428 supra cobra jet
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: baltimore maryland
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
428 supra cobra jet
hey guys this is just some dumb **** i was thinking up...
but do you think a 428 super cobra jet would fit into an rx7 fd3s...
if you think this is stupid please feel free to call me a dumb ***
but do you think a 428 super cobra jet would fit into an rx7 fd3s...
if you think this is stupid please feel free to call me a dumb ***
#7
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyinyoface
cuz a mustang can't handle for ****
I really wish people would start thinking if they should do something instead of if they can do something.
Trending Topics
#8
Zero Rotor Motorsports
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyinyoface
cuz a mustang can't handle for ****
Originally Posted by rynberg
That motor has too much low-end torque to work in an FD.
#9
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
That definitely depends on the application. It's like saying an RX7 is slow - some are, some aren't.
Where exactly is there a chart that lists the cut off for too much torque? I'm curious to find out if my car shouldn't work because it has more torque than the 428 in question
Where exactly is there a chart that lists the cut off for too much torque? I'm curious to find out if my car shouldn't work because it has more torque than the 428 in question
#10
I hate because I'm bored.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always thought that if you are going to put a V8 in an RX-7 it should be a Ford 302.
Sure its not the torquiest or the most powerful, but its the best bang for the buck. And its small, to my knowledge the smallest V-8 out there in terms of external dimensions.
Sure its not the torquiest or the most powerful, but its the best bang for the buck. And its small, to my knowledge the smallest V-8 out there in terms of external dimensions.
#11
RX-347
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by rynberg
What's the point of having so much low end torque that you can't put it to the ground? I tend to notice V8 guys find spinning the rear tires fruitlessly to be more entertaining than I do.
#12
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
I'm curious to find out if my car shouldn't work because it has more torque than the 428 in question
#13
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rynberg
That motor has too much low-end torque to work in an FD.
But I agree with you. That motor is too damn heavy for an FD.
Last edited by wingsfan; 09-13-06 at 08:31 PM.
#14
Zero Rotor Motorsports
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Your LS1 is making more than that? They were rated at ~440 ft lbs.
But seriously, anyone who is spinning their wheels instead of hooking has a setup issue, not too much torque. You can have too much clutch, too much air in your tires, too much preload in your shocks... but no FD will ever have too much torque.
And yes, an iron 428 weighs too much for anything but a dedicated drag car. But it could still be a fun drag car
#15
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
Shhhh! I've got some guys thinking that just because they have a single turbo instead of stock twins they will "put a whoopin' on me" and others thinking I'm going to run 9's on the stock heads. You're gonna ruin the fun!
It just dawned on me that the 440 lbs ft rating is at the flywheel, or the equivalent of ~375rwtq assuming 15% drivetrain losses. My cam only motor made that.
But seriously, anyone who is spinning their wheels instead of hooking has a setup issue, not too much torque. You can have too much clutch, too much air in your tires, too much preload in your shocks... but no FD will ever have too much torque.
And yes, an iron 428 weighs too much for anything but a dedicated drag car. But it could still be a fun drag car
#16
You've Been Punk'd
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Branson, Missouri
Posts: 4,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rynberg
What's the point of having so much low end torque that you can't put it to the ground? I tend to notice V8 guys find spinning the rear tires fruitlessly to be more entertaining than I do.
#17
Zero Rotor Motorsports
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Sorry. Didn't mean to spoil your fun. You can totally run 9s on stock heads. What was I thinking?
Originally Posted by wingsfan
It just dawned on me that the 440 lbs ft rating is at the flywheel, or the equivalent of ~375rwtq assuming 15% drivetrain losses. My cam only motor made that.
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Sure, At the strip. I'm not going to put around town without the swaybar connected and 15psi in the tires though.
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Put me in the camp that says an FD is wasted if you're just going to use it to drag race. Maybe that's a tad elitist, but I think they were meant to turn...and I'm not a big drag racing fan.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mooresville
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO IT!!!!!do it do it, and then send pics, i had a 428 in a 66 t-bird that put down 580 @ the wheels too bad the car weighed nearly 4000lbs but i never had issues with wheel spin let me know if you need any engine parts i still have a ton of leftover bits from that motor.
#19
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
With enough nitrous and weight reduction
Mine hasn't been tuned and dynoed yet, but it will probably be in that neighborhood as well.
I have before, but not with the FD. Where I live you have to leave town to find some decent turns so it's really not as far-fetched as it sounds.
