# Haldex Concept Time



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

SO I was thinking, I know this is dangerous. 

This will be short, its late and I am tried. 

What if you took the clutch packs out and machined a solid shaft to go from input to the helical gear, then installed a LSD in the rear end to keep the slip that is needed when cornering or other driving conditions where a locked rear end isnt needed. 

Just a thought.


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

ejg3855 said:


> SO I was thinking, I know this is dangerous.
> 
> This will be short, its late and I am tried.
> 
> ...


 I'll share my thoughts : 

1- If U didn't install performance haldex then I promise U this: 
train-line driving! 
this i assure u  install ^ HPC and Njoy day&night difference with faster-active rear-wheel reaction. 
* cost:500-900$ 
Link:http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...rsports-Haldex-Controller-for-MkIV-R32-Mk1-TT 

2- LSD will make huge impact on ur haldex system relation with power2wheels delivery especially if LSD installed in both Front and rear diff.s  USRT got three different configurations for our cars AWD systems 
Link:http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=13_49 

*diffentials of my own taste 
Front-wheel Diff :http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_49&products_id=205 

Rear-wheel Diff:http://www.usrallyteam.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_49&products_id=206 

Cost :2500+$ 

3-Clutch pack : if ur not satisfied with the haldex OEM clutch pack in ur Rear wheel delivery system then u might consider custom-make those clutchs but, is it really worth it! 
Cost: unknown! 

So, after installing all the above and checking how much left in ur wallet i am more than positive u'll be more than satisfied with how things work out for ur taste :beer:


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

I appreciate your input and I think its great stuff. 

But did you read what I was suggesting? 

Get rid of the Clutch pack, make it a more traditional mechanical system. Install a LSD so you can have turning without chirping etc. 

This would in essence get rid of the haldex and give you a mechanically drive 50/50 split all the time. No Controller no electronics, just AWD.


----------



## Chuckmeister87 (Nov 10, 2009)

ejg3855 said:


> I appreciate your input and I think its great stuff.
> 
> But did you read what I was suggesting?
> 
> ...


 I like the idea, but I think it falls under the same category as adding a 6th gear to your stock gearbox: *not cost effective*


----------



## Mike.Mike. (Apr 19, 2006)

Chuckmeister87 said:


> I like the idea, but I think it falls under the same category as adding a 6th gear to your stock gearbox: *not cost effective*


 It's not about it being cost effective. It's about it going into a mkII with out electronics.


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

Mk2 still uses haldex system....just te 2nd gen of it that does allow for more bias... 
It is not by any means a mechanical Quattro system as the days of old....and you will see less and less of it with future TT's with the implementation of the MQB platform. 

The options that are out there retaining the haldex system (I have the HPA "orange" unit...had the blue prior) accomplish nearly the same thing for far less with I imagine overall less drivetrain loss in the end and more efficiently applied power. 

Fixing the system I suppose could be accomplished in the manner you are proposing but would require additional attention to the rear diff beyond just a LSD I would think...best bet would be adapting a more mechanical Quattro drivetrain in the rear and adapting the center drive for that as well. 

I can tell you that I love the HPA unit and how the haldex AWD handles, grips, etc now (not stock) vs. that of say a WRX, STI, ETC which is what essentially you would be creating... 

Go for it though if you want! 

Joe


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Chuckmeister87 said:


> I like the idea, but I think it falls under the same category as adding a 6th gear to your stock gearbox: *not cost effective*


 @Chuckmeister: exactly my point , cost-wise ! 
@ejg3855: I'll be more than glad sorting this matter out cos u'll be converting it to pure mechanical unit :thumbup: 

If we figured out the work & effort required then cost is neglected at the time beingeace:opcorn:


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

ejg3855 said:


> I appreciate your input and I think its great stuff.
> 
> But did you read what I was suggesting?
> 
> ...


 you can achieve 50/50 spilt-lock with mechanical haldex controller valve but open LSD must be removed & updated with uprated LSD and its cheaper than HPA haldex controller . 

