Just a little EYE CANDY.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
I'll admit, I don't really know my Chevys. Is there anything particularly sweet about that particular engine?
Looks like it might be one of those SB2's (though like I said, I don't know Chevys well at all).
Looks like it might be one of those SB2's (though like I said, I don't know Chevys well at all).
Thread Starter
Power = Cubic Dollars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Olathe, KS
Rarson,
I wish it was a SB2. What you are seeing is the single plane, high rise, air gap intake called The Hurricane. It gives it a mean racey look.
Thanks for the compliment
Jesse
I wish it was a SB2. What you are seeing is the single plane, high rise, air gap intake called The Hurricane. It gives it a mean racey look.
Thanks for the compliment
Jesse
ROTARD FOR LIFE!!!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 1
From: North Carolina
Nice looking engine. Im not much of a Chevy guy myself but that looks cool.
I love that you painted it black, but its going to be a real pita to find an oil leak
are you doing any other mods? whatcha looking at HP wise?
I love that you painted it black, but its going to be a real pita to find an oil leak
are you doing any other mods? whatcha looking at HP wise?
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 6
From: BC, Canada
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's got iron heads and an iron block? Why not go aluminum? It's gonna make it seriously front heavy with all that iron up front there, handling will likely suffer, as it'll be over 200lbs extra up front, as an LS1 adds about 100lbs, and it's at least 100lbs heavier.
Oh well whatever floats you boat. If it makes you happy then congrats, more power to you.
Oh well whatever floats you boat. If it makes you happy then congrats, more power to you.
Trending Topics
moon ******
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Florida
Originally Posted by Black91n/a
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's got iron heads and an iron block? Why not go aluminum? It's gonna make it seriously front heavy with all that iron up front there, handling will likely suffer, as it'll be over 200lbs extra up front, as an LS1 adds about 100lbs, and it's at least 100lbs heavier.
Oh well whatever floats you boat. If it makes you happy then congrats, more power to you.
Oh well whatever floats you boat. If it makes you happy then congrats, more power to you.
2. Aluminum = $$$. Iron = not so much $$$.
3. You need to somehow un-rice yourself.
4. No it wont be seriously nose heavy but I doubt thats something he'll ever worry about anyway, when in reality he'll prolly have more to worry about from... wheelstands.
***
Regarding the pics...
The intake looks badass! Really mean looking. What kind of heads are those? My guess is they're iron but had a little 'creative weight reduction' done to the ports if you know what I mean
Last edited by Nihilanthic; Oct 21, 2006 at 03:14 AM.
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 6
From: BC, Canada
Un-rice myself?!!! WTF are you talking about?! I've done NOTHING to my car that could be considered "rice", I've never even considered it, so STFU. I mod my car for performance, in the corners and I actively autocross and I go to track days whenever I can. I respect all kinds of performance and racing, but I just don't want to do all forms myself. I'll leave the drag racing to others.
Yea, for a drag car, the extra weight over the front end doesn't matter that much, it only needs to turn around to get back to the starting line. It's still extra weight to accelerate down the track. Me, I'm a road racer at heart and I take Colin Chapmann's philosophy of adding lightness seriously and I beleive it's the best way to go fast. Anyway, the only real good argument you have there is the $$ one, wheelstands can be combated with wheelie bars.
Yea, for a drag car, the extra weight over the front end doesn't matter that much, it only needs to turn around to get back to the starting line. It's still extra weight to accelerate down the track. Me, I'm a road racer at heart and I take Colin Chapmann's philosophy of adding lightness seriously and I beleive it's the best way to go fast. Anyway, the only real good argument you have there is the $$ one, wheelstands can be combated with wheelie bars.
Thread Starter
Power = Cubic Dollars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Olathe, KS
First off, I WILL be putting this thing on a scale with a tank of fuel, and 100% ready to run. I will SHOW you all how balanced this car stays with a V8 in this car. I have removed over 200 lbs of other crap out of this thing, so honestly, I'm not worried about the 60 pounds that I have extea in the heads.
As far as the heads, they are some old school heads, which have had about 3 pounds of weight removed from ALL of the ports. They also have slightly
heavier" valves, seeing how they are MUCH larger than stock, and Stainless Steel. Yet, I saved weight with some nice springs, and these Titanium Retainers.