And I support your right to your opinion, something that's as tough to come by on this forum as ever.
I bought mine to build a daily driver, which some would say is as much of a waste as a drag car.
I haven't decided what's going to happen at this point since I bought the C6, but whatever I do I know I'll have more torque than the stock engine, and
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog...oducts_id=1557
I assure you it won't go to waste
#20
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Barban
Why would you use such an inferior engine? The ford 427 kicks the **** out of the 428 day in and day out.
Replacing the heads and intake (which comprises part of each head) with aluminum aftermarket parts makes teh 427/428 weigh about the same aas an iron small block Chevy, and we've already seen that even those don't really upset the balance of an FC.
The problem with the 427/428, however, is physical dimensions. It'd fit in an FC pretty well, but not sure about an FD, due to the limited height you have to work with.
As for the iron engines making it only a drag car, I built this back in the late '80s:
460 powered '81 Fox Mustang autocross car. 700 lb ft of torque, almost 600 daily driver hp. It ran 11s with a 2.73 final drive ratio... with the 16x8 Ronals and Yokohama A008 tires, it pulled over 1 G laterally.
the chassis still sucked and even with good pads, the stock brakes sucked. Still, it was pretty good on tight autocross tracks, and other than brakes outstanding on a road course.
to think that an engine like it in an FC or FD would be worse is laughable. better chassis, vastly better brakes, and the engine woudl sit back farther for much better balance.
#21
Zero Rotor Motorsports
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Or a couple solid fuel rockets bolted to the roof.
Originally Posted by wingsfan
What cam did you choose? You already have longtubes, right? Plans to swap the heads?
Originally Posted by wingsfan
But you’ll kill your mileage with those underinflated tires.
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Support, or an opinion?
Originally Posted by wingsfan
Nah. You’d at least have to make a few turns in a DD.
Originally Posted by wingsfan
I know what I’d do. Goodbye FD…hello boost.
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog...oducts_id=1557
http://www.lgmotorsports.com/catalog...oducts_id=1557
#22
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
I love Mythbusters
I promised my wife her Mustang GT could get a supercharger before I did anything substantial to the C6.
#24
Schadenfreude...Ha Ha
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crash Test Joey
If I don't make her car faster, she'll drive mine more.
I guess you know what you've got to do then.
Keeping the car safe in the garage while I'm not using it = priceless.
#25
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: baltimore maryland
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Merc63
The 427 and 428 used the same blocks. In fact, most of the later Shelby 427 Cobras used 428s, stock. The 428 Cj and 428 SCJ were more powerful than the 427 engines.
Replacing the heads and intake (which comprises part of each head) with aluminum aftermarket parts makes teh 427/428 weigh about the same aas an iron small block Chevy, and we've already seen that even those don't really upset the balance of an FC.
The problem with the 427/428, however, is physical dimensions. It'd fit in an FC pretty well, but not sure about an FD, due to the limited height you have to work with.
As for the iron engines making it only a drag car, I built this back in the late '80s:
460 powered '81 Fox Mustang autocross car. 700 lb ft of torque, almost 600 daily driver hp. It ran 11s with a 2.73 final drive ratio... with the 16x8 Ronals and Yokohama A008 tires, it pulled over 1 G laterally.
the chassis still sucked and even with good pads, the stock brakes sucked. Still, it was pretty good on tight autocross tracks, and other than brakes outstanding on a road course.
to think that an engine like it in an FC or FD would be worse is laughable. better chassis, vastly better brakes, and the engine woudl sit back farther for much better balance.
Replacing the heads and intake (which comprises part of each head) with aluminum aftermarket parts makes teh 427/428 weigh about the same aas an iron small block Chevy, and we've already seen that even those don't really upset the balance of an FC.
The problem with the 427/428, however, is physical dimensions. It'd fit in an FC pretty well, but not sure about an FD, due to the limited height you have to work with.
As for the iron engines making it only a drag car, I built this back in the late '80s:
460 powered '81 Fox Mustang autocross car. 700 lb ft of torque, almost 600 daily driver hp. It ran 11s with a 2.73 final drive ratio... with the 16x8 Ronals and Yokohama A008 tires, it pulled over 1 G laterally.
the chassis still sucked and even with good pads, the stock brakes sucked. Still, it was pretty good on tight autocross tracks, and other than brakes outstanding on a road course.
to think that an engine like it in an FC or FD would be worse is laughable. better chassis, vastly better brakes, and the engine woudl sit back farther for much better balance.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post