I had to choice between installing the mechanical haldex controller but when i found out its more track related & not DD compatible ;cos it actually interfere with the car traction system (ABS/EBL...) i preferred the HPA performance haldex controller , installed and more than glad i did this upgrade . 

UB


----------



## Chuckmeister87 (Nov 10, 2009)

ModsTTand said:


> you can achieve 50/50 spilt-lock with mechanical haldex controller valve but open LSD must be removed & updated with uprated LSD and its cheaper than HPA haldex controller .
> 
> I had to choice between installing the mechanical haldex controller but when i found out its more track related & not DD compatible ;cos it actually interfere with the car traction system (ABS/EBL...) i preferred the HPA performance haldex controller , installed and more than glad i did this upgrade .
> 
> UB


 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that the haldex system is not made to run 50/50 all the time. It overheats/burns up. The "track" you're referring to better be autocross because running your car longer than 5mins at a time is bad with that setup imo (if what I read is correct).


----------



## sTT eV6 (Oct 26, 2010)

I may cosider going for a fixed 50/50 split if my HPA comp controller or rear diff dies in the future. 
I may consider a Pel LSD or Porsche 996 diff in the rear with something done with the haldex system. 
Steve


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

RabbitGTDguy said:


> Mk2 still uses haldex system....just te 2nd gen of it that does allow for more bias...
> It is not by any means a mechanical Quattro system as the days of old....and you will see less and less of it with future TT's with the implementation of the MQB platform.
> 
> The options that are out there retaining the haldex system (I have the HPA "orange" unit...had the blue prior) accomplish nearly the same thing for far less with I imagine overall less drivetrain loss in the end and more efficiently applied power.
> ...


 Mk2 VW not Mk2 TT. I don't want to swap the controllers and all the abs stuff into the Mk2 (A2/VW) platform. 

I prefer the 50/50 split more to the likens of the old quattro. 



Chuckmeister87 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that the haldex system is not made to run 50/50 all the time. It overheats/burns up. The "track" you're referring to better be autocross because running your car longer than 5mins at a time is bad with that setup imo (if what I read is correct).


 The reason it heats up and fails at 50/50 all the time is the clutch packs that do the power transfer, this is the area I am talking about removing and looking for peoples ideas. 

As I understand it the rear end is OPEN diff, so there should be no problems making the system full time 50/50 as long as you remove the fail point (clutches) that don't like the added stress.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

The whole idea in my opinion is moving backward. We have a smarter, more efficient AWD system and going fully mechanical is for the 80-90 era IMO. I'm not gonna say that the OEM system can't use some help (mainly the rate and speed of engagement and LSDs) but it's like removing ABS when 95% of drivers in 99% of situations can't beat it. 

With a competion controller (that doesn't disengage under braking) and rear LSD, you have a great smart setup that I would take over an all time coupled at a fixed rate AWD. Take the EVO for example, purists talked all kind of smack when Mitsu decided to add active center differential (ACD) which btw is similar to the haldex in concept but more aggressive. Same thing with Active yaw control, some said that it would make the car drive itself and less of the driver's car but the advantages made everybody a believer in short order. 

What would be nice (beside LSDs and competition controller) is having a company like Shep take our clutch pack and improve the preload. I already contacted them but they needed me to send them a unit for evaluation.


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The whole idea in my opinion is moving backward. We have a smarter, more efficient AWD system and going fully mechanical is for the 80-90 era IMO. I'm not gonna say that the OEM system can't use some help (mainly the rate and speed of engagement and LSDs) but it's like removing ABS when 95% of drivers in 99% of situations can't beat it.
> 
> With a competion controller (that doesn't disengage under braking) and rear LSD, you have a great smart setup that I would take over an all time coupled at a fixed rate AWD. Take the EVO for example, purists talked all kind of smack when Mitsu decided to add active center differential (ACD) which btw is similar to the haldex in concept but more aggressive. Same thing with Active yaw control, some said that it would make the car drive itself and less of the driver's car but the advantages made everybody a believer in short order.
> 
> What would be nice (beside LSDs and competition controller) is having a company like Shep take our clutch pack and improve the preload. I already contacted them but they needed me to send them a unit for evaluation.