As far as being a road racer, that is not me... I like going fast in a straight line. I don't give two $hits if I can hit a chicane, or double clutch my race car. I have only two speeds FAST and FASTER....
Thans for the compliments.
As far as the heads, they are some old school heads, which have had about 3 pounds of weight removed from ALL of the ports. They also have slightly
heavier" valves, seeing how they are MUCH larger than stock, and Stainless Steel. Yet, I saved weight with some nice springs, and these Titanium Retainers.
As far as being a road racer, that is not me... I like going fast in a straight line. I don't give two $hits if I can hit a chicane, or double clutch my race car. I have only two speeds FAST and FASTER....
Thans for the compliments.
moon ******
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Florida
Originally Posted by Black91n/a
Un-rice myself?!!! WTF are you talking about?! I've done NOTHING to my car that could be considered "rice", I've never even considered it, so STFU. I mod my car for performance, in the corners and I actively autocross and I go to track days whenever I can. I respect all kinds of performance and racing, but I just don't want to do all forms myself. I'll leave the drag racing to others.
Yea, for a drag car, the extra weight over the front end doesn't matter that much, it only needs to turn around to get back to the starting line. It's still extra weight to accelerate down the track. Me, I'm a road racer at heart and I take Colin Chapmann's philosophy of adding lightness seriously and I beleive it's the best way to go fast. Anyway, the only real good argument you have there is the $$ one, wheelstands can be combated with wheelie bars.
Yea, for a drag car, the extra weight over the front end doesn't matter that much, it only needs to turn around to get back to the starting line. It's still extra weight to accelerate down the track. Me, I'm a road racer at heart and I take Colin Chapmann's philosophy of adding lightness seriously and I beleive it's the best way to go fast. Anyway, the only real good argument you have there is the $$ one, wheelstands can be combated with wheelie bars.
Yanno, a lot of guys actually worry about TOO MUCH weight transfer and want to shift weight to the front
with his 383 he could easily end up doing wheelstands.Anyway, its a DRAG CAR. OMG ALUMINUMINIUMINIUM!!!one NOSE HEAVY OZMG type nonsense doesn't really matter.
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 6
From: BC, Canada
You didn't answer my question. WTF are you talking about when you say to "un-rice yourself"?! Or is your foot so far in your mouth that you've lost the ability to reply?
Weight is weight, you need to accelerate it all the same. If you don't understand that you're a moron. He didn't happen to mention in the post that it's for a drag car, I don't keep tabs on what purpose everyone builds their cars for so EXCUUUUUSE ME!
Weight is weight, you need to accelerate it all the same. If you don't understand that you're a moron. He didn't happen to mention in the post that it's for a drag car, I don't keep tabs on what purpose everyone builds their cars for so EXCUUUUUSE ME!
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
What part of "Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's got iron heads and an iron block? Why not go aluminum? It's gonna make it seriously front heavy with all that iron up front there, handling will likely suffer, as it'll be over 200lbs extra up front, as an LS1 adds about 100lbs, and it's at least 100lbs heavier." matters with a DRAG CAR?
Anyway, I don't care what the heads are, the engine looks sweet. I hope you'll post some vids once you get the car running.
moon ******
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Florida
Originally Posted by Black91n/a
You didn't answer my question. WTF are you talking about when you say to "un-rice yourself"?! Or is your foot so far in your mouth that you've lost the ability to reply?
Weight is weight, you need to accelerate it all the same. If you don't understand that you're a moron. He didn't happen to mention in the post that it's for a drag car, I don't keep tabs on what purpose everyone builds their cars for so EXCUUUUUSE ME!
Weight is weight, you need to accelerate it all the same. If you don't understand that you're a moron. He didn't happen to mention in the post that it's for a drag car, I don't keep tabs on what purpose everyone builds their cars for so EXCUUUUUSE ME!
Why?
The money he saved with a iron block and iron heads will more than make up for it with power after porting and getting a good rotating assembly and top end and a good cam/carburator.
Yeah, weight matters, but if you got a 6.3 liter engine wtf do you care about #60?.
Also do you know how much an aluminum SBC block costs?
