes sense since you already have parts laying around. What I'm concerned about is how much of a handful the 96" wheelbase would be, powered by the rear wheels (not just traction, but suspension and weight transfer dynamics as well). Maybe lengthening the wheelbase should be added to the list of things to do! 

Adding areo grip to the mechanical grip is not too hard if you know how to play your cards, but could be very costly (especially if doing so in a weight and drag conscious fashion). Front splitter with proper angle of attack, and extending far enough forward of the bumper to catch clean air and create a new split point - flat bottom - rear diffuser - and functional rear wing optimized for the speed range you'll see, is a good start. The rest of the stuff could be a wild guess since there isn't enough empirical data on the subject to know what really works and why (the big-budget racing teams use wind tunnel time to maximize all the body kinck-knacks in their aero package). Should be fun, DO IT!


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

The extra length is a must in my book. For help with weight transfer, both front and rear tracks will be widened, but the front wider than the rear. The inside rear weight transfers to outside front. The extra width helps to fight off the shift. 

The rule of thumb with the double a-arm is to have the upper around 2/3's the length of the lower. I am more concerned about the actual camber gain. What would be the max you would want to see? I guess it depends on the weight of the car, but that is a little hard to figure in the pre-planning stages of everything. I am going to start looking for the front end specs of the lotus elise. The are said to have one of the best setups. I don't know if that still holds true, but it will give me an idea of where to go with the geometry. I will be running it at a much lower ride height, so it may be more difficult to apply the info.

I hear you on the wind tunnel tested aero. That is kind of why I am going to do without certain things. It's obvious those cars are built with a 100% purpose, but like you said, they are tunnel tested for an exact purpose. That's well beyond me.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> The rule of thumb with the double a-arm is to have the upper around 2/3's the length of the lower.


It's a bit more complex than that, especially if you're looking for real good handling characteristics from the geometry. You can scratch that 2/3 rule of thumb as it really depends on the length of the arms in relation to the chassis width, and in practice the type of double A arm design you decide or forced to go with. You'll realize very early on that you have to make a choice in the suspension design: "Short spindle" or "Long spindle".

Short Spindle usually have unoptimal king pin inclination and are hard on bushings and shock loads to chassis. However, because of their inboard location inside the wheel, they offer a lot more clearance for big wheels, and low center center of gravity through lowering.

Long Spindle have much better king pin characteristics but because the upper ball joint is outside the wheel, you're limited into how low you can go with the car (especially on 17"+ wheel diameter). 

So, you first have to make a choice on the design, then I can help you with proper arm lengths for the application. Amount of travel, target static weight, target Natural Frequency all have to be factored to have the proper upper/lower arm length ratio (today's softwares makes it a lot easier than it used to be). Another factor that may sway your choice of design too (more in the steering axle) is your bump steer characteristics as they become more complex with double A arms than the rudimentary McPhersons for example.

As far as your question on the camber gain, if the suspension is carefully thought out on paper and backed with good old actual camber curving, you'll actually end up with virtually zero dynamic gain/loss. That's the beauty and the whole point behind the concept of unequal A arms (arms following a different arc to compensate for dynamic chassis lean).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

As long as it has lots of canards! :laugh:


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

I am thinking a short upright is going to be the direction I go. Would the adjustable bushings used on the inside of your control arms be suitable for the inner point of a set of control arms? I am just trying to find alternatives to spherical bearings. Sphericals will have to be on the upright end of the arms. 

For the uprights themselves, my idea is to have a 1.5" billet machined with the lower arm mount cut into it. The upper arm and tie rod link will mount to a separate block machined for bolting the spherical bearings. The reason for it being separate is to allow me to shim it for the proper kpi adjustments. It would also cut down on machining cost. A aftermarket steering rack would be used, and set on the same plane as the upper arms. This will allow me to make the steering arms at the identical height and length to the control arms, eliminating bump steer all together. Would it be safe to have recesses machined into the back side of the 1.5" thick upright, for lightening reasons? I would imagine a big billet chunk having a good bit of weight to it. 

What are your thoughts on using rear fwd Audi hubs, bolted to the front upright, and the fwd bolt on hubs for the rear? The rears uprights would need a hole cut into it fort the axle to pass through, but would be designed in a way that it would still have plenty of strength. I would use A3 front axles, with and adapter to give me the extra length needed and it would allow them to be bolted to the flanges of the O2A.

I think settling the uprights will need to be the first step in this process, so if you don't oppose these ideas, it will be time to move forward with getting all off the specs sorted out. I am going to talk to someone about the cost of the machine work as soon as the design plans are solid. Originally I was considering building them from steel, but there are too many strength issue that can arise for my liking.


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

I like how a thread about a wide body kit has turned into a pre-build thread :laugh:

What kind of after market steering racks are availible for this sort of build?


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Dowski12 said:


> I like how a thread about a wide body kit has turned into a pre-build thread :laugh:
> 
> What kind of after market steering racks are availible for this sort of build?


Taking horrible threads and making them awesome one step at a time


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

^^^^^^^
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Probably should happen alittle more often :thumbup:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Dowski12 said:


> ^^^^^^^
> :laugh::laugh::laugh:
> 
> Probably should happen alittle more often :thumbup:


Agreed lol


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Dowski12 said:


> I like how a thread about a wide body kit has turned into a pre-build thread :laugh:
> 
> What kind of after market steering racks are availible for this sort of build?


