ninesixtwo

iTrader: (9)

LS 944 swaps are nothing new, there are several companies other than grenade hybrids that offer swap parts. The FC engine bay is far more accommodating to oversize engines than the 944 bay is, which adds a degree of difficulty to the swap.

Nemo128

iTrader: (7)

How bout simply, pound for pound the LS is better on performance/$, maintenance, and power potential/$. Can anyone really argue that? Start out with a roller or a blown FD. Go two routes. Put in a 2 or 3 rotor, and put in an LS. Which one nets better performance/$, maintenance costs, and power potential/$? I believe the answer is very clearly an LS.

Wonder who will be the first to bring up the 91 24h of LeMans as if they're really building a million dollar one-off race car... a 4 rotor naturally aspirated one at that.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

actually, you'd be surprised how many rotary nuts started the brigade by rebuilding their engines in their garage and running amazing 1/4 miles times with fewer more than a buncha parts scrounged from a junk yard trip. that isn't something you can generally do with an LSx

dollar for dollar, if you're doing the work, a rotary can be quite cheap to work on. it's the guys dropping $1k+ on a master rebuild kit, or paying some gold painted shop $5k for a glorified $1500-2000 job that make it seem like the rotary is an expensive hobbyist engine to deal with.

i won't even tell you how cheaply i can get by with rebuilding one of my own personal engines for.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

You have not see what guys are doing with junkyard truck 5.3s. Guys slap big turbos on them, run 9s till they pop and then throw in another $500 junkyard special. The record for a junkyard 5.3 is in the mid 8s. They seem to last for a decent amount of time.

I see how rotaries can be extremely cheap if you are doing the work though.

Hod Rod made 600 HP out of a junkyard motor and a China turbo and it ended up being a 4.8L V8.
594HP 5.3L Gen III Small Block for $3,252

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I didn't see in that article where they mentioned they found out it was a 4.8L

I think the 4.8L junkyard build was the one that did 1,200hp.

It was a junk block because one bore had too much rust in it, so they filed the rings and put it back together trying to blow it up with a ported head, ARP head studs, a cam, roller lifters (old ones were clogged), intake and a Ebay china charger twin turbos.

They weren't able to blow it up though as it could only do 28psi before weak stock ignition became the limiting factor and they ran out of dyno time after "only" around 60 pulls.

Stock GM LS Engine - Big Bang Theory - Hot Rod Magazine

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

Yes Blue, you are right. I referenced the wrong article.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

many engines are capable of producing good numbers if you have the tools, parts and facilities at your disposal. even rotaries have gone beyond those numbers with similar minor modifications to the engine. but an ignition failure probably woulda been catastrophic to a rotary.

ARP head studs = studding a rotary
loosening the ring gap = clipping the rotors
porting the head = porting the rotary


the only difference in a rotary is i would probably go away from the stock seals, which would be like changing the rings on the LSx.


see any significant similarities? the rest is in the gas, tuning and quality of parts bolted to the engine.

but i'm not sure why i feel the need to defend the engine, it is in the quality of the person working on the car and the parts used. many people who get their hands on a rotary car have no clue what they are doing, and the rotary is already less forgiving and impatient.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

Realistically, it is probably close to the same price to build either engine to a particular HP level once we are talking numbers over 500 HP right? For the rotary the keg itself is cheaper, but you need all the turbo and related stuff. I have around $4k in my engine as it sits, including all machining and assembly. All I really used from the LS engine I bought was the block, intake, oil pan, rockers and some hardware. The engine was left outside and had some rust in the cylinders so it would not turn all the way over. It needed a full rebuild.

A junkyard LS can go pretty far, but we all know it is not going to last forever.

ZDan

Already touched on, but the fact is that 944T has a more reliable engine so there are %age-wise fewer 944s out there with "blown motors" begging for a swap, and ones that are people are far more likely to get another Porsche piston engine for it than to invest in the major undertaking of swapping.



"Better braking", really? Easily addressable area I think, but if there is an inherent 944 advantage it can't be all that much...

I don't know if there's much if any of a weight distribution advantage, either. Both are ~50/50, probably more like 51/49 Classic Car and Driver Magazine Road Test: 1988 Porsche 944 Turbo S | Car Build Index
Wider tires? Addressable.
Better road feeling/cornering? I dunno... I loved my FC's handling, even though it was an overweight and flimsible convertible.