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 6
From: BC, Canada
Like I said, 60lbs is 60lbs of extra weight to accelerate. ANY racer will appreciate a 60lb weight loss, no matter what kind of racing it is, ricers just add useless crap weight in wings, huge fiberglass body parts, huge heavy wheels and so on. According to the specs I've seen, an iron SBC is over 100lbs heavier than an LS1. That's worth about 1/10 in the quarter, that can be the difference between a win and a loss. If you think that's irrelevant then you've sure got your head pretty far up your ***.
Like I said, I didn't know it was a drag car.
Like I said, I didn't know it was a drag car.
Thread Starter
Power = Cubic Dollars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Olathe, KS
rarson, you have a good point, any weight is not good, but when I considered the cost per pound saved, it did not make sense for me (AT THIS TIME) to spend all of the money on Al Cylinder Heads, when I have a PERFECTLY good set of ported and polished heads sitting on the ground FOR FREE...
Black... No offince, but reading the way you worded your post, I also thought (RICER). However, maybe there is just a point that you were trying to make that just didn't come through correctly. I appreciate your concern about the weight, but I will PROVE to everyone that you can keep these cars balanced with a V8 (ALL STEEL) up front... OR PROVE THEM RIGHT. Either way, I will put up the hard numbers when I have them.
DEFINITELY VIDEOS.
Black... No offince, but reading the way you worded your post, I also thought (RICER). However, maybe there is just a point that you were trying to make that just didn't come through correctly. I appreciate your concern about the weight, but I will PROVE to everyone that you can keep these cars balanced with a V8 (ALL STEEL) up front... OR PROVE THEM RIGHT. Either way, I will put up the hard numbers when I have them.
DEFINITELY VIDEOS.
moon ******
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Florida
Originally Posted by Black91n/a
Like I said, 60lbs is 60lbs of extra weight to accelerate. ANY racer will appreciate a 60lb weight loss, no matter what kind of racing it is, ricers just add useless crap weight in wings, huge fiberglass body parts, huge heavy wheels and so on. According to the specs I've seen, an iron SBC is over 100lbs heavier than an LS1. That's worth about 1/10 in the quarter, that can be the difference between a win and a loss. If you think that's irrelevant then you've sure got your head pretty far up your ***.
Like I said, I didn't know it was a drag car.
Like I said, I didn't know it was a drag car.
bang for buck is a big deal.
If the irons flow enough to make a LOT of power the weight difference is negligeable.
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Oklahoma
im in the process of converting a 1st gen myself, good luck
JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP
The rotary engine, support equipment, and exhaust systems are heavier than they look. Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs.
One of the main engineering goals of the RX-7 was to stay close to the perfect 50/50 chassis balance. When they added the extra weight of a turbo system to the Turbo II model(180-200lbs), they needed to come up with a way to maintain the chassis weight balance as much as possible. Some of the methods they used include...
...They went to an Aluminum hood
...They moved the intercooler rearward to the top of the engine
...They used a heavier spare tire & jack
This just goes to show that the Mazda factory uses the same methods to balance their cars as the regular guy. They reduce the front weight as much as possible, then move components if possible, and finally add weight to the rear if needed, in that order.
This is the biggest reason the added 180-200lbs of the Turbo II option did not ruin the balance and handling of the RX-7. The factory decided that the extra power that the turbo system offered more than offset the added weight.
This is what power-to-weight ratios are all about.
Some weight related numbers...
...An aluminum intake manifold is 28lbs lighter than cast iron.
...Aluminum heads save about 50lbs over iron.
...An aluminum block will lose ya another 55 to 95lbs.
...A 4.3 V-6 is only 11 percent lighter than a V-8.
...An aluminum hood(turbo II)will save you about 30lbs.
...Headers are 20 some lbs lighter than iron manifolds and headpipes.
...The typical RX-7 A/C system weighs 55 lbs.
...The RX-7's layout and structure is well suited to engine conversions. The rotary engine's eccentric shaft centerline is way up in the center of the rotary engine, dictating a much higher transmission location than that of a piston engine. The net result is that Mazda designed the RX-7 with a HUGE transmission tunnel, big enough to fit even the monster T-56 6 spd manual transmission which was used in the Viper and Corvette. The rotary engine's low torque output required Mazda to use a very heavy flywheel and a high rear gear ratio, a combination of factors that combined induce large amounts of stress on the RX-7's rear axles and hubs. Mazda planned accordingly, and designed plenty of strength into the RX-7's rear differential/axles/and hubs. Experience has shown that the stock NA RX-7 components are strong enough to withstand low 10sec 1/4mi passes, a feat that requires around 500hp.
