SR20 swap
I am thinking of doing a sr20 swap on an FD. I love the rotary engine, but the maitnence on my gsl-se are very very expensive, so I figured that I would do what FALKEN did and put in the sr20. please give any info on doing this, and where I can get the motor mounts. :dark:
|
What made you choose an SR20? There are much better options out there IMO
|
what other than a rotary would you put in ????
|
If I was going to do a piston engine swap
LS1, LT1, 2JZ... those would be my top 3 |
man but the gas mileage is my problem
|
I get about 25mpg on the highway in my LS1 powered FC with the T56 trans. 6th gear is .5, so it makes the stock 4.1 gears act like 2.05s.
Andrew |
Youd be trading DOWN displacement... going from 2.6 to 2.0. That means youd have considerable lag running the same turbo a typical 13B would run.
You might seriously want to consider other options. |
It has been done. Twice I believe.
That means that there is some info out there of how to do this. Unfortunately, everything will have to be custom made. |
there is a falken racing FD driven by yamamoto, that is the only one that i know of. but please give as much critisism as you can. also i have another FD in my club that is getting a 20b with an auto tranny, where can i find a manual tranny for the car????
|
I get 26-28mpg freeway here with my LS1, for what it's worth.
|
Originally Posted by 1984rx7
there is a falken racing FD driven by yamamoto, that is the only one that i know of. but please give as much critisism as you can. also i have another FD in my club that is getting a 20b with an auto tranny, where can i find a manual tranny for the car????
BTW, ever been to Petal, MS? |
No offense but that Sr20 is WACK in a FD. Leave the engine in a Silvia. Dont get me wrong though, Silvias and sr20s are bad azz, but a sr20 has no place in a FD car. You gonna be hella slow for the money your gonna spend. The Sr20 cannot match up to the 13b motors. But if you plan to do that, its up to you. Why not just rebuild your FD though? Thats whats good about a Rx-7, the Rotary engine.
|
Originally Posted by Eternal_Gamer
No offense but that Sr20 is WACK in a FD. Leave the engine in a Silvia. Dont get me wrong though, Silvias and sr20s are bad azz, but a sr20 has no place in a FD car. You gonna be hella slow for the money your gonna spend. The Sr20 cannot match up to the 13b motors. But if you plan to do that, its up to you. Why not just rebuild your FD though? Thats whats good about a Rx-7, the Rotary engine.
Anyway, SR20 has less displacement than a 13b, and the rev potential is about the same. The only gain would be reliability at the cost of spooling up later and having to rev higher to get the same power. If you want to put in an engine other than the 13b a v8 is kind of a "cant go wrong" sort of plan. Also, consider the Ford 2.3 - shits VERY cheap for it, its very strong, and it can make tons of power on a turbo. |
Originally Posted by Eternal_Gamer
No offense but that Sr20 is WACK in a FD. Leave the engine in a Silvia. Dont get me wrong though, Silvias and sr20s are bad azz, but a sr20 has no place in a FD car. You gonna be hella slow for the money your gonna spend. The Sr20 cannot match up to the 13b motors. But if you plan to do that, its up to you. Why not just rebuild your FD though? Thats whats good about a Rx-7, the Rotary engine.
|
any thought put into the rb20dett or rb26det?
i know sr20det's have made 450hp w/o issue... that might be the part that attracted you ...ay'? |
Originally Posted by 1984rx7
I am thinking of doing a sr20 swap on an FD. I love the rotary engine, but the maitnence on my gsl-se are very very expensive, so I figured that I would do what FALKEN did and put in the sr20. please give any info on doing this, and where I can get the motor mounts.
There is someone that offers a VG30DETT kit. That is the 300ZX motor. I would keep that in mind if you really want a boosted bolt in solution without lots of fab work. Otherwise there is the good ole' American Iron.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
Youd be trading DOWN displacement... going from 2.6 to 2.0. That means youd have considerable lag running the same turbo a typical 13B would run.