The 944 being a transaxle car is a drawback for a swap, as you can't (not easily anyway) fit a T56 in the tunnel and diff swaps would likewise be a major undertaking. Seems like you're kinda stuck with Porsche 944 or 968 transmission options.

IMO transaxles or rear-mounted transmissions in FR cars don't *really* do that much for weight distribution anyway. C2 and small-block C3 Corvettes were slightly rear-biased and C4 corvette was 51/49 with the trans mounted to the back of the engine, C5 with rear-mounted trans went to 52/48, largely because the rear wheels were shoved way aft. Also, rear trans or transaxle increases polar moment of inertia. I've never been a fan of this layout...

Also, The heaviest non-vert FCs were ~2900 lb., while the 944 Turbo S was close to 3200. Earlier non-turbos were a lot lighter-weight, I'm sure, but still...

yr6

iTrader: (1)

You guys have made a few very valid points. I understand that upgrading the brakes and getting wider tires on the rx7 is possible. But with the 944t you do not have to do anything. I like how the rx7 feels lighter because it is for sure. But the feeling of the 944T around corners was much better in my opinion.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

I have not driven a 944T, but a FC with fresh bushings and good suspension handles pretty darn crisp.

With big power in a 944 you will have to upgrade the brakes, just as you do with the FC. The stock FC Turbo brakes will carry you pretty far, and really are probably all you would ever need on the street.

With coilovers you can fit up to 255/275 tires under the stock FC fenders by rolling them. I have 275s all around and just have flared front fenders.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i managed to shoehorn 285's with very minor flaring in the rear

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

Yep, I could see 285/30/18s fitting with the right wheel offset.

I could do it in the front as well with some modifications to my Shine front fenders, or a larger front fender.

yr6

iTrader: (1)

I was able to fit 285's on the 944T with stock suspension, no flaring, stock panels. It was a pretty mean look. I think with the RX7 i'd prefer a square setup. I'm not going to be running much over stock power though.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

Nice. Well that is part of the reason the FC is a little lighter.. less metal. The 944s had bigger wheels and tires on them than FCs did from the factory anyway.

And yes the FC does work pretty well with a square setup.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

also the FC outsold the 944 by about 5/1.

i had an E30 and an FC together, and basically both cars are the same. within a couple of a percent they are the same power, weight, wheelbase, suspension layout, etc etc.

one of the differences is that the E30 has that german thing where it feels better at high speeds. since both the FC and E30 were laid out the same, why are they so different?

the E30 is basically all smoke and mirrors. firstly the FC has about a 50/50 weight distribution, i think we all know that. the E30, is like 60/40, the engine literally weighs a ton, so its like throwing a dart.

secondly the E30 has a really slow steering ratio. BMW people like to use turns lock to lock, which tells you how long the rack is, but everyone else uses the ratio of steering wheel turns to road wheel turns. the power FC is 15:1, the manual FC is 20:1, its a slower ratio to lower the effort. the BMW power ratio is 20:1. so the steering is really slow, you can make bigger changes in the wheel and it does less.

third, and this is where the 944 is probably in alignment, is the alignment. the FC runs a lot of toe in, and no camber or caster in the front, so its safe and understeery. the BMW runs a TON of caster, and lots of camber all the way around, so it has a more aggressive alignment.

add all that together and the E30 feels better, even though its not.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

As another tidbit, remember that the DTSS rear suspension in the FC was a simpler version of the Weissach axle from the rear suspension in the 928.

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

NA FC Vs. a 924S.. They seem fairly equal.


FB vs. 944.. FB is faster in a drag race, 944 is 1.2 seconds faster around a track.. pretty close.

This might be the most relevant
86 944 Turbo Vs. 86 RX7 TurboII vs. 300ZX Turbo vs. Starion Esi-R (A 944 Turbo was $30K in '86!!!)

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

I have FC, FD and FE (RX-8) and I have to say the RX-8 is the obvious V8 swap candidate in my eyes.

Advantages in my opinion-
RX-8 are FC TII price and possibly even more common to find with blown engine for lower price.
Parts are readily available and cheap.
Most vertical room under the hood of the three.
Best suspension of the three.
Biggest brakes of the three (bigger than '99 FD).
Long wheelbase and lots of caster means it isn't twitchy like the FD, but lower polar moment of inertia means it still rotates better than FC.
Very practical 4 seat car.
Fits 295 on 18x11 Front/Rear on stock rolled lip fenders (FD needs slight pull up front for this).
Front subframe is open in rear like FC for easy F-body oil pan use.
Met later crash standards (safer?)
Milf age ladies love how they look.