The RX-7 chassis is well suited to V-8 power. It was designed as Mazda's flagship sports car right from the beginning, with many features that address the dreaded chassis flex that plagues other small car V-8 conversion candidates. RX-7 design features include...
1...a very large transmission tunnel. The large tunnel dimensions necessary to accomodate the rotary engine's higher transmission location add considerably to the beam and torsional strength of the RX-7's floor pan. The 3rd gen cars use struts across the bottom of the tunnel to further enhance this effect.
2...deep door sills add even more beam strength.
3...generously rounded door openings add body structure torsional strength.
4...subframe connectors are installed right from the factory. As countless highly abused RX-7's can attest, there is none of the buckled quarter panels or popped out windshields the are common with other V-8 converted small cars that were originally designed with economy in mind.
JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP
The rotary engine, support equipment, and exhaust systems are heavier than they look. Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs.
One of the main engineering goals of the RX-7 was to stay close to the perfect 50/50 chassis balance. When they added the extra weight of a turbo system to the Turbo II model(180-200lbs), they needed to come up with a way to maintain the chassis weight balance as much as possible. Some of the methods they used include...
...They went to an Aluminum hood
...They moved the intercooler rearward to the top of the engine
...They used a heavier spare tire & jack
This just goes to show that the Mazda factory uses the same methods to balance their cars as the regular guy. They reduce the front weight as much as possible, then move components if possible, and finally add weight to the rear if needed, in that order.
This is the biggest reason the added 180-200lbs of the Turbo II option did not ruin the balance and handling of the RX-7. The factory decided that the extra power that the turbo system offered more than offset the added weight.
This is what power-to-weight ratios are all about.
Some weight related numbers...
...An aluminum intake manifold is 28lbs lighter than cast iron.
...Aluminum heads save about 50lbs over iron.
...An aluminum block will lose ya another 55 to 95lbs.
...A 4.3 V-6 is only 11 percent lighter than a V-8.
...An aluminum hood(turbo II)will save you about 30lbs.
...Headers are 20 some lbs lighter than iron manifolds and headpipes.
...The typical RX-7 A/C system weighs 55 lbs.
...The RX-7's layout and structure is well suited to engine conversions. The rotary engine's eccentric shaft centerline is way up in the center of the rotary engine, dictating a much higher transmission location than that of a piston engine. The net result is that Mazda designed the RX-7 with a HUGE transmission tunnel, big enough to fit even the monster T-56 6 spd manual transmission which was used in the Viper and Corvette. The rotary engine's low torque output required Mazda to use a very heavy flywheel and a high rear gear ratio, a combination of factors that combined induce large amounts of stress on the RX-7's rear axles and hubs. Mazda planned accordingly, and designed plenty of strength into the RX-7's rear differential/axles/and hubs. Experience has shown that the stock NA RX-7 components are strong enough to withstand low 10sec 1/4mi passes, a feat that requires around 500hp.
The RX-7 chassis is well suited to V-8 power. It was designed as Mazda's flagship sports car right from the beginning, with many features that address the dreaded chassis flex that plagues other small car V-8 conversion candidates. RX-7 design features include...
1...a very large transmission tunnel. The large tunnel dimensions necessary to accomodate the rotary engine's higher transmission location add considerably to the beam and torsional strength of the RX-7's floor pan. The 3rd gen cars use struts across the bottom of the tunnel to further enhance this effect.
2...deep door sills add even more beam strength.
3...generously rounded door openings add body structure torsional strength.
4...subframe connectors are installed right from the factory. As countless highly abused RX-7's can attest, there is none of the buckled quarter panels or popped out windshields the are common with other V-8 converted small cars that were originally designed with economy in mind.
Thread Starter
Power = Cubic Dollars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Olathe, KS
Ok, here we go.... Thanks for your input, it is greatly appreciated.
My car has an aluminum intake (SAVED 28 punds there.)
My car has the Factory Aluminum Hood (SAVED 30 pounds there.)
My car will have headers (SAVED 20 pounds there.)
I gave up the 50 lbs from the aluminum heads. ACTUALLY, I'm 28 pounds AND $1,200 ahead.