You might seriously want to consider other options. Lets take a 350 small block for example. It has a stock bore of 4in and stroke of 3.48in. That gives us about 43.7CID. Now multiply that times eight and you get 349.6CID or 5735.2cc's. Now if we were to measure a SBC based on it AIR FLOW and VE it would be FAR less than 5.7liters. Now do you get it? You are right about the turbo, but not simply due to displacement. Rotories typically use a turbo with a much higher A/R than a piston motor because of it's airflow. If they ran lower a lower A/R, there would be no lag, but it would also take the turo WAY out off its efficiency range, and destroying it rather quickly. Bigger motors can't spin a turbo with a high A/R like a rotory can.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
and the rev potential is about the same. The only gain would be reliability at the cost of spooling up later and having to rev higher to get the same power.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll throw my 2cc in anyway.
|
THE 13B SUCKS IN AIR AT THE SAME RATE AS A 2.6 LITER 4BANGER TURNING AT THE SAME RPMS!
Originally Posted by AXMDR787BOY
A 13B has two cumbustion chambers with a peak of 650cc each. 1300cc Total. NO ifs, ands, or buts about it.
You just dont seem to realize that everyone but mazda goes by *TWO* revolutions. .65 x2 x2 = 2.6. Also....
Originally Posted by AXMDR787BOY
Lets take a 350 small block for example. It has a stock bore of 4in and stroke of 3.48in. That gives us about 43.7CID. Now multiply that times eight and you get 349.6CID or 5735.2cc's. Now if we were to measure a SBC based on it AIR FLOW and VE it would be FAR less than 5.7liters. Now do you get it?
The bottom line is wanting it to be of smaller displacement is only because you and a lot of people seem to think that smaller displacement is better. Whatever. The laws of physics dont change becuase you dont understand the concept of rate and the fact that all the math out there is designed with a engine that must spin 720 degrees to fill every combustion chamber. A rotary requires 1080 degrees, or three rotations of the eccentric shaft. But, is not a 3.9 liter engine? NO! THE RATE IS 720 DEGREES. If you change it to 360, so you can get your jollies of low displacement, all the piston engines are effectively half of what their manufacturers say they are, because its nonsensical to measure a 13b by a different rate than every other engine. Rate being equally applied to all engines is essential because when youre measuring the POWER output of an engine. Power is rate of work. The rate that EVERYONE uses is 720 degrees. TWO rotations of the engine. Let me put it this way. Rotaries AND piston engines dont fill all their cylinders and make power and spit it back out in 360 degrees, or one rotation, with the exception of 2stroke piston engines. A rotary has to spin its e shaft 3 times to fill. compress, combust, and exhaust all of its 6 combustion chambers. A piston engine (of whatever configuration) requires two. But, because the math was done with piston engines, as the rotary wasnt yet developed, the rate is... 720 degrees. Thats the standard everyone goes by. So, you measure how much is moved in two rotations. Get it? Because I dont even know where to begin explaining to you whats wrong with what you say about how it can flow enough air to spool up a big turbo without being a 2.6 liter, and about how the laws of physics apply just as equally to a rotary as it does to a piston engine... especially when rotary engines are INEFFICIENT compared to piston engines. And finally...
Originally Posted by AXMDR787BOY
You are right about the turbo, but not simply due to displacement. Rotories typically use a turbo with a much higher A/R than a piston motor because of it's airflow. If they ran lower a lower A/R, there would be no lag, but it would also take the turo WAY out off its efficiency range, and destroying it rather quickly. Bigger motors can't spin a turbo with a high A/R like a rotory can.
How the hell is it moving about as much air as a 2.6 liter engine if its not a 2.6 liter engine? [/QUOTE=AXMDR787BOY]Originally Posted by Nihilanthic I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll throw my 2cc in anyway.[/QUOTE] Look in a mirror, jackass. By the rate that everyone else goes by, which you dont get to decide, its a 2.6 liter, 4 combustion chamber engine. Why? Because while spinning at whatever rpms, the rate at which its measured (two) it sucks in air for 4 combustion chambers, squishes it, burns it (well, as much of it that it can) and then spits it out into its exhaust manifold. Now, are we done with this? God. Displacement DOES matter, and the effective displacement of a rotary engine is twice what mazda says it is, and now its been explained why. |
Skyline
Why not put a skyline engine in the rx7 it" has good power and very reliable i know i have it in my RX7
|
....
