Jump to content
SAU Community

Official Launch At Melbourne Motor Show


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please excuse my ignorance but what is an independant transaxle?

pretty sure the independent part refers to the suspension (aka independent suspension) and obviously transaxle describes the trans/diff/axle combo.

do some homework?? lol tell that to the whole world then. the gtr is the first to have independant rear transaxle.

Thats what they claim, and they wouldnt get it wrong :)

"The Nissan GT-R features a newly developed Premium Midship package, including the world's first independent transaxle 4WD developed independently by Nissan. "

i missed the 4wd part.. but its still the one and only going around

They might be the only company to make a AWD rear mounted independant transaxle. A big difference to what you said though. Like I said. Do your homework as there are a lot of rear mounted independant transaxles on many different cars.

Nissan marketing also told me at the Melbourne motor show that their R35 GT-R was the only one in the southern hemisphere... Marketing is like that... You're not paid to tell the truth all the time...

What is an independant transaxle?

edit: I have a horrible suspicion that either a) nobody knows or b) it is what nisskid said

Might as well stick an Radial Tuned Suspension badge on it while we are there.

Edited by Laurence

a transaxle is a rear mounted gearbox and diff in one unit driving the rear wheels. independent refers to the suspension arrangement at the rear as being an independent rear end. they have combined the two. also, we can all stop saying 'rear mounted transaxle' by it's very definition a transaxle is mounted in the rear. it's like saying atm machine.

as for it being the first independent transaxle i'm not sure. there have been a few road cars with transaxles over the years but I don't know many of them in depth. I have done a bit of work with alfa transaxles and they are a de-dion transaxle (ie not independent). It's still not clear to me whether or not they claim the first independent transaxle, or the first independent transaxle with AWD.

So an independant transaxle is a transaxle... :)

Sorry for doubting you Nisskid, I just expected a bit more from Nissan's jargon department.

To be honest I am not sure that it should be called a transaxle at all, looks to me like a normal gearbox slid back with the diff welded on the rear.

IMG_7401.JPG.jpg

Edited by Laurence
So an independant transaxle is a transaxle... :)

Sorry for doubting you Nisskid, I just expected a bit more from Nissan's jargon department.

To be honest I am not sure that it should be called a transaxle at all, looks to me like a normal gearbox slid back with the diff welded on the rear.

lol I thought you were joking... I kinda thought it was obvious...

A transaxle is when you combine the transmission and the differential.

An independent transaxle is when you do not mount it directly to the engine.

A rear mounted independent transaxle is when the transaxle is mounted at the rear of the car.

A rear mounted AWD independent transaxle is when you combine all that and add a secondary drive shaft back to the front..

Nissan have the first REAR mounted AWD independent transaxle but not the first independant transaxle or even the first independent AWD transaxle as the Ford RS200 had a independent FRONT mounted transaxle with the engine in the middle of the car.

Does that help?

a transaxle is a rear mounted gearbox and diff in one unit driving the rear wheels. independent refers to the suspension arrangement at the rear as being an independent rear end.
An independent transaxle is when you do not mount it directly to the engine.

Does that help?

No, it doesn't at all, because now I have two different but perfectly cromulant answers to the same question.
I kinda thought it was obvious...
Hehe, well I guess it isn't. :)
No, it doesn't at all, because now I have two different but perfectly cromulant answers to the same question.

Hehe, well I guess it isn't. :)

Richard's explanation is perfectly reasonable except that it wouldn't really be so great to mount a transaxle to a vehicle with non-independent suspension (live axle) as you're adding a huge lump of unsprung weight. So to add the term independent in describing a transaxle would be slightly redundant.

I look at it as jargon and marketing hyperbole so take from it what you will , both answers are right ! its the marketing guys who dish out the buzz words and leave the actual technical explanations to someone else.

*cough* :) and we look a few posts back and ummm... errr

I have done a bit of work with alfa transaxles and they are a de-dion transaxle (ie not independent).

Anyway, enough bickering. I got the answer I needed which is that it is essentially a meaningless bit of marketing jargon rather than some particularly useful technical distinction. I mean if I couldn't work out the R35 was IRS or the engine was not connected to the transmission I would have the answer to why my knuckles drag along the ground when I walk.

As always SAU provides a nice mix of infotainment. Thanks ;)

lol are we all ok now?

I can't think of any other front engine 4wd/awd that has a rear mounted gearbox/transfer case/transaxle. It means you need 2 long driveshafts - engine to gearbox and then gearbox right back to front axle. But it was kind of an obvious design step once they decided to go rear gearbox, might as well put the xfer case back there as well.

BTW love the pics Laurence I am keeping them for when the school holidays come around

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...