Thanks again for all of the info.
My car has an aluminum intake (SAVED 28 punds there.)
My car has the Factory Aluminum Hood (SAVED 30 pounds there.)
My car will have headers (SAVED 20 pounds there.)
I gave up the 50 lbs from the aluminum heads. ACTUALLY, I'm 28 pounds AND $1,200 ahead.
Thanks again for all of the info.
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
From: Nor-Cal U.S.A.
Good info: I'm going to post up in the FAQ
Originally Posted by rotarynut81
im in the process of converting a 1st gen myself, good luck
JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP
The rotary engine, support equipment, and exhaust systems are heavier than they look. Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs.
One of the main engineering goals of the RX-7 was to stay close to the perfect 50/50 chassis balance. When they added the extra weight of a turbo system to the Turbo II model(180-200lbs), they needed to come up with a way to maintain the chassis weight balance as much as possible. Some of the methods they used include...
...They went to an Aluminum hood
...They moved the intercooler rearward to the top of the engine
...They used a heavier spare tire & jack
This just goes to show that the Mazda factory uses the same methods to balance their cars as the regular guy. They reduce the front weight as much as possible, then move components if possible, and finally add weight to the rear if needed, in that order.
This is the biggest reason the added 180-200lbs of the Turbo II option did not ruin the balance and handling of the RX-7. The factory decided that the extra power that the turbo system offered more than offset the added weight.
This is what power-to-weight ratios are all about.
Some weight related numbers...
...An aluminum intake manifold is 28lbs lighter than cast iron.
...Aluminum heads save about 50lbs over iron.
...An aluminum block will lose ya another 55 to 95lbs.
...A 4.3 V-6 is only 11 percent lighter than a V-8.
...An aluminum hood(turbo II)will save you about 30lbs.
...Headers are 20 some lbs lighter than iron manifolds and headpipes.
...The typical RX-7 A/C system weighs 55 lbs.
...The RX-7's layout and structure is well suited to engine conversions. The rotary engine's eccentric shaft centerline is way up in the center of the rotary engine, dictating a much higher transmission location than that of a piston engine. The net result is that Mazda designed the RX-7 with a HUGE transmission tunnel, big enough to fit even the monster T-56 6 spd manual transmission which was used in the Viper and Corvette. The rotary engine's low torque output required Mazda to use a very heavy flywheel and a high rear gear ratio, a combination of factors that combined induce large amounts of stress on the RX-7's rear axles and hubs. Mazda planned accordingly, and designed plenty of strength into the RX-7's rear differential/axles/and hubs. Experience has shown that the stock NA RX-7 components are strong enough to withstand low 10sec 1/4mi passes, a feat that requires around 500hp.
The RX-7 chassis is well suited to V-8 power. It was designed as Mazda's flagship sports car right from the beginning, with many features that address the dreaded chassis flex that plagues other small car V-8 conversion candidates. RX-7 design features include...
1...a very large transmission tunnel. The large tunnel dimensions necessary to accomodate the rotary engine's higher transmission location add considerably to the beam and torsional strength of the RX-7's floor pan. The 3rd gen cars use struts across the bottom of the tunnel to further enhance this effect.
2...deep door sills add even more beam strength.
3...generously rounded door openings add body structure torsional strength.
4...subframe connectors are installed right from the factory. As countless highly abused RX-7's can attest, there is none of the buckled quarter panels or popped out windshields the are common with other V-8 converted small cars that were originally designed with economy in mind.
JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP
The rotary engine, support equipment, and exhaust systems are heavier than they look. Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs.
One of the main engineering goals of the RX-7 was to stay close to the perfect 50/50 chassis balance. When they added the extra weight of a turbo system to the Turbo II model(180-200lbs), they needed to come up with a way to maintain the chassis weight balance as much as possible. Some of the methods they used include...
...They went to an Aluminum hood
...They moved the intercooler rearward to the top of the engine
...They used a heavier spare tire & jack
This just goes to show that the Mazda factory uses the same methods to balance their cars as the regular guy. They reduce the front weight as much as possible, then move components if possible, and finally add weight to the rear if needed, in that order.
This is the biggest reason the added 180-200lbs of the Turbo II option did not ruin the balance and handling of the RX-7. The factory decided that the extra power that the turbo system offered more than offset the added weight.