:Wconfused
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
:dark: Also, consider the Ford 2.3 - shits VERY cheap for it, its very strong, and it can make tons of power on a turbo.
is that out of a probe?, also was there a probe that came with a stock turbo? |
1989 Ford Probe Gt Turbo
|
no its out of a turbo thunderbird, and mustang svo. Iron block and head, but can make A SHITLOAD of horsepower and maintain it because the blocks are stupidly strong. The engines in the probe turbos are mazda F2's 2.2L sohc engines, making 145hp and 190ft-lbs tq
|
Im still tossing a 2.3 or v8 swap right now.. I wanna be able to put it in as-is at first and I Dont know if the alt and intake *a pipe goes over the valve cover* will clear the hood, buh.
I just might mangle the fucking hood and then put an aluminum one on it when I get a FMIC setup, lol. |
Hope you like turbo lag if you expect to push respectable horsepower numbers.
I'm considering putting a Turbo II engine into a 240sx because it is a more respectable performance engine and reliable if built correctly. The FD's 13B-REW is even better than the Turbo II engine. Go figure. |
Originally Posted by BlastinSideways12A
Hope you like turbo lag if you expect to push respectable horsepower numbers.
I'm considering putting a Turbo II engine into a 240sx because it is a more respectable performance engine and reliable if built correctly. The FD's 13B-REW is even better than the Turbo II engine. Go figure. Is 400 whp respectable? I can get that without lag with a properly sized EXPENSIVE turbo, or I can get a used holset and get it fine. Less than that in terms of power and its all even more responsive. If I want to get a T-II, I have to spend the money to get a T-II. If I get a roller and convert to a 13B-REW, I still have to spend the initial cost, then do a turbo kit and all the other shit, and it will require rebuilds more frequently than a 2.3 turbo. Also, a 2.3 I can run at relatively insane boost levels, and if i do knock while tuning I can back off - I dont have to utterly avoid it, at all times, tuning or driving, because its a VERY strong engine. BTW, what do you mean about 'respectable'. A properly built KA-T can make tons of power. Do you mean about how a SR20 will be unable to spool as fast as a 13b if its making the same whp as a 13b? |
I would have to agree that the SR20DET and 13BT are pretty comparable powerplants. I think I would still rather have a CA over an SR, though. Bad lag is usually only a result of poor turbo choice for the respective power levels.
|
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
THE 13B SUCKS IN AIR AT THE SAME RATE AS A 2.6 LITER 4BANGER TURNING AT THE SAME RPMS!
You just don’t seem to realize that everyone but Mazda goes by *TWO* revolutions. .65 x2 x2 = 2.6. Uh. If we measured a 13b the same way you measure a 350, it would be .65 * 6 for all 3 of the combustion chambers per rotor, x 2 rotors. :rolleyes: The bottom line is wanting it to be of smaller displacement is only because you and a lot of people seem to think that smaller displacement is better. Whatever. The laws of physics dont change becuase you dont understand the concept of rate and the fact that all the math out there is designed with a engine that must spin 720 degrees to fill every combustion chamber. A rotary requires 1080 degrees, or three rotations of the eccentric shaft. But, is not a 3.9 liter engine? NO! THE RATE IS 720 DEGREES. If you change it to 360, so you can get your jollies of low displacement, all the piston engines are effectively half of what their manufacturers say they are, because its nonsensical to measure a 13b by a different rate than every other engine. Rate being equally applied to all engines is essential because when youre measuring the POWER output of an engine. Power is rate of work. The rate that EVERYONE uses is 720 degrees. TWO rotations of the engine. Let me put it this way. Rotaries AND piston engines dont fill all their cylinders and make power and spit it back out in 360 degrees, or one rotation, with the exception of 2stroke piston engines. A rotary has to spin its e shaft 3 times to fill. compress, combust, and exhaust all of its 6 combustion chambers. A piston engine (of whatever configuration) requires two. But, because the math was done with piston engines, as the rotary wasnt yet developed, the rate is... 720 degrees. Thats