 Exactly my thoughts...not that the theory of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" doesn't apply here but the practical and performance be benefits of the haldex system are really...the best of both worlds and the evolution of the Quattro system itself...if it wasn't good, why would several exotics employ it and have great success. 

Where the limitations are exist with the penny pushers and mainstream target audience that the car and it's systems are designed for. This is where the aftermarket supplements an improvements can be made. 

Fixed, while 50/50 will prove to be a step backwards and far less efficient and performance evoking.... 

Now I am confused about what you want to do? In reference to the haldex I was speaking of (and to which I thought you were referring...I thought you were talking about making our MK1 TT /mkivR32 HALDEX (Gen1) more like the MK2 TT/MK5/6 R32 (Gen 2) which does have a switchable feature available on the aftermarket. 

If you are talking all this into a MK2 VW...that would be easy. Golf Country, B3 Passat...swap a syncro system from one of those cars in. 

Now...what would be interesting is whether and how much a design difference there is between say the diff, trailing arms and mounting for the syncro setup vs. the basics design of the mechanicals of the haldex (not the haldex coupler itself). The syncro system found in the b3 passat, mk2 golf country, etc however was def limited in power as well though (but could be enhanced). 

This would make sense (if not more) based on the idea that you mention as it 
uses a transverse platform car and applies a more "quattro like" drivetrain setup...however, none of these configurations are going to bring you to a truly "Quattro" days of old drivetrain not completely feel that way either. True quattro had always been based on the longitudinal platform using a more efficient power transfer design (inherent in the longitudinal design itself) from the basics. 

i.e. think of the little thinks such as how much "less" power loss there would be through a longitudinal Quattro setup with its direct drive arrangement, no sharp angles in the line to the rear, etc. vs the complexity of the transverse version of this with the trans, 
bevel box, etc. Where one exists, the other either negates it in either performance or efficiency...something that "haldex" addresses in its very nature. 
The fixed version to make it more "Quattro like" by design in itself would probably negate the advantages just by the shear complexity in the driveline itself and probably would result in more overall drivetrain power loss itself... 

Just my thoughts...but there could be hope for accomplishing what you want with possibly modifying syncro components... 

Joe


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

Joe- 

I get ya and yes the swap would be into a MK2 VW GTI nothing with MK2 haldex. 

The reason for the "concept" was to not have to pull all the ABS system with the swap into the car. Not that its hard, but rather I don't want/need ABS. 

There are manual controllers out there that run the haldex at a fixed 50/50 split, and those are good except they strain the clutch packs. This is where my idea was coming from, make that connection fixed and just run the system mechanically. The Syncro rear setup doesn't work with my intended power goals. They are good for 300/300 before they begin to fail, where the 02M with Haldex is good for 500whp + 

Quattro has a huge power loss to the wheels and they layout doesn't work for most VW platforms. 

Again the main reason for making it fixed is to negate the need to swap the electronics from one system to the other. I didn't really want peoples opinions on haldex vs quattro etc. I wanted to know what people thought of eliminating the need for clutch packs and the haldex controller by making it more of a mechanical system.


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

Gotcha...now I've got it... 

I would go for it then. When I am thinking about it, I'm thinking about it from the perspective of owning and driving the TT now. I wouldn't/would have a hard time imagine hacking up the system in the TT for the purposes you mention especially considering all the other system involved....in the TT. 

However...for a swap into the MK2/A2 VW. There is absolutely no harm in going with what you want to do. I see what you mean when you say you wouldn't want to swap all those systems over and the limitations of the syncro system would def. be a drag in comparison to the haldex. That said though...there may be parts of the synchro setup that would made your "hybrid haldex" swap even easier in the Mk2 

I def. like the idea (as applied in an earlier car) for the shear purposes of elminating complexity and allowing for simplicity to remain intact while accomplishing a good goal. Additionally, the way I would view a car like that is that it wouldn't be used everyday, etc. and can see how this would be applied. 

