680RWHP12A

yah right... lol

your dreaming.. a 400 hp camero that gets 30 + mpg?? on a towtruck, maybe
my buddies 02 ls1 camero(last year it was made) gets at best 23 -25 pushing it ... 6 speed on his way back from vegas 70 mph....... his is 305 @ the wheels .. approx 345 flywheel

rajahFD

i hate this statement.

this is why i didn't buy a vette.

1.) I'm only 18, with no chance in hell of paying off $400-$500 monthly payments - i'm paying 140 dollars a month for my swap, i already paid off my FD.
2.) corvette's are about $33,000-$55,000. my swap stayed under $10,000 ($9,565 exactly, that's including the car and everything else for the swap )
3.) i wanted something with AMAZING handling, very lightweight, out of the ordinary, and amazing looks (something that's NOT a corvette) - the FD is perfect.

why pay 30K+ when i can have something that's, in my opinion, better?
i will love my LS1 FD

Black91n/a

Man that idiot's giving Canadians a bad name. I too was a mild V8 hater at first, but then i learnt more about them, and now I want an LS series motor in my car. Can't argue with cheap, light, reliable, fuel efficient horsepower! Having a high volumetric efficiency is nice, but it's cold comfort when you get your doors blown off my a car with a bigger engine and way more power. It gets much harder to build a high VE motor when the displacement gets bigger. The M5 has a 5L V10 that uses nearly every trick in the book to get just over 500hp. Small, sub-2L 4 cylinders have a much easier time getting VE #'s that high, and Honda, amongst others, has been doing it for more than a decade now in reasonable priced cars. I really like the idea of a LS1-RX-7, especially in an FD, as they're notoriously unreliable. Pushrods aren't the best, but it's compact and they can still rev pretty well (7000RPM, 7L LS7 for instance).

The fact remains, there's no better, cheaper way to get 400whp+ than with an LS motor.

AF1

Ok so far most of the post are bitching backing and forth lol. Anyone have expierence with the 5.0 or SVT cobra engines? will a dohc engine fit in an FD and will the subframe match up? see some really cheap prices for ford stuff.

Crash Test Joey

iTrader: (1)

There's no kit available for it, and you'd have one hell of a time trying to make exhaust fit the DOHC motor. They barely fit in Mustangs. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done - I just wouldn't recommend it unless you have the time, money and fabrication skills to pull off a difficult proposition. Honestly the LS1 is the best deal going right now.

AF1

STR 8 hemi? lol those things are pretty beasty and 4cylinder cruising. with an FD and a pretty moderate rear end, could the 40mpg number be reached? But yes i agree LS1 FD are close to 100% perfect sport car at a cheap price.

Merc63

Glad you guys are calling this guy on on his closed minded bullshit. I remember I got banned from here for saying the exact same things you guys are.

It's so nice, however, to see a section of an RX7 site devoted to swapping the enignes. Maybe it'll make people like "Gentleman" realize that a car is more than it's engine, and the reason we build/built V8 RX7s is to get inexpensive, reliable, driveable, high hp engines in some of the best chassis ever mass produced. We think the RX7 is attractive, well built, ergonomic, light, inexpensive, and did I say attractive? And it works equally well in it's role as a sports GT regardless of motive power, it seems.

GUITARJUNKIE28

my mom's friend has one. we took a drive to modesto. 90 mph most of the way, bone stock car (exhaust would have helped fuel economy), 28.6 mpg.

Merc63

The 5.0 is a nice, light, compact engine, and if you put on the aluminum heads, it's even lighter. I used a built up one in my FC. But... without a supercharger, it's harder to make the kind of power a lightweight LS1 will make in stock form. And the supercharger increeases the weight and cost to well over that of an LS1 swap. And, the 5.0 is taller, so it's harder to fit under the hood of the FC, much less the lower FD hoodline.

As for the SOHC/DOHC 4.6? Expensive and HUGE. Going to DOHC, I'd rather recommend the Toyota/Lexus 1UZ 4 liter DOHC. Identical in overall size and weight to the LS1, but not too expensive to buy (though in order to use it with a manual, the adapter and flywheel to use the Supra gearbox is pricey. I'm in the process of doing that swap right now in my '63 Mercury Comet...).

Andrew.

iTrader: (4)

He was talking about a camaro, wtf is a camero?

GUITARJUNKIE28

that's how mexican's spell it.

YOU should know that

680RWHP12A

yah, you must be dumb!!! LOL
im stupid sometimes

stilettoman

iTrader: (1)

"Originally Posted by AF1
Ok so far most of the post are bitching backing and forth lol. Anyone have expierence with the 5.0 or SVT cobra engines? will a dohc engine fit in an FD and will the subframe match up? see some really cheap prices for ford stuff."

Go back and read my reply number 14. I never heard of anyone putting a 5.0 Ford in and FD, but lots of them in 1st and 2nd gen cars. Everyone with an FD seems compelled to use something MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. I am not sure why, except to get better bragging rights.

