This may not make you guys happy
05-31-04, 11:40 PM
#26
Full Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: states
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SR20DE(T) is all aluminum.
The motor is also listed as an economy engine (not fuel efficiency) in nissan's lineup in the year 2000. This was written in an SAE paper.
If you want economy, slap in a diesel. The new TDIs are making over 100whp (rated at 90 crank factory) and close to 200 lbs/ft stock. Far greater when modded. Or the older IDI diesels (1.6L-1.9L) were excellent as well from VW... Hmm 65mpg+ FB
that could run seriously good times due to low mass 
The motor is also listed as an economy engine (not fuel efficiency) in nissan's lineup in the year 2000. This was written in an SAE paper.
If you want economy, slap in a diesel. The new TDIs are making over 100whp (rated at 90 crank factory) and close to 200 lbs/ft stock. Far greater when modded. Or the older IDI diesels (1.6L-1.9L) were excellent as well from VW... Hmm 65mpg+ FB
that could run seriously good times due to low mass
05-31-04, 11:45 PM
#27
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by ArrX7ahh
The SR20DE(T) is all aluminum.
The SR20DE(T) is all aluminum.
Usually "beef" engines are iron block for strength. That's what gets me about the Duratec: beefy (they use the blocks in WRC restrictor motors after all)) yet aluminum.
06-01-04, 12:12 PM
#29
Function > Form
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Catonsville MD (baltimore suburb)
Posts: 10,890
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I've been doing allot of research to find the best "overall" engine for a four cylinder swap. After the dust settled I came up with a 4g63 of turbo eclipse fame. They can bolt to a dodge rwd truck trans. and they have an adapter to mate it to some toyota trans. so that takes care of the "it's a transverse engine" problem. I can't see this being anymore difficult than the chevy swap with the exception of the mitsu. being fuel injected, but then again I guess because of my age I know more about fuel injection than I do about carbs so it may actually be easier.
06-01-04, 02:06 PM
#30
Full Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: states
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you are thinking. 4G63 has routinely made 475 awhp on a totally stock motor. It is a seriously strong iron block, and is not all that heavy. Aftermarket galore as well.
Tell us more about this adapter for a toyota trans. Who makes it, what trans can you use etc.
Tell us more about this adapter for a toyota trans. Who makes it, what trans can you use etc.
06-01-04, 03:32 PM
#32
Rotating once again!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Campbell River, BC
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Really? Hmm, why was I thinking they were iron-block?
Usually "beef" engines are iron block for strength. That's what gets me about the Duratec: beefy (they use the blocks in WRC restrictor motors after all)) yet aluminum.
Really? Hmm, why was I thinking they were iron-block?
Usually "beef" engines are iron block for strength. That's what gets me about the Duratec: beefy (they use the blocks in WRC restrictor motors after all)) yet aluminum.
06-01-04, 04:14 PM
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SF Peninsula
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
That's a K-series.
Why bother with an S2000 engine, the Fod Duratec (2.3l, as found in Ranger pickups) can easily make *more* power than a stock S2000, without touching the camshafts or cylinder head...
That's a K-series.
Why bother with an S2000 engine, the Fod Duratec (2.3l, as found in Ranger pickups) can easily make *more* power than a stock S2000, without touching the camshafts or cylinder head...
And my F22 put down 211 rwhp bone stock...with less than 5k miles on it. Find me a Duratec that does that.
But in all fairness the F series honda motors are really expensive, even used, so I don't think they make very good swap material.
06-01-04, 06:15 PM
#35
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by 80's Boy
Nope, The S2000 engine is an F-series. F-20 (00-03) and F22 (04).
And my F22 put down 211 rwhp bone stock...with less than 5k miles on it. Find me a Duratec that does that.
Nope, The S2000 engine is an F-series. F-20 (00-03) and F22 (04).
And my F22 put down 211 rwhp bone stock...with less than 5k miles on it. Find me a Duratec that does that.
Want a Duratec that does that? Okay...
I can't link because the site only allows members to view their forum, but here's the text:I supplied Circle Performance with their basic 2.3 Duratec engines to use for testing and race conversion. The one shown in the photos is their test "mule" for dyno work. Initial tests were conducted using a side-draft manifold and Weber carbs along with 12-1 forged pistons and rods...but no other changes. H.P was in the 245 range on gasoline. Then the engine was fitted with mechanical fuel injection to use methanol alcohol. The circle-track race clubs here in the States prohibit electronic fuel injection and gasoline for use in midget cars. H.P. was around 260 at 5800 rpm and peaked at 275 at 7800 rpm. Probably due to the stock cams and the longer 2.3 stroke. New high-lift billet cams and 14-1 pistons are being fitted to conduct further testing.