the standard everyone goes by. So, you measure how much is moved in two rotations. Get it? Because I dont even know where to begin explaining to you whats wrong with what you say about how it can flow enough air to spool up a big turbo without being a 2.6 liter, and about how the laws of physics apply just as equally to a rotary as it does to a piston engine... especially when rotary engines are INEFFICIENT compared to piston engines. How the hell is it moving about as much air as a 2.6 liter engine if its not a 2.6 liter engine? Look in a mirror, jackass. By the rate that everyone else goes by, which you dont get to decide, its a 2.6 liter, 4 combustion chamber engine. Why? Because while spinning at whatever rpms, the rate at which its measured (two) it sucks in air for 4 combustion chambers, squishes it, burns it (well, as much of it that it can) and then spits it out into its exhaust manifold. Now, are we done with this? God. Displacement DOES matter, and the effective displacement of a rotary engine is twice what mazda says it is, and now its been explained why. |
Do you not realize that if you closed all the valves in a piston engine at any part of its rotation, at all, right now, and took out the spark plugs and filled the cylinders with water, unless youre getting compression ring leaks you would have exactly HALF of the rated displacement?
The problem here is the WAY you measure displacmement doesnt match up with the way the engine operates. A piston engines displacement is measured as the area of the bore times the stroke. It doesnt actually suck in that much air unless you spin it twice. The spinning it twice thing is the key here youre not understanding. The way MAZDA measures displacement is the displacement of ONE of the combustion chambers of a rotor, times the number of rotors. Fine. But, why did mazda decide to measure just one combustion chamber and not two? Are there not three? For a piston engine, only half of the cylinders actually fire once every single rotation, while the other half suck in air and compress it. But they dont rate it at half of the displacement, do they? :rolleyes: The 13b engine is a 3.9 liter engine if it goes through its complete 1080° cycle. A piston engine is whatever its rated at per its 720° cycle. Mazdas displacement (which is effectively a 360° cycle...) times two, to make it by the same standard as what everyone uses and all the math is based off of, piston engines, is what I am suggesting. A 2.6 liter 4banger would have a per cylinder volume of .65 liters. But, if you made the valves close all the way, the rings sealed, bla bla bla, should you pull the spark plug sand fill with water and measure the water, at ALL times it would be effectively 1.3 liters. Same for a 13b! The thing here is the mechanics of the rotary and how they're quirky and dont match up with the math that was designed with piston engines in mind. That is the standard that everyone goes by, so the rotary whic h is a latecomer to already established rules has to adopt to it, not the other way around! You have to compare EVERYTHING by the same cycle here, or the numbers dont match up. You know what BMEP is? Its "Brake mean effective pressure" - its a measure of how efficient the engine is and how well tuned, and its much better than something as paltry as "torque per liter". BMEP = 150.8 x TORQUE ÷ DISPLACEMENT (in cid). Now, if you want to find that out for a rotary engine, you HAVE to do it by twice what mazda says it is, or it will not work. Why?, you ask? Its a well known and established fact that rotary engines are inefficient with handling heat of combustion to make power, and burning all of the fuel/air mixture. But, if you divide the torque x constant by half as much as the displacement actually is, you get a BMEP thats far too high for any N/A street motor. That doesnt add up, does it? Nope! Going by 2.6 liters, you get 155.87 psi. Actually rather respectable. Going by 1.3 liters, you get 311.74 psi. Thats absolutely ridiculous. No N/A engine is capable of getting that, youd have to be using nitrous, Supercharging, or Turbocharging to do so. Now, to put this in perspective, a S2K gets... about 185.59 psi. Thats very good for a street motor... honda engines are known to have high specific power, and as a side effect of how obsessive they are to get that high specific power they also get good