No matter which engine you choose, or whose kit you buy, a swap into an FD is always going to be more complex and expensive than a swap into an earlier car. It is a very complex, high tech car. Sorry, but I just don't understand why that requires a complex high tech motor.

www.cardomain.com/ride/646433

AF1

Thats a pimp ride. I think my best option would be going with a bare 6.0 iron block and doing the upgrades as i build it. this way i wont have to pay too much for an engine. It still need to shop for the tranny + kit + accessories.

GUITARJUNKIE28

if you knew the racial slurrs that go about when anjew and i hang out, you'd probably get offended! but it's all for ****'s n' giggles

Andrew.

iTrader: (4)

irishmexicanjew (Look at the bold part, weird ey?)

Crash Test Joey

iTrader: (1)

Because the 5.0 won't fit under a stock hood, and the LS1 (and a few of the other mentioned) will. That's the bottom line. The fact that an LS1 is more powerful, more fuel efficient and just as readily available is just gravy

Pat McGroin

By the way it's boxster not boxer. All the motors you have named still make less power than the so called outdated LS1, and the LS1 still weighs less than them.

This guy does not know what he is talking about. He has obviously been brainwashed by Super Street magazine and 2f2f, where an eclipse miraculously beats a Yenko Camaro, whoduh thunk it????

Either way, have you looked into maybe an ls2 bottom end, and use ls6/ls1 heads. I have seen bare shortblocks go for 900-1k on ebay. 6 liters pushing 400hp and the torque to match.

AF1

^ yupe thats what i been looking into. it wont be ready to run, but it wont hurt my pockets either and will be upgraded while being built. Will match up with a supercharger nicely.

Merc63

Actually, he was talking "boxer" 4s, which is what engines like the flat 4 in the Subaru WRX and old air cooled Bugs are called. "Boxster" is only the name for the Porsche mid engine 6 cyl convertible model. And interestingly, the flat 6 in the Porsches (and the flat 12 in the Ferrari 512 BB) are also labelled as "boxer" engines. In fact, that's what the second "B" in "512 BB" stands for. "Flat", "horizontally opposed", "180 degree vee", and "boxer" are all terms for the same engine layout.

Ok, back to the thread, already in progress...

rotorbrain

what do you guys think about this. . . http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...s/0405htp_ls2/

i was looking at the ls2 on ebay, and they seem to go for a good bit cheaper than the ls1 + t56 setups.

the article i linked to was very interesting. it seems as though the ls2 would be the best bang for the buck. . . but how do you make it work with the electric throttle? i figured you could just put a manual throttle on it, but wouldnt that mess up the ecu? i figured it used the "throttle by wire" as the TPS.

i liked (from what i read) the fact that the ls2 has ls6 heads and a 6.0ltr aluminum block.

rotorbrain

okay, nevermind on the price quote thing. . . though they do seem to be around the same ballpark. . . hehe. . .

GentlemenVII

well it's nice too see that you all think I am a dumbass, and yes I did kinda over do it. My only point that I wanted to share was that the RX-7's were built around the RE powerplant meaning when you do a swap even a 20B three rotor you will change the Weight, front frame integrity, the chassis balance, suspension geometry and a lot more.

But hey maybe I am a biased (closed minded) Canadian Retard???

Ohhh and you didn't go to war with us because we supply you with power(electric and natural gas) and other resources

sorry if I affended anyone

REXLS1

FWIW Gentlemen, you have a point about swapping a 20B in an FD if it is turboed. And yes, Canada is our #1 souce of oil. An LS1 however weighs very close to the 13BTT and weight distribution can be more even on all corners when compared to stock, believe it or not. Here's one example, this car is not running ps,abs, and ac so not really equal but you get the idea:

Corner weight LS1 Rotary
Left Front lbs. 684 718
Right Front lbs. 695 718
Total Front lbs. 1379 1436

Left Rear lbs. 705 660
Right Rear lbs. 645 618
Total Rear lbs. 1350 1278
TOTAL Weight 2729 2714
% over Front 0.505 0.53
% over Rear 0.495 0.47

My LS1 FD weighs 2800 and is only missing the ac.

stilettoman

iTrader: (1)

Joey said "Because the 5.0 won't fit under a stock hood, and the LS1 (and a few of the other mentioned) will. That's the bottom line. The fact that an LS1 is more powerful, more fuel efficient and just as readily available is just gravy"

Well, maybe you are an electroniker, but my degrees were in Aero, so I went for the simple minded, old fashioned carb. As for the hump in my hood, only the RX-7 guys ever notice it, and I think it is acceptable, but I can understand you might not want to mess up the lines of an FD.

It may be only a slight exxageration to say the LS-1 is just as available as a 302, but surely it is not as cheap. I certainly agree it is more efficient and potentially more powerful.

I am reminded of the quote from my old design professor, who said the Air Force claims were not doubt true - their latest supersonic bomber really would go Mach 2, fly at over 70,000 feet altitude, and fly 2500 miles without refueling, but definitely not all three at the same time!