Reshelling a 1.2 into a rhd shell; thoughts.

With things like Rob's shell about, I can't help but think building a car up to the spec you'd like is going to be the way to go, and the accident damaged 1.2 linked to the other week has got me thinking about what differences between the two would cause problems. Obviously the steering wheel is on the other side, I can't think atm if that mounts to the subframe or shell. I'm making the assumption the mounting points for the front subframe and rear axle are the same for both. You may lose a little 3Lness if there are more differences between the shells, but then you'd be gaining rhd and potentially OpenSky as well. The front wings and rear arches will fit and you could probably get away without changing the fuel tank as well. Hmm.

3L owners; when registering them over here do you just use a normal rhd tdi DIS cluster?

What problems can people think of?

If it was that easy (i.e. all the parts exist) surely Audi (and VW) would have done it themselves. You'd lose a lot of 3Lness with OS (it's heavy).

What's the problem with LHD? Pull up by the side of the road, open the door and you're on the pavement! I'm so used to it that given the choice I might opt for it anyway!

For the instruments you only need to show MPH so you could get away with a new facia only. My local Audi agent refused to change the instruments - I had to take it to Worthing Audi.

RAB

No problem with lhd, problem with no OS

It's as likely they didn't do it because they didn't think there would be a market here, like a diesel first model A8, diesel (80) cabrio and the like.

It's also partly thinking don't build a car you can buy, so while there are probably a few variations of that - like using a Lupo 1.6 engine, or maybe Polo Bluemotion bits - using a 1.2 would feel like saving two A2s rather than one. Also partly that if the basic mountings were in the same place it would make it more straightforward, and the easier you can make things the more chance it stands of being finished
For me, whatever economy lost by having OS would be balanced by the convenience of the automated gearchange.
I'm just thinking various things through at the mo'; I also think a 105bhp 1.2 tsi with a six speed box would suit the A2 well, they give good economy in the Polo (friends see 50mpg easily enough) and a remap sees around 130bhp, but then you can also get that engine with DSG and that's a slippery slope to be starting on...if you start on that then you might as well look for an A1 to reshell into an A2...
If there was a known aftermarket sunroof that worked with the curve of the A2 roof I'd just go and get a 1.2 and be done with it, I don't want to think too much that I would have got pretty much twice the mpg the petrol has given me.

Oh, one problem with lhd, people noticing you're in a rhd when abroad

A slight aside re 1.2; they use an modified 085 box, so the thought has crossed my mind of mating one to a manual and putting it into an early Polo. I've got a '77 Polo and G40 running gear tucked away, I'm sure an aluminium blocked 3 cylinder tdi won't weigh more than a iron blocked four cylinder with a supercharger, but I also know the Polo needs lots of welding/bodywork and that I've never got on with bodyshops. I'll ignore the thought of G40 on a manual box i an A2 because it's older tech than the car. It would go well though.

i know with the lupo 3L the subframe/wishbones and steering were all magnesium alloy. and no rhd equivalent

I thought there was at least one A2 that had an Opensky roof transplanted on it?
I think it was on the German Forum...

IIrc the A2 uses the same front end (though maybe not subframe). I'm thinking there aren't usually lhd & rhd subframes and the rack mounts are symmetrical, so just use a normal rhd rack.
The front end is a mix of Lupo and A2; the Lupo 3L runs a wider than normal front track and electro hydraulic pas, the A2 Lupo-type uprights and dampers. I'm not sure what top mounts the dampers have, but the standard Lupo is 6N Polo based, and when the 6N became the 6N2 it changed to the three bolt mounts the standard A2 uses. Of course, it would all depend upon getting a 1.2 that has been written off while not damaging all the important 1.2 bits...

As a slight aside, I wonder who will be the first to change their arches to the narrower 3L ones?

