RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

This is why you should not be putting a RC-10 transmission on an Ultima - loads and loads of problems. RC-10 heretics like you totally spoil the beauty of the Ultima. What's next, putting a RC-10 front end on the Ultima and complaining the front plate doesn't fit to the chassis because it's not a gold tub?

Seriously though, why can't you have the layshaft centered in the hole? Does the motor hit the transmission case in that case? Maybe make a custom motor plate from a sheet of aluminium?

If you change the front suspension it should be to a losi. In fact iirc it bolts right on! Lol

I appreciate what your doing with the associated trans and all ( been thinking about a B4 trans in one myself), but if all you would potentially run in it was 17.5 or stock, the stock trans would be totally fine. I don't think that a slipper is all that necessary for a modern runner of a vintage car, unless you are putting serious HP in it. I've been running my Ultima lately w/ 8.5 and the stock trans - no problem.

As for comparing transmissions (of similar age) and hating the Ultima trans, I'd take the Ultima box over a 6gear any day... all those odd sized flanged bearings, external diff, and the impossibly small allen screws in the idler - no thanks. Everyone's got their own opinion though. Jeff makes a valid point about the cost of new gears for the stock box too...availability (price ) of the gearset for the UM trans sucks.

One of the best things going for your Ultima is that you have the LWB chassis. I've been currently trying anyway I can to wedge the battery in lengthwise to mine, but with the shorter chassis it's just about impossible.

EvolutionRevolution wrote:Seriously though, why can't you have the layshaft centered in the hole? Does the motor hit the transmission case in that case? Maybe make a custom motor plate from a sheet of aluminium?

i can't rotate the motor plate, keeping the topshaft centered in the hole, and be able to drill and tap new holes because i'd be drilling into the original holes. the only thing it hurts will be that the slipper nut won't be centered in the gear cover, but that's not a big deal. i thought about making a new motor plate for it, but for now, i'm just gonna leave it like this.

losiXXXman wrote:I appreciate what your doing with the associated trans and all ( been thinking about a B4 trans in one myself), but if all you would potentially run in it was 17.5 or stock, the stock trans would be totally fine. I don't think that a slipper is all that necessary for a modern runner of a vintage car, unless you are putting serious HP in it. I've been running my Ultima lately w/ 8.5 and the stock trans - no problem.

As for comparing transmissions (of similar age) and hating the Ultima trans, I'd take the Ultima box over a 6gear any day... all those odd sized flanged bearings, external diff, and the impossibly small allen screws in the idler - no thanks. Everyone's got their own opinion though. Jeff makes a valid point about the cost of new gears for the stock box too...availability (price ) of the gearset for the UM trans sucks.

i highly doubt you will find in any of my too many posts where i say that the 6 gear was an awesome trans.

i'm no brushless guru, i still don't even own one (shortly i will). but, the 17.5's (which is all i would probably run in this) are supposed to require quite a large pinion. an ultima trans is what, over 3.00? i know joey was looking for thorp overdrive gear sets for his so he could properly gear a 17.5 in his ultima. my lhs has/had a bunch of them if i really wanted to go that route, or do what you did to yours with traxxas parts (like you showed in his build thread). but when i have a perfectly good 2.40 trans sitting here, why bother? i also have ziploc bags full of spurs gears, a handful of paragon pinion racks full of standard 48p from 8 into the 40's. none of them do me any good on an ultima trans. the slipper is a plus too. and...... i like making stuff work together that wasn't made to work together.

not to mention, this would be a far less irritating build for you kyosho guys if i didn't put associated parts on it.

gomachv wrote:If you change the front suspension it should be to a losi. In fact iirc it bolts right on! Lol

my other trans idea was a losi lrm i have laying around. i probably could've made it work, the 2.40 just seemed like the best choice for me.

i guess i'm gonna have to use something on here from schumacher, losi and traxxas. i already covered kyosho, ae, and yokomo.

run losi jrx spindles and c-hubs up front so you can run standard bearings.

maybe you can use traxxas rod ends and tierods.

schumacher...hmm...shocks? maybe a schumacher body....

I like the idea of mix 'n' matching...but one of the bigger issues is that AE hardware is all standard while Kyosho is all metric. So you need twice as many tools to work on it when it's done.

That's where you can bring Schumacher in. They like to mix metric and imperial

jwscab wrote:run losi jrx spindles and c-hubs up front so you can run standard bearings.

maybe you can use traxxas rod ends and tierods.

schumacher...hmm...shocks? maybe a schumacher body....

I was thinking about Schumacher shocks. Ill have to look into their lengths.

Coelacanth wrote:I like the idea of mix 'n' matching...but one of the bigger issues is that AE hardware is all standard while Kyosho is all metric. So you need twice as many tools to work on it when it's done.

The Kyosho stuff is metric, but it's mainly phillips screws. That's actually not a big deal. It'll be if I change them to hex head that it may become a pita.

Nothing from Tamiya?

Why downgrade?

Coelacanth wrote:Why downgrade?

It did start as a Kyosho....

scr8p wrote:i guess i'm gonna have to use something on here from schumacher.....

Once you start that way, you'll want to start replacing more and more with Schumacher.... may as well just get a Cougar2!!!

Alex

Coelacanth wrote:...but one of the bigger issues is that AE hardware is all standard while Kyosho is all metric...

Metric IS standard, my poor Northern cousin.....



Alex

Here in North America, the United States' SAE system of measurement was always referred to as "Standard". But you're partly right, their system is anything BUT standard.

Yeah, forgot about the high FDR on the UM box... and the need for low ratios w/ the 17.5s. In that case, wouldn't you be better off with the 2.25 stealth? Plus new parts availability to boot Erik did one of these transplants a wile back and used a similar mounting system. http://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=23385

I like to "make" stuff work too, but my projects usually end up too "hack-looking" to share.

the 2.25 may be a little bit better for 17.5, but i'm gonna stick with the 2.40. custom works used that trans in their oval cars for years, and with the thunder tiger bx, there's more than enough trans parts out there.

scr8p wrote:the 2.25 may be a little bit better for 17.5, but i'm gonna stick with the 2.40. custom works used that trans in their oval cars for years, and with the thunder tiger bx, there's more than enough trans parts out there.

you think of everything.