Figured it could become a decent discussion thread about a the true reason for a wide body.

http://www.appletreeauto.com/VW-STEERING/RACK-and-PINIONS/

Many choices. Just depends on how things get measured out. They are made at a 1:1 ratio. Im not sure how much I will care for that though. It just seems a little crazy. 



PLAYED TT said:


> Taking horrible threads and making them awesome one step at a time


:laugh:


----------



## 01ttgt28 (Jun 23, 2009)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> Figured it could become a decent discussion thread about a the true reason for a wide body.
> 
> http://www.appletreeauto.com/VW-STEERING/RACK-and-PINIONS/
> 
> ...


Are these racks manuel ?? And what one would easily convert to are platform?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> I am thinking a short upright is going to be the direction I go. Would the adjustable bushings used on the inside of your control arms be suitable for the inner point of a set of control arms? I am just trying to find alternatives to spherical bearings. Sphericals will have to be on the upright end of the arms.
> 
> For the uprights themselves, my idea is to have a 1.5" billet machined with the lower arm mount cut into it. The upper arm and tie rod link will mount to a separate block machined for bolting the spherical bearings. The reason for it being separate is to allow me to shim it for the proper kpi adjustments. It would also cut down on machining cost. A aftermarket steering rack would be used, and set on the same plane as the upper arms. This will allow me to make the steering arms at the identical height and length to the control arms, eliminating bump steer all together. Would it be safe to have recesses machined into the back side of the 1.5" thick upright, for lightening reasons? I would imagine a big billet chunk having a good bit of weight to it.
> 
> ...


The poly ends of my arms would be plenty for inner mounting points of control arms even on a steering axle (as long as you don't allow insane amount on dynamic toe change in the design to constantly pound on the poly bushing). The durometer shore and thickness are proprietary and engineered to be very stiff (not much deflection) but thick enough to reduce NVH to acceptable levels. I actually just built a custom set of my poly ends for a buddy to use in an application it wasn't originally made for. I'll PM you some contact info, so I can text you pictures of them because I don't want the usual suspects to go crying to VMG if I post them here (although not an infraction of any advertising rule). 

As far as allowing shimming and adjustment of KPI, it's a great idea. However, if it drives cost and fabrication difficulty too high, you can always set them ideally from the get go. Upper and lower pick up points can be offset to include a desired KPI when choosing their location (that's what I'd do if I was building from the suspension from scratch. Something around 10-11* would be plenty a good compromise to not introduce some unwanted numbness/vagueness in the feel (remember that with well executed unequal A arms, there won't be much dynamic camber changes, so no need to go too aggressive with the king pin inclination angles). 

I can't really say much about the components that you want to use from the vag parts bin because I'm not familiar with them. If you posted links or pictures, I would have a better idea of how they would work with the intended upcoming design. :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> Figured it could become a decent discussion thread about a the true reason for a wide body.
> 
> http://www.appletreeauto.com/VW-STEERING/RACK-and-PINIONS/
> 
> ...





01ttgt28 said:


> Are these racks manuel ?? And what one would easily convert to are platform?


Guys, please stay away from anything with such a close ratio! It would be unsuitable for any application that see speed above 60 mph. I would not want to be the driver behind a car with 1:1 rack ratio going down the road/track at triple digit speeds (literately a death wish).


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Guys, please stay away from anything with such a close ratio! It would be unsuitable for any application that see speed above 60 mph. I would not want to be the driver behind a car with 1:1 rack ratio going down the road/track at triple digit speeds (literately a death wish).


This is exactly what I have been thinking about those racks. I have been trying to come up with a solution to the low ratio. There are steering quickeners available. The highest I have found was a 2:1. My purpose with one would be to use it in reverse, lengthening the ratio. It would still be far from enough... Is there any other way to raise the ratio? 

These are the hub parts I mentioned.

would be use in the rear, bolted to the billet upright.










use in the front, bolted to the billet upright.


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

I'm a little torn after watching the Aerial Atom on Top Gear... I never cared too much for the Atom, but before the TT came into my life I was very close to starting on my own tube chassis toy build. 

I am starting to get drawn back in.

If you have never heard of it, this is the Donto P1. 





































It hasn't made it through the production process yet. That is the reason for the renderings at the top. 

I love TT's with a passion. A full on track TT would be awesome, but may make me wish I could drive on the street, but couldn't. A little toy car, such as the P1, would be the best of both. The final weight on these types of cars is under 1500 lbs with the driver! I would be able to start on one sooner than later, without the cost of a shell. I have been looking around this past week, finding decent priced ones, but outrageous shipping costs.:thumbdown:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

For the sake of this thread I say shame on you! But I totally agree with you


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Sorry to disappoint.:laugh: It's an overall cost vs. practicality issue. A badass TT would be amazing, but just may not be worth it all in the long run. 

A 1500lb. 400hp tube car will be about as fun as it gets! Look up the Aerial Atom episode of Top Gear on YouTube. You will still want to fly out to Colorado to drive my car. I am going to finish up a couple projects in the next week, or as soon as the temperature allows me to... Once I get Noah his steering wheel, it will be time to set up a chassis table. It won't be TT related, unfortunately, but I will have to start a build thread for it here. The real challenge will be building a body for it. That was the major plus for using a TT shell.


----------

