Yeah, most aluminum blocks have iron sleeves, so if there's water in the cylinder, things can still get pretty nasty.

Still, $1900 is a steal for all those parts! I'd be sleeving and boring the engine out anyway.

 

I've seen 2.3T FB's run and run fast, but why not just a 5.0HO. I mean you'll have a mean engine with that 2.3 but a 5.0 is very fast with very slight mods in a little car.

But rotors>pistons :P j/k Everybody likes their own stuff and thats awesome, this isn't **** Germany am I right

 

I am in the process of starting my FB 2.3t swap and all bullshit aside the reason for running this set-up is the total cost involved. You can say, " I paid such and such for such and such", but that is your car and if a good deal came up on another set-up you would get that one. Faster for cheaper is better. Rebuilding a free mid seventies designed motor in a 8' by 16' building and then boosting the F@#$ out of it is my solution. Build what you want and why do you need to go tell someone such and such is better, especially if you don't have either.

 

For some cars to have a salvage title in a flood all that really has to happen is some electronics get wet.

This engine is in near perfect sape.

And I do realize that rust can mess up engines. How many have you worked on/rebuilt .

 

2.3's can take power that would make a 302 drop its crank and all of its mains in a nice neat little package and have a great crack going up the webbings. Its also cheaper to make rev higher if thats a need based on your trap speeds.

 

Speaking from experience?

 

Turboford's stock answer to people suggesting 'ruining' one of their 2.3T cars with a 302

If youre going for like... 600+whp then well, duh, 351. But no, I haven't dropped a 302's crank yet. I dont plan on doing it either, unless you give me a introus fogger plate kit and a carbed 302 to kill

 

Nihilanthic, you still active over at TurboFord?

 

Oh I read it, but haven't had much to say lately.

 

Are you abandoning the whole 2.3t idea also?

 

It really comes down to how cheap LS1s are where I move to, in all bluntness.

If I got a chance to pick, Id pick a v8. But I realize I cant sink a lot of money into my car, and a 2.3T is an awesome bang for buck powerplant, cheap parts, reliable, bla bla bla. My biggest thing, though, is I'd be lying to myself if I said that I'd get a 2.3T becuase I really WANT a 2.3T. I want cheap, reliable performance, but Im not gonna be dishonest and say I dont like a v8 more. Blame it on the scottish blood in me and all (Buick having invented OHV motors...) but its true!

 

I was pondering a turbo 3.0 SHO swap to an MR2 today driving home from work.

 

With the large intake manifolds, that might be a rough swap.

Why not use a 3.2 out of an auto? More torque?

 

SC'd V6 from a camry into a MR2 won the SCC ultimate street car championship once

Too bad MR cars are relegated to small motors, or called the NSX and sold for twice its value

 

Heck why not just get an NSX and turbo it. Engine swaps are a lot of work.

 

The F430 has that V8 you want...

 

MY final update...

I parted out the entire package. I kept the shell. I have decided to gut the car, and build a drag car out of it. Attached, you will find some pics.

I did not abandon the car due to a lack of hood room, I abandoned it for a lack of HP. I know that you can get a lot out of the 2.3L engine, but 383 Stroker SBC will make WAY more useable torque, and get my car down the 1/4 quicker.

Thanks
Jesse

 

Sick

 

I will take that as a good thing... Thanks

 

what was the point in buying an rx7 if your just gonna use pistons thats why people buy the cars for the rotary

 

I disagree. Why buy a Toyota Starlet, and then throw a Rotary in THAT???

Simple answer.. BECAUSE WE CAN!!!!

 

Chassis shopping?

You know how many ID10T's out there blow rotaries and leave a perfectly good chassis sitting there with nothing to motivate it? If you're sitting there with a really nice powerplant and nothing better to put it in OEM than a Mustang or a Merkur that you cant find if your life depended on it, why not think outside the box?

 

I didn't buy mine for the rotary.

Begone from here with your two posts. Peruse the rest of the forum before making such statements here.

 

damn, i guess we f%cked up buying a light car that handles well, has a huge tranny tunnel that easily accepts a v8 transmission, has tons of engine room for a v8, subframe connectors from the factory so no chassis flexing, and has a rear end capable of holding over 500hp as it sits. dammit what was i thinking putting a v8 in it i should have stuck with a torqueless 2 stroke weed eater motor seriously tho makes me wonder why mazda put subframe connectors in a car that doesnt have nearly enough torque to worry about twisting the frame... its like they wanted us to drop big motors in there... lol

 

Mafgar... by design of a rotary, it kind of sets the car up well for using a giant transmission (centerline of the E-shaft is a lot higher than that of a crankshaft) and designing the car to be "front midship" means you can shove even a huge motor in it without upsetting the balance.

Plus, the car itself is more than capable of putting down power (T-II rear and room for 235F/265R tire widths STOCK) T-II brakes are bolt-on and even the wheel bearings are on the big side.

Its an excellent chassis that can swallow anything you throw at it, its flexible in terms of going for road race, autocross or dragracing, and on top of all of that it looks good and its cheap. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is about as smart as saying a RX-7 is only a rotary. Its not.