Go for it! Do link us to a build though if that is what you do. My hope is that someone does as Max has suggested and offer the Haldex crowd uprated disc assemblies, etc. to make our units even better and more power capable...though...I will say, that with the current setup I have as I mentioned above...its pretty damn sweet. 

Joe


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The whole idea in my opinion is moving backward. We have a smarter, more efficient AWD system and going fully mechanical is for the 80-90 era IMO. I'm not gonna say that the OEM system can't use some help (mainly the rate and speed of engagement and LSDs) but it's like removing ABS when 95% of drivers in 99% of situations can't beat it.
> 
> With a competion controller (that doesn't disengage under braking) and rear LSD, you have a great smart setup that I would take over an all time coupled at a fixed rate AWD. Take the EVO for example, purists talked all kind of smack when Mitsu decided to add active center differential (ACD) which btw is similar to the haldex in concept but more aggressive. Same thing with Active yaw control, some said that it would make the car drive itself and less of the driver's car but the advantages made everybody a believer in short order.
> 
> What would be nice (beside LSDs and competition controller) is having a company like Shep take our clutch pack and improve the preload. I already contacted them but they needed me to send them a unit for evaluation.


 ITs not that I don't agree that the haldex system is good and can be made better using controllers, etc Its the controls require ECU and ABS computer interaction, this is what I want to get rid of.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

Joe- 

Thats the plan and once I get the ball rolling on the fab work I will make a thread. 

I have the TT and its built and it runs good, I just don't like the TT so there is nothing I can do that will make me like the car. Not to mention the fact that someone (previous owner) took a jack handle to the car and made it all lumpy. It needs about 5-7k in body work, so as I see it there isn't that dread of hacking up a nice TT to do a swap. Its basically a drivetrain that I love about what I have build not so much the body on it.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> What would be nice (beside LSDs and competition controller) is having a company like Shep take our clutch pack and improve the preload. I already contacted them but they needed me to send them a unit for evaluation.


 I'd send them my stock one in a heartbeat, or you can easily get a used stock one for cheap (I've seen for $50 a few times)


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

l88m22vette said:


> I'd send them my stock one in a heartbeat, or you can easily get a used stock one for cheap (I've seen for $50 a few times)


 This would be sweet!


----------



## Chuckmeister87 (Nov 10, 2009)

l88m22vette said:


> I'd send them my stock one in a heartbeat, or you can easily get a used stock one for cheap (I've seen for $50 a few times)


 Doooooo it! :thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Anyone on the board with a spare haldex unit that they are looking to rid of for cheap? Eric, or anyone for that matter, if you see a cheap one for sale can you let me know because I would love to get something going for the community.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The whole idea in my opinion is moving backward. We have a smarter, more efficient AWD system and going fully mechanical is for the 80-90 era IMO. I'm not gonna say that the OEM system can't use some help (mainly the rate and speed of engagement and LSDs) but it's like removing ABS when 95% of drivers in 99% of situations can't beat it.
> 
> With a competion controller (that doesn't disengage under braking) and rear LSD, you have a great smart setup that I would take over an all time coupled at a fixed rate AWD. Take the EVO for example, purists talked all kind of smack when Mitsu decided to add active center differential (ACD) which btw is similar to the haldex in concept but more aggressive. Same thing with Active yaw control, some said that it would make the car drive itself and less of the driver's car but the advantages made everybody a believer in short order.
> 
> What would be nice (beside LSDs and competition controller) is having a company like Shep take our clutch pack and improve the preload. I already contacted them but they needed me to send them a unit for evaluation.


 I have a spare R32 diff that the pump went on. I am more than willing to donate towards having new clutch packs made.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Eric, or anyone for that matter, if you see a cheap one for sale can you let me know because I would love to get something going for the community.


 I don't have one but I can look.


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Umm, how much the haldex clutch-pack from the stealers anyway?can we purchase those parts from spare parts dept? 

If so,hope its not as costly as the DSG OEM clutch-pack  
Almost 500+$ was the cost to purchase & replacing those clutchs,( 6-7 small clutchs, cant remmeber!) 

This thread is Haldex related & sure lots of good info will be used to apply ur concept project in replacing/converting electro mechanical AWD into Full mechanical AWD. 