specific torque (or BMEP), for comparison, a stock LS1 gets about 164.63 psi. Another respectiable thing. Oh, and if you want to do this easier, just do torque/liter... feh. Another thing you should look at a lot of the math out there for piston engines, a lot of them have a "/2" in them, the constant part of the equation is already divided by two, because it takes two revolutions to fill the whole engine, compress, ignite, and exhaust. A rotary takes THREE, but 1080 degrees is not 720! To make it fair, youd go by the same cycle, 720.. or do all piston engines by a 360 cycle like Mazda uses. Get it now? Mazda goes by how much the engine can move in one rotation. We all go by two. I realize your arguement for mere static displacement, but what id challenge is why only ONE rotor face, why not two? Why not all three? (Comparo time) A EJ25 is... 2.5 liters in 720 degrees of rotation. a 13b is 3.9 in 1080 degrees of rotation. If go by 720, a 13b is 2.6 and a EJ25 is 2.5. If both go by 360, the EJ25 is a 1.25 liter and a 13b is 1.3. If both go by 1080 then the rotary is 3.9 and th EJ25 is 3.75 liters. Apples to apples, not apples to oranges. IF you really MUST believe that the rotary is a 1.3 liter, then its 1.3 liters, just twice as fast as a piston engine, so its effectively a 2.6 liter engine. But, its not somehow having 160-200% V/E, that I can assure you... without the use of forced induction! Also, I figured Id add this in:
Originally Posted by AXMDR787BOY
Do you measure a sphere the same way you measure a cube? It isn't a piston engine; therefore, you cannot measure it as one. Let us go back to the point of all this. Displacement isn't a measure of air intake. It is merely a measure of internal volume. It is the same as a boat in water. Do you have to dunk the boat in water twice to figure out how much water it displaces?
Go ask a professor at a college to explain it, becuase Im sick of repeating what I say. It moves air at the same rate as a 2.6 liter engine and its not somehow getting 160-200% VE operating purely by vacuum with no outside compressors - and engine compression doesnt change the amount of air in it. You could compress it 1:2 or 1:100, its still only x # of liters in displacement. The intake needs if you size a throttle body or carburator is the same as a 2.6 liter, the exhaust gas coming out is just like a 2.6 liter, and *gasp* the tach signal is SUSPICIOUSLY like that if a 4 cylinder engine, having one spark event per 180 degrees. Shit, if you still dont believe me, try to tune a megasquirt on it and say its 1.3 liters and see where your VE% tables lie. :rolleyes: If its a 1.3 liter engine than the tach should read twice what it does now, or everything simply doesnt add up. And its not the laws of physics that is wrong, its the way mazda measures it. |
sr20det + garret gt28 "disco potato" = respectible power, near stock turbo lag. the rb26 would be a silly engine to put in a seven you'd have to baby the throttle all the time. not to mention the expense of all the fabrication, plumbing etc. the rb20 has better torque than the sr20 weighs just a little bit more. when i was a nissan follower i wanted to go rb25. more displacement than the sr20, only 200lbs heavier than the ka24. less fabrication than the rb26. i'm not a real big fan of the ca18. i've never really seen anyone do anything impressive with it. so you lose displacement add a turbo... might as well just turbo a ka24.
as for the geometry, im not getting involved. |
Originally Posted by NissanConvert
sr20det + garret gt28 "disco potato" = respectible power, near stock turbo lag. the rb26 would be a silly engine to put in a seven you'd have to baby the throttle all the time. not to mention the expense of all the fabrication, plumbing etc. the rb20 has better torque than the sr20 weighs just a little bit more. when i was a nissan follower i wanted to go rb25. more displacement than the sr20, only 200lbs heavier than the ka24. less fabrication than the rb26. i'm not a real big fan of the ca18. i've never really seen anyone do anything impressive with it. so you lose displacement add a turbo... might as well just turbo a ka24.
as for the geometry, im not getting involved. |
Originally Posted by AXMDR787BOY
That doesn't make it 2.6 litres...
|
1 Attachment(s)
i like the idea
|
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
blah blah blah..
