Who has done/drove the 350V8 RX-7 swap?
03-18-04, 02:34 PM
#26
Game of Death
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the rotary too much to yank it out of the rex. Maybe as a project sometime I'll build a V8 rex to see what its like. My brain can't seem to accept the V8 sound comming from a car that is supposed to by rotary powered. Also, to address the V8 not revving high, the V8 in my Vette redlines at 6500 rpm. You can increase that depending on mods you do etc. 6500 rpm is only 500 rpm shy of my 86' base model red line.
05-03-04, 10:14 PM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Port St. Lucie, Florida
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend put a chevy 350 in his 87 GXL. Its an extremely clean setup. All in all, not a hard swap to complete at all, but can be time consuming with test fitting ect. Nothing like seeing the looks on peoples faces when you pull up in an rx7 thats camming out 
Matt
Matt
05-03-04, 10:22 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DigitalSynthesis
First, a brief rant. I highly disagree, since the R stands for rotary. Its an MX-7 perhaps, or a VX-7, but no longer an RX-7. An RX-7 that does not redline at 6500+ rpm and enjoy being there is not an RX-7 any longer by simple characteristic of the vehicle's behavior, if not by engine designation alone. R = rotary. No rotary, no R. That's my $0.02. Rant over.
OTOH, to keep in on topic, if I WERE to use any V8 (not in my '7 but that's your call) I'd use a 4.6 Ford small block and supercharge it like they do on the 'stangs. Those things, since they have a smaller block, less mass, rev higher and are way more fun to drive than the bigger, slightly more powerful (although that is up for discussion too since I've seen 4.6's run circles around 5s) but more rpm limited, 5+ L units.
First, a brief rant. I highly disagree, since the R stands for rotary. Its an MX-7 perhaps, or a VX-7, but no longer an RX-7. An RX-7 that does not redline at 6500+ rpm and enjoy being there is not an RX-7 any longer by simple characteristic of the vehicle's behavior, if not by engine designation alone. R = rotary. No rotary, no R. That's my $0.02. Rant over.
OTOH, to keep in on topic, if I WERE to use any V8 (not in my '7 but that's your call) I'd use a 4.6 Ford small block and supercharge it like they do on the 'stangs. Those things, since they have a smaller block, less mass, rev higher and are way more fun to drive than the bigger, slightly more powerful (although that is up for discussion too since I've seen 4.6's run circles around 5s) but more rpm limited, 5+ L units.
05-03-04, 11:04 PM
#30
Rotary Freak
As it goes for a V8 conversion, you're pretty much limited to a pushrod V8. Here's a pic of the Ford 302 (pushrod) next to the 4.6 DOHC engine. BIG difference. If you run with a 302 and a T5 combination, you'll be only adding about 50lbs., and with work you can get the engine about as light as an N/A rotary. I'm starting my conversion this summer.
05-04-04, 09:12 AM
#31
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dougster
I have owned 4 Turbo II's...and I know it will add weight to the front...
Not sold on anything, but its worth checking out...
I have owned 4 Turbo II's...and I know it will add weight to the front...
Not sold on anything, but its worth checking out...
05-04-04, 10:13 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by turbogarrett
for all of you rotary worshipping guys with your low 16 second n/a 13b's, get a ride in an ls1 powered 7 and you may change your mind. drop 4 seconds in the 1/4 and still maintain the handling- why would anybody want to do that?
for all of you rotary worshipping guys with your low 16 second n/a 13b's, get a ride in an ls1 powered 7 and you may change your mind. drop 4 seconds in the 1/4 and still maintain the handling- why would anybody want to do that?
Only with my car had a LS1 instead of a Carb'd 350.. Only if I had the cash
05-05-04, 12:07 PM
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indy In.
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a very nice job done a couple weeks ago, a LS1, 300 HP...The older guy said he was doing like low 12's!
The car looked great with 17"s on it!
Duce: Its lighter? Wow, I would have never thought that?
The car looked great with 17"s on it!
Duce: Its lighter? Wow, I would have never thought that?
05-05-04, 07:01 PM
#35
Rotary Freak
4.6 Vs. 302.
As far as it goes for maintaining a decent weight with the car, the 302 is the best choice. Even in stock form, it weighs about 40 lbs. less than the LS1/T56 combination. On top of that, you can shave off another 60-70 lbs. from the weight of the engine with aluminum heads, headers, various aluminum covers, and an lightweight intake manifold.
As far as it goes for maintaining a decent weight with the car, the 302 is the best choice. Even in stock form, it weighs about 40 lbs. less than the LS1/T56 combination. On top of that, you can shave off another 60-70 lbs. from the weight of the engine with aluminum heads, headers, various aluminum covers, and an lightweight intake manifold.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Azevedo
Other Engine Conversions - non V-8
26
03-01-19 09:19 PM