Still, I'm positive lots of good information & practices about improving the consistency & over all performance of our already existing system will be shared. 

If there's a company welling to improve the Haldex clutch-pack then sourcing new or used parts needed can be sort out. 

It would be nice to share cost of used Haldex unit if we can source it used & cheap enough to pitch-in if thats acceptable by follow members of TT community,.........in other way: sharing is caring ! 


UB 

P.S.: please forgive my ignorance when asking : is there a way to implement external Oil Cooler+pump to our existing rearwheel Haldex unit ?


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

I'll get it together, its sitting on my desk, can you give me the contact info and let him know that its going to be coming his way? Also, do you think I could get something out of the help (like an upgrade discount)? I like my Blue but I wouldn't mind a more aggressive Haldex setup, but I know that's programming AND the mechanical bits, and in reality I'm cool if this just helps out everyone


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

This could be really awesome! 

Joe


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> I'll get it together, its sitting on my desk, can you give me the contact info and let him know that its going to be coming his way? Also, do you think I could get something out of the help (like an upgrade discount)? I like my Blue but I wouldn't mind a more aggressive Haldex setup, but I know that's programming AND the mechanical bits, and in reality I'm cool if this just helps out everyone


 I am speaking directly to John Shep, the owner of ShepTrans, and at this point we are just evaluating the possibilities of upgrades as there are many (from preload spring increase for low speed/traction situations to clutch friction and quantity increase for better clamping ratio). I am going to take Noah up his offer and use his unit to send to Shep; there is no guarantee of a time frame because they are not necessarily going drop the dozens of DSM, EVO and GT-R units waiting for upgrades to get to our experiment. As Joe said, this could be really awesome!


----------



## Chuckmeister87 (Nov 10, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Anyone on the board with a spare haldex unit that they are looking to rid of for cheap? Eric, or anyone for that matter, if you see a cheap one for sale can you let me know because I would love to get something going for the community.


 
I have my quattro haldex unit as spare to my HPA competition. If there's no reason for me to go back to the stock one (besides only having to service it every 70k miles instead of 20k miles now) then I'd be willing to sell it.... but how much is "cheap"? :sly:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Chuckmeister87 said:


> I have my quattro haldex unit as spare to my HPA competition. If there's no reason for me to go back to the stock one (besides only having to service it every 70k miles instead of 20k miles now) then I'd be willing to sell it.... but how much is "cheap"? :sly:


 We are talking about the mechanical coupling's internals here... 

What you are looking to sell is the electronic controller. FYI, what that controller does is use data from a host of sensors to activate pressure from an hydraulic pump that provides the wet clutch pack with necessary pressure to create friction that activates the open rear diff.


----------



## Chuckmeister87 (Nov 10, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> We are talking about the mechanical coupling's internals here...
> 
> What you are looking to sell is the electronic controller. FYI, what that controller does is use data from a host of sensors to activate pressure from an hydraulic pump that provides the wet clutch pack with necessary pressure to create friction that activates the open rear diff.


 
Bahh... I thought you wanted the controller. I know the difference between the two.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Sounds good Max, please keep us informed :thumbup:


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

What if we machined a housing to replace the haldex and put a differential in that housing? 

Not a feasible solution but it would resolve the complexity of the haldex unit and give a more mechanical awd system similar to quattro.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2013)

If you want a functioning haldex in a swap with out all the mess here is the solution http://www.crc-performance.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=136 like most things not cheap

Sent from my Prism II using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

ejg3855 said:


> What if we machined a housing to replace the haldex and put a differential in that housing?
> 
> Not a feasible solution but it would resolve the complexity of the haldex unit and give a more mechanical awd system similar to quattro.



Pretty much what I was thinking. But use a viscous coupling bolted into the new machined housing.


----------



## headwess wabbit (Sep 23, 2010)

Need help building a shaft to replace the haldex clutch ? I won't guarantee it but if you tear down a trans I could possibly due the machine work. I think the idea is sweet. It might not be great in a MK1 TT chassis but for mk1-mk3 swap on a vw it would be the way to go.


----------