Disadvantages in my opinion-
Fewer swaps documented/fewer swap parts available.
It doesn't look like FD.
Doesn't have highspeed aero of FC

LargeOrangeFont

iTrader: (7)

Also add that getting all the factory systems working and keeping things looking and working in an OE fashion in an Rx8 is much more challenging.

If I V8 swapped another car for track use, it would probably be an RX8.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

If I V8 swapped another car for track use, it would probably be an RX8.

I totally forgot one of my favorite RX-8 advantages!

RX-8 was engineered around 26" tall tire.

You have more options on tires.
Also, once you go widebody for tire widths over 295mm you still can run the car as low as you want with full suspension stroke.

Also add that getting all the factory systems working and keeping things looking and working in an OE fashion in an Rx8 is much more challenging.

This is true, but its a case of people trying to overthink the problem as well. Leave the RX-8 ECU in the chassis and feed it the sensor inputs (and output for throttle) it wants.
You have to add the few RX-8 engine sensors to the V8 or use signal converters.

Then you get the added advantage of Dynamic Stability Control and Traction control.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

you forgot to add that it's mainly a best candidate because the MSP is a crap engine, so reliability comparisons just about anything could go into an RX8 and save you money in the longrun.

at least i think we all found something we can agree upon, even though it technically isn't a sports car(so it doesn't look like one) but it does have sports car suspension and lightweight engineering.

people throw turbos on those cars ignoring all the warnings, the engines generally don't last 100k+ miles in stock dressing so adding a gigantic heater on the side of the block is just going to blow through the engines quicker.

BLUE TII

iTrader: (9)

you forgot to add that it's mainly a best candidate because the MSP is a crap engine, so reliability comparisons just about anything could go into an RX8 and save you money in the longrun.

That was implicit in my first listing under RX-8 swap advantages.

Advantages in my opinion-
RX-8 are FC TII price and possibly even more common to find with blown engine for lower price.

even though it technically isn't a sports car

I don't know what the definition of "sports car" is anymore.
As recently as the '60s a sports car had to be convertible despite the performance disadvantage.
Most Americans say a sports car has to have a bunch of power (Family guy episode stating Miata is not a sports car?).

I personally would say a sports car is a car suited to the sport of auto racing in near production form.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i just generally consider it a performance oriented 2 seater. the RX8 is a 4 seater sedan.

The RX8 is ideal because mazda pushed the automatics down people's throat and those cars are complete junk and a waste of space, great candidates for V8 swaps to just gut out the wounds under the hood.

The manual cars can accept a rotary swap, going backwards to when engines were designed for running boost.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

+1. the definition stays kind of the same, but the looks/construction change. a sports car is a variation of a normal model meant to be used for motor sports. from the beginning up to about, this was a street legal car you could go racing with, pre ww2, this would have been grand prix racing, something like the Bugatti type 35 fits, and Alfa Romeo had the 2800/2900 lines. post WW2, there is the sports car racing, like the SCCA, and FIA like the races at Daytona, and things like the MG T series, the Triumphs, Austin Healey's, Jaguars, etc. the image in our heads is maybe the classic small British roadster. American cars tend to be modified sedans, and they also tend to not go road racing

Ferrari sold the GTO, which is an FC sized V12 coupe, and Porsche sells the 911, both of which were big winners right out of the factory. Porsche and Ferrari still sell race prepped versions, however these aren't street legal.

in the 70's the sports name added some quotations, as everyone offered a "sports" version of something. in the 80's they added a turbo badge. by 1981, the sports cars are all coupes, except the holdout italians

in the 2000's everything is a sport model, although i'm no longer sure what sport they are talking about, and sometimes i'm not sure the manufacturers do either. my friend has a Rav4 sport, which i assume is badminton or table tennis or something, car isn't big enough for golf clubs, and its fast in a straight line* but its not competitive in any motor sports activity anywhere.

so what does sports car mean now? almost nothing. is the BMW M4 a sports car? they do get raced, even though its a 4 door with a shouty engine. is the miata a sports car? they are widely raced, and they will sell you a cup car shortly


*the 2011 Rav4 V6 runs 14 flat in the quarter mile, stock. way faster than it needs to be