This is what power-to-weight ratios are all about.
Some weight related numbers...
...An aluminum intake manifold is 28lbs lighter than cast iron.
...Aluminum heads save about 50lbs over iron.
...An aluminum block will lose ya another 55 to 95lbs.
...A 4.3 V-6 is only 11 percent lighter than a V-8.
...An aluminum hood(turbo II)will save you about 30lbs.
...Headers are 20 some lbs lighter than iron manifolds and headpipes.
...The typical RX-7 A/C system weighs 55 lbs.
...The RX-7's layout and structure is well suited to engine conversions. The rotary engine's eccentric shaft centerline is way up in the center of the rotary engine, dictating a much higher transmission location than that of a piston engine. The net result is that Mazda designed the RX-7 with a HUGE transmission tunnel, big enough to fit even the monster T-56 6 spd manual transmission which was used in the Viper and Corvette. The rotary engine's low torque output required Mazda to use a very heavy flywheel and a high rear gear ratio, a combination of factors that combined induce large amounts of stress on the RX-7's rear axles and hubs. Mazda planned accordingly, and designed plenty of strength into the RX-7's rear differential/axles/and hubs. Experience has shown that the stock NA RX-7 components are strong enough to withstand low 10sec 1/4mi passes, a feat that requires around 500hp.
The RX-7 chassis is well suited to V-8 power. It was designed as Mazda's flagship sports car right from the beginning, with many features that address the dreaded chassis flex that plagues other small car V-8 conversion candidates. RX-7 design features include...
1...a very large transmission tunnel. The large tunnel dimensions necessary to accomodate the rotary engine's higher transmission location add considerably to the beam and torsional strength of the RX-7's floor pan. The 3rd gen cars use struts across the bottom of the tunnel to further enhance this effect.
2...deep door sills add even more beam strength.
3...generously rounded door openings add body structure torsional strength.
4...subframe connectors are installed right from the factory. As countless highly abused RX-7's can attest, there is none of the buckled quarter panels or popped out windshields the are common with other V-8 converted small cars that were originally designed with economy in mind.
Originally Posted by rotarynut81
JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP
Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs
Typical weight gain for a 1st gen V8 conversion car is only 75-125 lbs
only 125lbs... MY GOD thats a large difference in my book... best of luck with the boat anchor
Thread Starter
Power = Cubic Dollars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Olathe, KS
BASTARD... You also must consider POWER to WEIGHT ratio.
If you add 125 pounds, but gain over 150 ft lbs of torque, and 200 hp, then you can keep your boat anchor (rotary) and we (V8's) will meet you at the finish line.
If you add 125 pounds, but gain over 150 ft lbs of torque, and 200 hp, then you can keep your boat anchor (rotary) and we (V8's) will meet you at the finish line.
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: FL
The debate rolls on...
The only issue with adding the V8 seems to be that the car loses it's balance and handling.
I can assure you that it is NOT any LESS reliable, and LESS expensive to maintain
!
Now, if this is NOT so (and it has been proven), then what is the issue?
From what I have seen, read and understand even with the V8 LT1 and LS1 and 350 V8 there is still a 50/50 front/ rear Weight Distribution (or pretty close).
Don't get me wrong I love the rotory, but don't want to have to second mortgage my house to maintain it.
I am with the school, that if you can make more horsepower and a greater amount of torque without losing the integrity of the car....then more power to you! Oh, I left one thing out...Doing all this WHILE spending LESS Money!
Please discuss any issues OTHER than the one of Weight Distribution, which has been proven numerous times not to exist!
The only issue with adding the V8 seems to be that the car loses it's balance and handling.
I can assure you that it is NOT any LESS reliable, and LESS expensive to maintain
! Now, if this is NOT so (and it has been proven), then what is the issue?
From what I have seen, read and understand even with the V8 LT1 and LS1 and 350 V8 there is still a 50/50 front/ rear Weight Distribution (or pretty close).
Don't get me wrong I love the rotory, but don't want to have to second mortgage my house to maintain it.
I am with the school, that if you can make more horsepower and a greater amount of torque without losing the integrity of the car....then more power to you! Oh, I left one thing out...Doing all this WHILE spending LESS Money!
Please discuss any issues OTHER than the one of Weight Distribution, which has been proven numerous times not to exist!