06-01-04, 08:00 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a copy from my post from a thread just like this a week ago
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=2
I will have to vote for the 2.3turbo ford. They are built like a brick **** house. Cheap as heck and parts are available at any junkyard to get them running.
Mine has a few things done (all cheap things) and it is putting out around 340 or so at the wheels (working on more) and it will do this for next to ever without wearing out. And can be made to make big numbers pretty cheaply.
I'm not really sure what mine gets as far as mileage goes, most the time I am in it, I am in it lol But when cruising down the hway the engine isn't even trying.
The fit into an rx pretty well, and the ford t5 5-speed hits the shifter hole like is was made for the car.
Over all I love my litte rx, I have little money in it and it is great to see the look on vette/camaro/mustang owners faces when they are trying to figure out what the hell just happened
Later
Randy
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=2
I will have to vote for the 2.3turbo ford. They are built like a brick **** house. Cheap as heck and parts are available at any junkyard to get them running.
Mine has a few things done (all cheap things) and it is putting out around 340 or so at the wheels (working on more) and it will do this for next to ever without wearing out. And can be made to make big numbers pretty cheaply.
I'm not really sure what mine gets as far as mileage goes, most the time I am in it, I am in it lol But when cruising down the hway the engine isn't even trying.
The fit into an rx pretty well, and the ford t5 5-speed hits the shifter hole like is was made for the car.
Over all I love my litte rx, I have little money in it and it is great to see the look on vette/camaro/mustang owners faces when they are trying to figure out what the hell just happened
Later
Randy
06-01-04, 08:59 PM
#38
Royale with cheese
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas, by way of Poulsbo, WA
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. I must say, that even for the blasphmous act of putting a piston in a Rex, that looks pretty slick. And stock. Awsome. What did those engines come in?
06-01-04, 09:06 PM
#39
add to cart
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saskatoon, SK & Montreal, PQ
Posts: 4,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Just fine if you don't mind 5 speeds backwards and one forwards.
Honda engines (up until the K series) rotate backwards. Which is fitting for an ***-backwards car.
Just fine if you don't mind 5 speeds backwards and one forwards.
Honda engines (up until the K series) rotate backwards. Which is fitting for an ***-backwards car.
06-01-04, 09:27 PM
#40
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Eville140
Here is a copy from my post from a thread just like this a week ago
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=2
I will have to vote for the 2.3turbo ford. They are built like a brick **** house. Cheap as heck and parts are available at any junkyard to get them running.
Mine has a few things done (all cheap things) and it is putting out around 340 or so at the wheels (working on more) and it will do this for next to ever without wearing out. And can be made to make big numbers pretty cheaply.
I'm not really sure what mine gets as far as mileage goes, most the time I am in it, I am in it lol But when cruising down the hway the engine isn't even trying.
The fit into an rx pretty well, and the ford t5 5-speed hits the shifter hole like is was made for the car.
Over all I love my litte rx, I have little money in it and it is great to see the look on vette/camaro/mustang owners faces when they are trying to figure out what the hell just happened
Later
Randy
Here is a copy from my post from a thread just like this a week ago
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=2
I will have to vote for the 2.3turbo ford. They are built like a brick **** house. Cheap as heck and parts are available at any junkyard to get them running.
Mine has a few things done (all cheap things) and it is putting out around 340 or so at the wheels (working on more) and it will do this for next to ever without wearing out. And can be made to make big numbers pretty cheaply.
I'm not really sure what mine gets as far as mileage goes, most the time I am in it, I am in it lol But when cruising down the hway the engine isn't even trying.
The fit into an rx pretty well, and the ford t5 5-speed hits the shifter hole like is was made for the car.
Over all I love my litte rx, I have little money in it and it is great to see the look on vette/camaro/mustang owners faces when they are trying to figure out what the hell just happened
Later
Randy
06-01-04, 09:41 PM
#41
love the braaaap
Well, I've been thinking of this too. What is the best engine for fuel economy and performance. So far I have only found the 2.3L Ford engine, which I can't get with a turbo around here (rarer than the RX, which was hard enough to find). I don't really like ford too well though. But I've grown up in a family who is totally against fords, except the mustang.
I need some pretty good reliablility, fuel economy, and I'm having a hell of a time getting my exhaust quiet enough. I fear I might spend more money trying to quiet my exhaust down than the engine swap would cost.
