Alright, I'll definitely be adding one then. Now I just have to decide on the ratio. I can see why the 2:1 would be good for rally and especially rallyx. Wondering if the 1.5:1 would be better for hill climb where Im not ever actually going close to full lock, but just feel at times like it would be nice if I could be moving the wheel just a bit less. Any thoughts on if the 2:1 is a big enough change to make the car feel twitchy? Maybe I'm over thinking it and it won't matter given that the 900 is a pretty stable car to begin with?

I think either one you will get used to. I think probably a 1.5 would be pretty sufficient for what you want without the added stress to the steering hydraulic system you get with a 2:1. Also on tarmac w/ sticky tires, a 2:1 might be more of a handful although that is just conjecture.

Jordan wrote:I think either one you will get used to. I think probably a 1.5 would be pretty sufficient for what you want without the added stress to the steering hydraulic system you get with a 2:1. Also on tarmac w/ sticky tires, a 2:1 might be more of a handful although that is just conjecture.

Isn't the 2:1 reducer easier on the hydraulic system because it takes 2 turns of the human for every 1 turn of the rack? VS 1.5 turns of the human to each of turn of the rack...which is a faster ratio and works the hydraulics more?

Crazyswede wrote:

Jordan wrote:I think either one you will get used to. I think probably a 1.5 would be pretty sufficient for what you want without the added stress to the steering hydraulic system you get with a 2:1. Also on tarmac w/ sticky tires, a 2:1 might be more of a handful although that is just conjecture.

Isn't the 2:1 reducer easier on the hydraulic system because it takes 2 turns of the human for every 1 turn of the rack? VS 1.5 turns of the human to each of turn of the rack...which is a faster ratio and works the hydraulics more?

Seth, check the orientation of your quickener, you may have made slowener?

Luke wrote:Seth, check the orientation of your quickener, you may have made slowener?

Yeah dude, I think you put it in backwards.

Pascal, when I first drove my 99 with the 2:1 I almost drove off the road. A little steering input resulted in a whole lot more wheel angle than I was used to and I started sawing the thing back and forth trying to correct. I jammed the brakes, got the thing pointed straight, and drove slower. I got used to it pretty quickly and was pretty happy with it. I think you'd probably be happy with which ever one you use but my inclination is to go with 2:1, simply because that's what I've used and was happy with it. The only tarmac I drove it on was to/from events so I can't comment on which ratio would be best for at-speed tarmac use.

Isn't stock like 3.5:1?

Maybe I am phrasing this wrong. Stock is 3.5 turns lock to lock. I thought my reducer was 2 turns lock to lock vs the other which is 1.5 turns lock to lock.

Crazyswede wrote:Isn't stock like 3.5:1?

Maybe I am phrasing this wrong. Stock is 3.5 turns lock to lock. I thought my reducer was 2 turns lock to lock vs the other which is 1.5 turns lock to lock.

Ok. I see my cunfusion. Guess I shouldn't think about this stuff at work while in the midst of a plc programming challenge.

Crazyswede wrote:

Crazyswede wrote:Isn't stock like 3.5:1?

Maybe I am phrasing this wrong. Stock is 3.5 turns lock to lock. I thought my reducer was 2 turns lock to lock vs the other which is 1.5 turns lock to lock.

Ok. I see my cunfusion. Guess I shouldn't think about this stuff at work while in the midst of a plc programming challenge.

Sometimes I think twice before getting on a GE powered Jet Aircraft knowing Seth was part of building it.

DrewP wrote:

we have been working on this project for 1.5 years and we just finished the main portion of it. We had to install a variable frequency drive on each of 8 100hp pump systems that run on 480v. These things draw about 100 amps when they are running and in their original setup they were switched on with a motor starter...very very violent. The old system control was dangerous and inefficient. Installing these drives reduces the annual electric bill for the factory by about 2% and cuts our shop overhead rate by about 13 cents. We had to install all new infrastructure, wiring, controls, plcs etc. The biggest challenge was in getting an independent machine with minimal communications to interface with a Versamax PLC in the drive and then to further interface with an ancient 9070 PLC in the main brain for the area. I have been working the project through efficiency Vermont and the total refund was in the $300,000 range.

Geoff wrote:

Luke wrote:Seth, check the orientation of your quickener, you may have made slowener?

Yeah dude, I think you put it in backwards.

Ha jokes on you. I have yet to take it out of the box

Crazyswede wrote:We have been working on this project for 1.5 years and we just finished the main portion of it. We had to install a variable frequency drive on each of 8 100hp pump systems that run on 480v....
I have been working the project through efficiency Vermont and the total refund was in the $300,000 range.

I love it. I love when a client won't / can't change existing controls to interface with new things, and you end up with a crazy daisy-chain of different generations of things all trying to play nice with each other. (We do prototypes, and a lot of machine retrofits or controls upgrades in addition to hardware upgrades).

100hp 480v pump that just clunked on must have sounded rad, but probably chewed up a LOT of stuff. Probably had a lot of 500 MCM to recycle after that too....

I will be converting tje 9070 brain over to an RX3I first quarter of 2014. Likely to follow will be replacing the genius lan with profinet. Already have .5 million in projects lined up...just have to get approval.

Since they have already been well discussed Im not going to bore anyone here with details, but now that I have my S&R gear set in hand I figured I would share some pictures since everyone likes those.










Here is the case I'll be using.








[/QUOTE]

Question on dipsticks, are the 5 speed and 4 speed transmission ones the same in terms of length? Im assuming yes, but figured it would be worth asking since I didn't get one with the 4 speed case.

I can't believe you posted the pictures on Saablink before here ...
As far as dip sticks, it is common practice to use the 4 speed dip stick and add a filler cap to the cam cover. A 5 speed engine oil filler tube is too large is diameter to fit in the 4 speed case