Lupo 3L info

Look, if what I'm going to say is nonsense, then excuse my ignorance. Many years ago, the only difference between two engines of different capacity was the cylinder bore and the piston diameter. The rest of the engine was identical! (Well, that was certain Ford and Fat models!)So what makes the 1.2 litre engine a smaller capacity to the 1.4 litre? I wonder if it is only those two factors and the rest of the engine(s) are identical? I surmise that a 1.4 litre engine could be re-built and with the block and pistons changed, a 1.2 litre engine could be produced? Is this nonsense, then?

David

There are lots of differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4, one of the reasons that it cost so much to produce. Among many other things the 1.2 block was aluminium and the 1.4 block was iron.

Yes, but you would be changing the block and pistons, anyway ..... What about the rest of the engine? To keep production costs down, it is usual for components to be shared between model variations ...

David

1.2 and 1.4 tdi engine

I know what you're saying about engine similarities; when the S6 came out with a 5.2 V10 it was pointed out how different it was from the Gallardos 5.0 V10. It did share piston spacing, V angle etc with Audis V8 so was a modular engine, sure enough when the Gallardo was refreshed it's capacity was increased to 5.2 (and it wasn't an increased 5.0 engine). Anyway...

The 1.4tdi is the same bore and stroke (and compression ratio I think) as the 1.9 tdi. That's just made me remember something I'd forgotten, that there was a 2.0 8v tdi as well, and that was a larger bore 1.9. If the 1.4 uses the same pistons as a 1.9, if it is literally just one shorter, a 1.4 could be rebored to use 2.0 pistons. If the 75bhp has the capacity to run a variable vane turbo, like the 90 then it opens up the tuning possibilities even more.It wouldn't be a huge increase, up from 1422cc to 1476cc, but every bit helps.
The current 1.2 tdi has the same bore as the 1.4 and a shorter stroke, I'm not sure if it's derived from the 1.4 or a new design (it's also 12v rather than 6v and common rail injection rather than pd).

DJ 190 said:

Look, if what I'm going to say is nonsense, then excuse my ignorance. Many years ago, the only difference between two engines of different capacity was the cylinder bore and the piston diameter. The rest of the engine was identical! (Well, that was certain Ford and Fat models!)So what makes the 1.2 litre engine a smaller capacity to the 1.4 litre? I wonder if it is only those two factors and the rest of the engine(s) are identical? I surmise that a 1.4 litre engine could be re-built and with the block and pistons changed, a 1.2 litre engine could be produced? Is this nonsense, then?

David

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you would want to convert a 1.4 to a 1.2 but i can assure you that there are not many common parts. Even the oil sensor is different!

RAB

nuttinnew said:

IIrc the A2 uses the same front end (though maybe not subframe). I'm thinking there aren't usually lhd & rhd subframes and the rack mounts are symmetrical, so just use a normal rhd rack.
The front end is a mix of Lupo and A2; the Lupo 3L runs a wider than normal front track and electro hydraulic pas, the A2 Lupo-type uprights and dampers. I'm not sure what top mounts the dampers have, but the standard Lupo is 6N Polo based, and when the 6N became the 6N2 it changed to the three bolt mounts the standard A2 uses. Of course, it would all depend upon getting a 1.2 that has been written off while not damaging all the important 1.2 bits...

As a slight aside, I wonder who will be the first to change their arches to the narrower 3L ones?

Lupo 3L info

Click to expand...

The steering racks used would appear to be the same, i.e. there was no special version for the 1.2, but that was about all. Even the 1.2 A2 body was about 15kg lighter then 'standard'. The Lupo 3L has about 20% common parts with a standard Lupo (GTi and FSi excepted). The body shell is entirely different (thinner steel but stronger). Even the glass was different.

RAB

I know the Lupo shell is hugely different - it still amazes me that for that type of car they made so many changes for the 3L/FSI and GTI - but I'm not sure where the saving in the A2 comes from. In the big scheme of things I wouldn't worry about 15kg, it's about the same as a spare wheel, the biggest differences would be having climate at 27.7kg (even if I bought a factory 1.2) and the OS at 35ishkg. It has made em wonder how much more two rear seats weigh than the 3L one piece.