Displacement IS NOT a measure over time. It is a static measurement. |
Hey braniac, heres the formula for how you calculate the airflow needs of a Piston engine:
CFM = (Displacement in cubic inches x max rpms you will run at)/1728*2 * VE% BTW, 1728 is how many cubic inches are in a cubic foot. Guess where that fucking 2 comes from? The engine has to spin TWICE!!! Oh, btw, 1728 x 2 = 3456, if you look online for formulas to size this, youll see that constant if theyre doing it in CID. ;) Static displacement doesnt make sense the way mazda does it, because they measure only one rotor face, yet a piston engine has all of its piston faces measured. What gives? But at any rate, static displacement doesn't make sense. *YOU* clearly dont understand, or dont WANT to understand (because 1.3 sounds so much better to you) what Im trying to say, but I'll re-explain it ANOTHER way to see if you get it. A piston engine cycles air through all of its combustion chambers every 720 degrees. Thats why you have a times two in the constant you divide by for the CFM formula :rolleyes:. A 13b is a 3.9 liter engine per 1080 degrees. You spin it three times, go through all of the combustion chambers - the full cycle of a 3 rotor wankel - and its a 3.9 liter engine. However, the rate at which everyone goes by is 720 degrees, so if you go by 720 out of that 1080 cycle you get FOUR rotor faces, which is... ba da da dam 2.6 liters. Thats why it sucks in air at exactly the same rate as a piston engine thats 2.6 liters per 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Yeah, displacement IS a static measurement, but you really dont seem to be able to explain why mazda can rate their engine at 1/3rd the actual displacmeent of the engine! 3.9 liters obviously doesnt make sense, because it goes through all of its cycles at a rate 50% slower than everyone else. If you have a 2.6 liter piston engine it fills squeezes burns and exhauts all of its cyls in 2 rotations. A 13b will move 2.6 liters of air through four combustion chambers complete in2 rotations as well, hence why its compared to a 2.6 4banger, but it still has those two other rotor faces to go with. Because youre comparing a 720 to a 1080 degree cycle its hard for some people who dont have enough background in physics to digest, but I can very well say its bullshit to go by ONE ROTOR FACE. Thats 360 degrees!! If you want to change the arguement, that everything SHOULD go by what it does in one rotation, just like mazda does, the rated displacement of every piston engine in the world would effectively be halved. Youre confusing how mazda rates (one third :rolleyes: ) of the displacement of a 13b with how it actually WORKS. Now, Ill repeat AGAIN, you seem to either not understand (or not care to try to understand) my posts. A 13b is a 3.9 liter engine, except its ful cycle is 1080 degrees, or 3 rotations. Piston engines use a 2 rotation cycle. The only way its a 1.3 liter engine like mazda says it is if it does it twice as fast as everything else (which it doesnt, its really a slow 3.9 liter engine :rolleyes: you DO know the rotor moves one third of a rotation per e-shaft revolution, right?). So, yes, its 'complicated' to figure out the displacement of the swept area of one side of a lenerux triangle moving in an epitrochroidal movement. Spiffy. Thats NEVER been my arguement. Dont quote me as "blah blah blah" if youre unable to comprehend it. This isnt middle school. |
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
"blah blah blah"
There seems to be one thing you don't get. Rotary engines are measureed for THE WHOLE chamber, not individual rotor faces. This is why I asked if you measure a cube the same way you measure a sphere. You cannot compare the measure of the two in any shape or form. If you measured the maximum volume for one rotor face in the peak of the intake/exhaust stage it would only be about 300cc's. So you can stop anytime now. I am no rotary lover by any strech of the term. I don't *WANT* the motor to be 1.3litres. It is what it is. You seem to want it to be more than that. You are the one TRYING to FIND a reason. This isn't a new arguement. Smarter men than you have accepted the facts for what the are years ago. |
[QUOTE=Nihilanthic]Youd be trading DOWN displacement... going from 2.6 to 2.0. QUOTE]
how many liters does your ford turbo 4 have? To the postrer, if youre going to put a damn turbo 4 in an RX-7, atleast do it right. SR20 is pretty retarded though, its still a high maintenance engine when you start pushing horsepower. |
STOP THE BICKERING AND GET BACK ON TOPIC
I'm going to go on a banning spree if these threads keep turning into crap. Don't worry, it'll be a short spree. |
i like the idea. i think it it is a little more reliable and there is also probably less of an over heating problem. Then there is the cool factor, as far as non rotary engine swaps go, this is the coolest (sorry V8 guys).