I would consider a VW TDI, or even 1.6L IDI engine, just for the pure fact that they can make some pretty good power and awsome torque. It doesn't take much in a diesel to make 100 hp over stock (for the V8's, all it takes is injectors, or some ECU programing). You can get over 50 mpg while making over 150 hp in a diesel. I just don't know if the aftermarket is there for the older VW diesels like there is for the newer Ford, Dodge, and GM ones. I'm sure I could get one to mount to the stock 7 tranny too.
On top of all that, they are built almost industructable. I've seen some with 450,000 KM without a rebuild.
I need some pretty good reliablility, fuel economy, and I'm having a hell of a time getting my exhaust quiet enough. I fear I might spend more money trying to quiet my exhaust down than the engine swap would cost.
I would consider a VW TDI, or even 1.6L IDI engine, just for the pure fact that they can make some pretty good power and awsome torque. It doesn't take much in a diesel to make 100 hp over stock (for the V8's, all it takes is injectors, or some ECU programing). You can get over 50 mpg while making over 150 hp in a diesel. I just don't know if the aftermarket is there for the older VW diesels like there is for the newer Ford, Dodge, and GM ones. I'm sure I could get one to mount to the stock 7 tranny too.
On top of all that, they are built almost industructable. I've seen some with 450,000 KM without a rebuild.
06-01-04, 10:47 PM
#43
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mazda123x5
If someone made a kit for a 2.3T swap for a good
price I would do it
If someone made a kit for a 2.3T swap for a good
price I would do it
06-02-04, 12:05 AM
#44
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by wwilliam54
++ gotta love the only engine i know of that will take 20 psi in junkyard trim
++ gotta love the only engine i know of that will take 20 psi in junkyard trim
06-02-04, 01:11 AM
#45
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Don't forget the 2.2/2.5 Dodge Turbo.
Don't forget the 2.2/2.5 Dodge Turbo.
but they do tend to break more than a 2.3, but not too much
and the whole FWD thing
06-02-04, 08:16 AM
#46
Originally posted by Tanjo
Wow. I must say, that even for the blasphmous act of putting a piston in a Rex, that looks pretty slick. And stock. Awsome. What did those engines come in?
Wow. I must say, that even for the blasphmous act of putting a piston in a Rex, that looks pretty slick. And stock. Awsome. What did those engines come in?
http://www.turboford.org/index.shtml
There's another bad-a$$ 2.3 Turbo RX-7 at http://www.boostbros.com/
06-02-04, 09:01 AM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: olathe, Kansas
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although some people say not to use the 4age, i say go for it, my bro had one in his corolla and it is a relatively high revvin(7500 redline) quick little engine. It would work well in a first gen. If you want my advice then i say go for a 4agze, its just a supercharged version put in some of the cars in japan. Well thats my small amount of input, hope it helps.
06-02-04, 06:27 PM
#48
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by wwilliam54
almost as good
but they do tend to break more than a 2.3, but not too much
and the whole FWD thing
almost as good
but they do tend to break more than a 2.3, but not too much
and the whole FWD thing
The only possible reason they might seem like they're less beefy is while Ford only put the 2.3T in specialty vehicles, Mopar put the 2.2/2.5 in EVERY SINGLE FWD CAR LINE from the Omni to the New Yorker, including the minivans. It was their "upgrade" engine before they had V6s in available quantity.
06-03-04, 01:43 AM
#49
it WILL run
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh,MS
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Um, no. They're bulletproof.
The only possible reason they might seem like they're less beefy is while Ford only put the 2.3T in specialty vehicles, Mopar put the 2.2/2.5 in EVERY SINGLE FWD CAR LINE from the Omni to the New Yorker, including the minivans. It was their "upgrade" engine before they had V6s in available quantity.
Um, no. They're bulletproof.
The only possible reason they might seem like they're less beefy is while Ford only put the 2.3T in specialty vehicles, Mopar put the 2.2/2.5 in EVERY SINGLE FWD CAR LINE from the Omni to the New Yorker, including the minivans. It was their "upgrade" engine before they had V6s in available quantity.
tho both are better than any forein 4-banger with boost IMHO
06-03-04, 07:58 PM
#50
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by wwilliam54
but in my experience
but in my experience
tho both are better than any forein 4-banger with boost IMHO
By the way, the Mopar engine is a loose copy of a VW (ex-Audi ex- Mercedes) 4-cylinder engine. The Ford engine is a "big block" version of the "Pinto" 4-cylinder, which is a European (UK or Germany, forget which) engine.