|
keep the rx7 light and nimble, like they are supposed to be. dont ruin them by putting huge gas guzzling v8's in them. the sr20 is a great canidate when it comes to engine swaps bc the aftermarket potential is crazy. though sr20's are rather expensive bc of the popularity. would an rb20 be cheaper? they have great potential as well.
|
Originally Posted by psychotic7
keep the rx7 light and nimble, like they are supposed to be. dont ruin them by putting huge gas guzzling v8's in them.
Have you read anything at all regarding to weight differences OR fuel economy in V8 swapped cars? Didn't think so. Research before you post. |
i know they get better gas milage bc the rx7 is lighter but a turbo four banger will get kick ass milage and enough performance to satisfy anybody. i know its hard to believe but there are some people out there like me and half the people on this forum who dont like v8's. they swallow up all the engine bay room and trust me rx7 owners love that and they throw off the weight distribution and handling.
|
Originally Posted by psychotic7
they swallow up all the engine bay room and trust me rx7 owners love that and they throw off the weight distribution and handling.
Even using the iron block LT1/T56, my car is actually TAIL heavy by 60lbs. A tail heavy car that gets damn near 10MPG more than it's original configuration is a winner in my book. So, that being said, you are welcome to your opinions and dislike of other engines, but stop spreading misinformation and myths. All it takes is a simple click of the "search" button above to find tons of information about V8 car weights, performance, handling and economy. This section is for informing and helping others interested in other engine swaps, not for spreading false information. This isn't the lounge. |
there is NO WAY at all, no matter how you look at it that a turbo four banger rx7 gets less mpg than a v8 and there is NO WAY it handles better....less weight=better mpg+better handling. all it takes is to pay attention in physics. with that said quit getting off topic and help the guy with his SR20 issue and quit trying to throw the unreliable gas hog at him. anyway dude, i say go for it, but be warned the sr20 has poor boost response, that is another reason i threw in the rb20
|
I never said anything about what engine he should put in his car. It's his car and his choice.
I have been challenging your claims of V8s being overweight and gas guzzling. You spread misinformation and I'm just here to correct you on it. |
Originally Posted by psychotic7
there is NO WAY at all, no matter how you look at it that a turbo four banger rx7 gets less mpg than a v8 and there is NO WAY it handles better....less weight=better mpg+better handling. all it takes is to pay attention in physics. with that said quit getting off topic and help the guy with his SR20 issue and quit trying to throw the unreliable gas hog at him. anyway dude, i say go for it, but be warned the sr20 has poor boost response, that is another reason i threw in the rb20
You mean to tell me adding weight to the CENTER of a car messes up handling? Go look at what PMOI means if youre into physics so much. Also, the fact that his car is 60 lbs heavier on the ass end is FACT, not opinion/ Also, I just noticed you threw a RB26 in there. Youre taking a dump on v8s and you go put a heavier, longer engine in there? PUH LEASE. :wallbash: Also, a v8 can get more fuel efficiency than a 4banger very easily. If its a Boosted engine and the off boost fuel maps are too rich, guess what? Bye Bye MPG. If you have a cam or porting there for meant for high airflow under boost, and/or at higher rpms, guess what? There goes your MPGs. You have to first look at all the variables, then isolate which ones matter for what youre trying to look at. That said, a SR20DET running a good EMS (unless the stock one is good enough, Im not SR20 guy) will probably get good MPG. Then again, the 30 mpg highway reported by people who have done v8 swaps isn't imaginary. Its real. Youre being closed minded. I myself am going with a turbo 4 - because the one Im going for is an even bigger bang/buck than with a v8 if youre willing to deal with the lack of torque off boost. And guess what else? Its BARELY ligther than a 302 or a LS1. Check your facts, or use the search button. This has been addressed over and over and over, and the facts speak for themselves. |
Displacement is the number one thing to look at when swapping an engine in your car. Not mpg, hp, torque, weight, reliability, or fuel type.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands