Thirdgen89GTA,

Thanks for the support man! If only everyone were like you...

whitedevilTA,

My reasons for going inline-4 are that I don't need, or want, more than 400RWHP and I can do it with an inline-4 while keeping weight low and mileage up. The car will be is being built for street-driving, cruising, light track-duty, the occasional pass down the strip, and, yes, to be different. I don't expect this thing to be a monster drag-car clocking in the 9's or 10's, but low 12's should be possible. And the other purposes of the car should be easy to attain.

Sounds like you've got a good build on the way. I hope you're replacing the rods and pistons on your LS before adding boost.

Supercharging this set-up doesn't make as much sense as turbocharging for several reasons. First, making the supercharger fit in a longitudinal orientation is impossible without cutting a hole in the firewall and routing the intake for a cowl-hood. Second, the turbocharged motors make more torque, down low, than a supercharged motor, oddly enough.

I don't care for the sound of a fart-can Civic either. Actually, it sends a shiver up my spine, and, involuntarily, I get this urge to destroy the offending vehicle. LOL! This car shouldn't be too loud. The turbo will quiet it down, and there will be a muffler in the exhaust system. It should sound...fairly tame.

Oh, and off topic, why do you call yourself "White Devil"? The unit I was in while I was in the army, we called ourselves White Devils. A Co. 2-504! All the way! LMAO!

 

Nope....completely stock bottom end. If this were a true LS1 then you would have to use aftermarket rods due to an aluminum block and high compression. Because I'm using an iron block truck 5.3 as my bottom end though, it's not needed. Many people make 500 rwhp all day long on stock truck bottom ends for the 2 reasons that the smaller pistons hold up much better to detonation, and the 5.3 block with the combination of the 6.0 heads makes for an 8.5:1 compression engine which can easily hold around 15 psi of boost. I know it's not bulletproof but it'll be my entry level engine into the LSx power world, and in the meantime I'll most likely build a forged motor to replace this one when, and if it goes.

Hahaha....the whitedevil name is from 8 years or so ago when I first bought my car. It used to be white before I got it painted, and just from screwing around and joking with freinds my nickname became "white devil." It stuck with me so I thought it would be proper to make it my forum name. Cool that your company called themselves that too!

 

whitedevilTA,

Oh, I was confused on whether you were using an LSx or one of the Gen-III/IV truck motors. Personally, I'd just replace the rods and pistons with forged pieces along with ARP fasteners and have a bullet-proof turbocharged 5.3L making 500+RWHP. Just my opinion. At such a low compression-ratio of 8.5:1, you should be able to run a lot more than 15psi of boost, wouldn't you?

LOL! I see. I just had to ask about the White Devil thing, because I rarely find other veterans on here, let alone veterans of my old unit. LOL! Our battalion was the White Devils. My company were the Blackhearts. Over all, I was a Bastard (platoon name) of a Blackheart-ed (company name) White Devil (battalion name) in Baggy Pants (brigade name, Devils in Baggy Pants). Hail! Oh Hail! The Infantry!

 

LOL, thats too funny about the infantry names!

And as for boost....technically I should be able to run a few more pounds of boost with that low compression but I want to keep it on the safe side with around 14-15 for now. If I feel the need for speed, I may go to 17 or 8 pounds and really see what a junkyard truck engine can handle! I do have MLS head gaskets and ARP head studs so if anything goes, it'll be the bottom end first.

 

*if* you complete the swap:

1. Your car will suck to drive around town, when compared to a similar powered car that used a V8 for its basis

2. Its going to get virtually the same MPG as a comparable powered car that used an LSx for its power

3. You arent going to end up with a car that weighs what you think, you are more than likely using incorrect figures, and by the time you've installed everything, (read intercooler, turbo, etc) the vehicle WILL weigh within ~100 lbs of an LSx powered counterpart.


Now that we've got reality, and logic out of the way, since thats what you refuse to listen to....

On a note helpful to this waste of time, if you've got a T5 adapting bellhousing, you may want to consider one of the T5 bellhousing to T56 adapter plates, then you can run a useful T56, pricing should be a bit more reasonable than a new TKO, etc, preferribly look towards the GTO boxes (higher ratio 1st gear, and not such a deep 6th), you'll also want to start with something numerically high for rear end ratio.

As far as the intercooler setup, if you're going turbo, check out www.roadraceengineering.com for their DIY parts, I believe they've got a few top-bottom flow cores that will work great for a thirdgen app.

www.atpturbo.com may be a helpful resource also

bmr, as well as hotchkiss both have tq arm setups that will remove the torque arm mount from the rear of the transmission, not only does this help with mounting concerns, it also helps as far as making the transmission last under power.

Please keep in mind, as far as the earlier half of the provided logic, that you want to ignore, i've worked on, and driven 300, 400 whp small displacement lightweight cars, as well as LSx swapped cars on the same chassis. If you are looking for something that sucks to drive, but still puts down respectable numbers you are on the right path, if you are looking to build something that you'll really enjoy driving, you've already screwed up and need to go back to the drawing board.

Some examples of things i've worked with and what I base my suggestions off of.

240sx, 2.0L approx 300 rwhp@18psi, approx 2800 lbs
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...r/EPSN6300.jpg

240sx, 2.5L (skyline inline 6), 365rwhp @9 lbs, 511 @19 lbs, approx 3000 lbs
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...d/EPSN6391.jpg

240sx, 5.7L (gto engine, camaro t56) approx 320 rwhp, approx 2800 lbs
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...x/EPSN6185.jpg

240sx, 5.7L gto engine/t56 pullout, approx 320rwhp, approx 2900 lbs
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...d/DSC_0610.jpg

My own car, 240sx, approx 250 rwhp @ 10 psi, ran an 8.33 @ 84.39 mph 1/8 mi, currently undergoing LSx swap


Take it from someone who's owned LT1 4th and 3rdgens, swapped and modified both the light cars, and heavy cars, played the 4cyl and 8cyl game, and driven the ones in between. You are wasting your time, even though you may not admit it if you go through with it, after its done, but the reality will still be there.

You wont have increased mpg any considerable amount, you wont have saved any money, in the end you'll only go back to the honda-boy esque "but its different" and in reality, plastering "im gay" all over the side of the car will be "different" but it still wont be useful or helpful...

 

As far as the original comment like 8 monthes ago about the Ecotec being the best 4 banger is this opinion or fact? Not trying to sound retarded/rude/like a d!cK or anything but IIRC the 4G63 was rated as 1 of the greatest engines ever built (350 SBC was on that list as well). In fact this is an example excerpt about the 4G63:

"In the United Kingdom, a special Lancer Evolution, the FQ-400, produces 302.13 kW (405.2 hp), from a 4G63 engine. At 202.6 hp (151.3 kW) per liter, it has the highest specific output per liter of any production engine."

Not discrediting the ecotec because this was from older material and the ecotec may be above it but I doubt it. I only mention this because the 4G63 is loads cheaper then you quoted for a junkyard ecotec and its still a 4 banger with good gas mileage that was literally built for boost. If your not familiar the 4G63 is found in the following cars:
Applications

• 1983-1998 Mitsubishi Chariot
• 1988 Mitsubishi Cordia
• 1988 Mitsubishi Tredia
• 1989–1992 Mitsubishi Galant
• 1990–1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse
• 1993–1998 Mitsubishi Montero
• 1994–1998 Mitsubishi RVR
• 1994–1998 Mitsubishi Delica
• 1992–2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
• 2001–2006 Mitsubishi Airtrek
• 2004–present Brilliance BS6
• 1983–1992 Dodge Colt Vista
• 1989-1992 Eagle Vista Wagon
• 1990–1998 Eagle Talon
• 1990–1994 Plymouth Laser
• 1996–1999 Proton Perdana

Of note is the fact that many tuners sware by the strength of earlier models (ie 1G DSMs or 6-Bolt blocks due to thicker cranks and being less prone to "crank walk" aka thrust bearing failure (see 90-94 Talon/Eclipse/Laser; Turbo models. Non-turbos were 420a engines.)

 

A 4G63 with an upgraded turbo (think EVO 16g), FMIC, Brian Crower Cams (272/272), forged weisco pistons and eagle rods (for insurance) will put you in the 380-420 HP ballpark. The engine can be had for a couple hundred bucks ($200 was an actual quote for the entire engine turbo and all in Honolulu, Hawaii). The evo turbo is 500-600, FMIC 200, rods/pistons 600, and cams 350. These are rough estimates as I havn't had my talon for some time but a great site (other than ebAy) for 4 banger parts (particularly 4G63) is extremepsi.com They also carry lots of universal parts and are very good on prices.

I have actually been contemplating this particular engine build up for one of my camaros but I want to use the AWD setup that this engine also comes in. (Ie Talon TSI AWD/ Eclipse GSX/ EVOs). Think about it, an AWD turbo 4 banger thirdgen, sounds absolutely ridiculous. But it just might work

Anyway I'm pulling for you. If you decide to go the 4G63 way I have some brand new parts (never seen the light of day) I wouldn't mind too much against donating to you.

 

Z28ricer,

You are incorrect. I do listen to logic. However, I see none in your thread post. All I see is conjecture about this and that. I think you may be confused as to what LOGIC is...

My figures are incorrect? Then, SHOW ME CORRECT FIGURES.

You offer simple pictures of an inline-4, an inline-6, and a couple V8's sitting in an engine bay of a car as if this is proof that this build will suck. How is that LOGIC? I would love to see your dyno charts to see what kind of powerband these engines have. The powerband of the engine I'm building will be similar to, if not exceeding, this:
http://www.turbosystem.com/ProjectVe...obaltSS-TC.htm
Yeah, I'm sure you'll dispute that somehow. And it will amuse me. Inline-4's can make very good, usable power. It's that simple. I'm sorry to burst your little V8 pipe-dream.

Also, you may want to check specs and figures on Solstice GXP's and so forth. That will provide you a decent benchmark for how much this build will "suck".

Thank you for your input on sources for parts and so forth, but I already have all those bases covered.

WHEN I go through with this swap, my results, whatever they may be, will go up here. If it doesn't turn out to be what I expect, then at least I know. I will not listen to the dozens of people who constantly say that this is stupid just because they say so. I will tread this path myself, and see where it leads.

If you just have to expound upon this topic, please, do it by way of PM. Obviously you failed to read the part about "No opinions, please." This is not because I don't want to hear why this could be a bad swap. If you have actual logical proof, please, PM it to me. I don't want opinions because that is all they are. OPINIONS. This post does not constitute any logical argument. Simply opinions.

Zeeboinc,

The original comment about an Ecotec being the best inline-4 in the world is more of an opinion. However, the Ecotec engine platform has been used in many performance cars, and has developed quite a reputation and a following. I have a lot of respect for the 4G63 and engines similar to it, but I don't plan on using this in my Camaro. I know there is a lot of power that can be made with the 4G63, but I will be able to make the power I want with the Ecotec, and still stay within manufacturer domains. Thank you for your offer of free parts, but I must decline. However, I would love to see you use those spare parts in your own 4G63-swapped Camaro. An AWD Camaro with well-built 4G63 would be very appealing, to say the least. I hope you do it! Thank you for the support!

 

I am curious to see how this 4-banger-build turns out. Keep us posted, and best of luck to you!

 

Well I did not read most of this, but a little helpful tid bit is the fact that an LS1 is a bolt in almost for the Pontiac solstice. So there should be a combination of ecotec to LS1 to SBC adapter brackets that should get you most of the way to getting this in the K-member without too many sparks flying.

There are many controllers to use for the Ecotec. But I think the easiest route would be to use a 2003 -2005 truck ecm and harness. It will be easy to tune with HP tuners. The stock ecotec ECM and harness will work to if it is old enough. So for ease staying away fro the direct inject units would be better. There is more power tobe had if you get a DI motoe, but your back to finding tuning support. Fabbing a trans mouint should be elementary then go to s driveshaft shop and ask them how they like their measurement get that and bring them you stock shaft.

Should run decent. I would plan on using a power adder from the get go. Or running a manual trans.

 

Not to detract from Fallen's thread. But there is cause to do something like this. Infact PONTIAC did it with their iron duke.

Now back in the day, it wasn't very powerful compared to the possiblities with today's engines like the Ecotecs, however it does make a case for this project.

I present the Pontiac Superbird. In 1982 Pontiac built the Superbird out of Off the shelf Superduty parts.

2700lbs, and capable of 13.2 @ over 100mph. It made 272hp @ 7600rpm.

With todays engine technology it would be possible to recreate this car in an even faster form with more power, better drivability, braking, and handling than before.

So there is a president to drop a 4cyl into the cars.

 

my thoughts all while reading this post. 4g63T all the way of your gonna do a 4banger.I have a '90 awd talon with a few mods at pushing 18psi. 1g rods with 2g pistons and a Big16g, 880cc injectors , 255 fuel pump and adj. fpr. and tuning (safc , dsmlink , jackel ) and your in the 11's easy. Hell the record for a stock 14b turbo is in the 10's. granted its a gutted car. still flyin for a 4banger. I like mine. and still get 26mpg with my heavy foot always getting into it toying around with v8's.

mustang with a 4g63swap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHloWoIy_-g

 

19camaro83,

Thanks for the support man! Everything will go up here as it happens!

DAVESC1,

I'm going to try the stock Solstice mounts to see if I can make up an adapter easy enough. If that doesn't work, I've got some SBC mounts and clamshells lying around to give that a try. It'll work, just gotta find the right/best way to do it.

Current plan is to use an '04 L61 Ecotec, 2.2L engine out of a Malibu. No drive-by-wire, no direct-injection, and no VVT. There is someone making complete wiring harnesses for a MegaSquirt "standalone". However, I'd like to use the PCM that comes with the engine and tune it with HPTuners.

Transmission mounting is already taken care of. Using a T5, which will be rebuilt by G-Force in the future, and a Spohn torque-arm/crossmember, which is on the way. No custom driveshaft should be needed either.

Already planning on turbocharging the motor. Don't worry, even I know this build will require boost. And I'd never think of building something without a MANual transmission. Gotta have the MAN pedal...

Thirdgen89GTA,

I love you man. You're a gem. Do you mind if I have your baby? LOL! J/K...

FSTFBDY,

LOL! Like I've said, I have a lot of respect for the 4G63 and what it can do, but the Ecotec is also extremely capable. I'll stick with the Ecotec.

I love that 4G63 Mustang. He should have gone stickshift though.

 

I'm not even going to bother quoting your attempt at a response.

The logic, is exactly where you are too ignorant to listen to people, you keep posting dyno graphs, as some sort of proof as to how the car will drive. Guess what is completely NOWHERE NEAR a dyno graph ? Part throttle, normal driving, you've only further illustrated what i've already said, that it's going to suck around town, but still put down respectable numbers when you are racing, ie WOT.

The few cars i've posted are examples of what i've already done, worked on, and driven while you were still playing pokemon in HS, If you are too ignorant to consider all of the information given to you, by plenty around that may be able to save you wasting time, effort, and money, please feel free to not bother with your rants about how you only want positive encouragement for your sillyness.

If you want a REAL WORLD example of how it will drive around town, go drive something similar to what you are talking about that doesnt have the turbo, thats how the car is going to drive typically day to day, redlight to redlight, open your eyes, with a turbo large enough to make the power your pipe dream contains, your powerband is going to go up, turbo lag is going up, and your heavier than you want to admit 3300~ lb car is going to suck to drive.

Goodness, in a world full of twinscroll, ball bearing, billet wheel'd, unobtanium turbos, multiple wastegates, and everything else attempting to recreate a V8's torque curve, you'd think more than a few would be smart enough to see whats right in front of them.

Like I said before, please feel free to provide proof if you ever make something of this pipe dream, some numbers showing it signifigantly lighter than a LSx swapped car, and considerably better fuel mileage.

 

And for why your weight BS is incorrect, the numbers you keep postng and want to use for your comparison, are more than likely just the weight of the longblock itself, add in a turbo, transmission, intercooler, piping, etc, and by the time everything comes out in the wash, you are right back in LSx territory, if you want to actually compare, a LSx longblock weighs in around 360~? 300 for your awe-inspiring ecotec, where you going to get all these huge weight savings ? Running a weak T5 ? sweet, now your 125 lbs lighter than the guy next to you with an LSx swap, with a car that doesnt drive nearly and enjoyably.

Like I said before, please, please go through with the swap, hell if you were close i'd help make it happen, just to see you slowly realize what others tried to point out before you wasted your time/money/effort.

 

I'm all for it! I think its an awesome idea, and its refreshing to see someone do something different with an engine swap. It might not be the most cost-efficient, or the most practical, but it would be pretty neat nonetheless.

 

Please tell me where you derive the "neat" from ? Spending more money, time, effort, into something that doesnt do any measurable aspect, better ?

For it to be "neat" "better" "cool" , really you need to have it excel somewhere, this has the potential to do nothing of the sort.

For goodness sake, a supra 2.5,3.0, or even skyline 2.5 or 2.6, would at least have some sort of potential for that sort of description.

 

Wow man, you need to chill a little. The worlds not fighting with you, your safe here. Remember racing to the moon with the Soviets? That was entirely pointless as well, but why did we do it? It was neat, it was something that we could say "we did it first". That is exactly what this guy is after. Something different that nobody else has. So instead of blowing up this thread and ruining it, why not just stay out, and go brag about how cool your v8 sounds (or whatever it is you guys do).

 

P.S. The "neat" comes from having a 4 cyl. that could hang with mildly built v8's, and walk all over the stock ones..

 

Yeah, we did it to say we did it first, not for exploration, not to gather data.

I am calm, i'm just also capable of actually discussing something, and using other data and information, to arrive at the same end result without the time wasting.

There is plenty of information available to know that putting a 2.0L 4 cyl, in a non compact car, is going to result in **** poor driveability, the OP is using peak performance numbers as some sort of comparison to say that its going to work just as well as a comparable powered V8, I've driven both, it doest work that way, part throttle torque is completely different, like I said, the peformance at the track will be there, i'm not disputing that, but real world actual driving, is going to be severely lacking, and the fuel mileage isnt going to increase realistically either.

 

No, it doesnt come out to be neat, i've been there, done that, most of the cars around here arent even in the 12's after lots of mods, yet my car with a stock 2.0, and only minor boltons put down a 8.33 1/8 mi, 12's area there, with street tires, cool its fast, but around town, driving is less than enjoyable, cruising on the highway ? you've got to run gears that are quite tall, so now your cruise rpm is 3000-3500, that gets annoying every day rolling down the road.

This is one of those things where something might look attractive on paper, but in the real world, put into application, it doesnt work, and the person preaching coming greatness is left scratching their head.

Back on hanging with mildly built v8's, seriously now consider that a typical LSx swap will realistically come in at 330rwhp, without any real mods done, put a cam in it and minor boltons, 400 rwhp, some even into the mid 400's, thats all still "mildly" modified, so you want to get to 400 rwhp with this 4 cyl plan, your gonna have to run a fairly large turbo (3071 or bigger), and need plenty of other costly parts, then four large injectors (causing idle quality to suffer as well because instead of running 8 small ones, you've got these huge honkin squirters), and a myriad of other custom fabrication, just to possibly hang with the other guys down the track, and suck driving around town.

Again, measurable gain...

 

I think your getting upset because we aren't reading what your typing like its Gospel. For the sake of this thread, your right. Just drop a v8 in there!

 

Z28ricer,

LOL! WOW. Well, while you continue to rant, I will be respectful.

First, I don't know if you feel the need to race around town ALL the time, but I don't. A car that has good street-manners till I floor the pedal is perfectly fine with me. However, even at part-throttle, these motors make boost.

I did not play Pokemon in high school. An ad hominem attack, otherwise known as a logical fallacy. Again, I see no logical arguments in this post. Just opinions in the form of a rant.

The turbo I will be running is a Borg-Warner/Bullseye S256. It has a 0.55 A/R turbine housing. That is quick-spooling. Find the specs for yourself. I don't know why your SR20-powered 240SX made 300WHP and was so terrible around town, especially in this world of turbochargers that make superchargers look like stone wheels. If you did this build while I was in high school, i.e. seven years ago, turbochargers have come a LONG way since then.

There is nothing "unobtainium" about the turbocharger that I previously mentioned.

Negative, sir. The weight I listed for the Ecotec was the shipping weight of a complete engine. The engine is aluminum-head/block. Several builders of ecotec engines have weighed these out to be 350lbs with a turbocharger and everything included. A 1990 Camaro RS with V6 and manual transmission weighs in at 3,086lbs. That's no options. Now, like I've said before, the shipping weight of an iron-head/block 60* V6 is 500lbs. That's where I get my math.

Sir, I really don't know why you're being such an *** about this. Please, be gracious, and step away. If this continues, I have no qualms about contacting a moderator.

 

I think you cant seem to differentiate between "getting upset" and proving you wrong with facts.

In the end, I dont care if your car, nor his, suck to drive, i'm just giving you free infomation based off of actual evidence and reality. Its facts, you, and he can both overlook them all you want, hope that it doesnt come true, in the end the result will be the same.

Sure your wanted end result will look great on paper, because you're only using the information input to get the result you're hoping for, ignoring other facts isnt going to make your result the way you want in reality, only provide you a false sense of expected success.

 

awww.. did somebody miss his nap today?
P.S. - my car sucks to drive anyways.. might as well have 400hp under the hood, along with the sucky driveability!

 

If you don't care, then go **** and moan somewhere else.

 

Actual weight isnt 3086, you are looking at numbers that arent real, good shipping weight of a new engine, which isnt including brackets for alternator, a/c, ps, nor the associated pieces, the shipping weight of an LS1 is 382 lbs, again, you are right back at a difference of 60 lbs for the engine, if you want to use a T56 for its weight penalty also, you've got a whopping 100 lbs weight difference when comparing. Add in an intercooler, piping,wastegate, and you've already backed off to your engine coming in barely lighter.

And again, you're still ignoring torque curve, for driveability, I never said my car absolutely sucked to drive, however comparably to the same vehicle with an LS1, the LS car was very much more enjoyable to drive, and this is comparng a small T25 equipped engine, as I said things get even worse with a larger turbo.

Oh, boo-hoo, im gonna tell moderator, this guy keeps posting facts, in my thread about my pipe-dream swap.

 

Because as I stated, in the end i dont care if your stuff sucks, but if someone else can follow logic, and not be mislead by your ecotec praising, without having to throw their hard earned money and time down the drain following someone so unable to comprehend that a heavy car, isnt going to be proplled very well by a torque impaired 4 cyl, then at least some good has come of my "pissing and moaning"

 

Very well, you've spoken your piece. Good bye.

 

Wow, what a d-bag. I think he is upset that your 4 cyl. is gonna rock his v8

 

LMAO! I really don't care what his problem is.

 

Yeah I don't either, just felt like sticking up for ya a little bit. I hope to see one kick@ss 4 banger eatin' up the roads!

 

Oh, i'd LOVE to see that. Get to building, and figuring out a worthwhile wager, this should be pretty funny.

 

HAHAHA! ... (cue crickets)... Your not wanted here, please escort yourself back to another section of the forum.

 

19camaro83,

Thanks for the back-up man. It's nice to have buddies. Personally, I don't care if my car does smoke his. If it does, cool. If it doesn't, as long as I'm happy with it, I won't care. We'll just have to see what happens...

 

The Ecotec is more than capable of making the cr drive respectively. It is in a number of cross overs that are nearly the same weight as the camaro, not to mention the Solstice and Sky are no light weights themselves.

An ecotec is an entertaining motor, it has the capability to go way out there the more money you dump into it. I have scene stock short blocks do 600 hp. with the right internals.

The thirdgen in stock form is quite enemic and this motor in stock form would make the car drive about the same. A 305 TBI is a nice cruiser and this would be too. With a manual he will be able to keep it in the power band, which will be high but won't seem like a big deal because this engine is made for turning RPM.

 

No problem man, any time. I like to have more friends than enemies, but some days I gotta make an equal amount of both
I'll tell ya what, if you decide you don't like it, you could always give it to me, I would love it compared to my anemic carb. 2.8l!

 

DAVECS1,

Currently plan for the motor I'm building will be a junkyard '04 2.2L L61, resleeved with new OEM sleeves, forged 8.9:1CR pistons, forged connecting rods, clevite 77 bearings and ARP fasteners throughout. They cylinder-head will have Comp "Turbo-grind" cams thrown in. A log-style turbo manifold with a Borg-Warner S256 turbo. The intake manifold I'll probably have fabbed, most likely.

These motors have a lot going for them...

19camaro83,

LOL! Battle-buddies are always welcome. Enemies, well, that's the price of living. Hopefully, there the smart kind of enemy that challenges you and makes you stronger. LMAO! We'll see about that...

 

Just keep us updated on this build man! I wanna see it start coming together.

 

Small engines are no slouches. Modern 4 cyls are very solid platforms indeed. Alot of these modern innovations flow from FSAE college teams. While I was involved in it, UAS-Graz (out of Austria) built a 450cc roots blown single cylinder engine that produced almost 120hp through a 20mm restrictor.

Keep at Fallen, I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

 

Waiting on parts I've ordered and the junkyard to open back up.

 

Well that whole thing was about retarded. Good luck with your build man, and don't let people like that get you down. If you really have the time, money, and knowledge to do it then by all means do it.

 

I still think this is a cool concept, and while Z28ricer may have been a little harsh in the argument, I do agree on a few things mentioned. I am sure this motor will pull the car fine but it will never drive as well as a car with a torquier V8 or even V6 in it. If you take a honda civic and honda CRV, they both use a similiar 4 cylinder, but the CRV's is bigger displacement. The civic engine will get 30 mpg while the CRV is rated at 15 around town......due to weight. Will the motor work in a 3rd gen? Sure it will, and it won't be too bad to drive I'm sure, but I don't think it will get anywhere near 30 mpg. I'd say 20 around town if I had to guess. It's your car man and I say do what you want. Not trying to shoot you down at all, but just hoping you can realize that on paper it looks awesome, but under real world driving, it may not be what you first expected.

 

This, is all I was trying to convey, peoples "if you dont have pat my flawed ideas on the back" statements, and refusing to consider usable info, make for having to argue.

You cant argue with the facts.

Even after doing some more research on ecotec's, since its been a while since I've looked at them, i'm still not seeing something advanced, or that amazing.

A 260 hp output at 20 psi, something lower than a comparable SR20, at a higher boost pressure, i'm not seeing where the amazing advantage is.

At any rate, i'd strongly consider using the T5 bellhousing and mid plate to adapt a T56, T5's just suck at power handling, and any money you throw at it will only be wasted in the end. Using a T56 from the corvette, and converting to F body form may help with the higher rpm shifting issues that will come from using a small displacement, high rpm setup. Or stick with the transmission that comes with them, as they're also likely to be designed to work with the setup.

 

You realistically may also be able to get the stock supercharged intake manifold, and use an adapter plate to bolt on either a different small eaton, without the extended inlet (I believe the ford 3.8 eaton may work well here), or one of hte cobra or lightning units, eliminating the inlet ending up in the firewall.

 

Now your talkin' our language!
Making small engines go fast takes a little bit of
and a whole lot of

 

An M90 setup, this would easily be adaptable in a thirdgen chassis.

 

Makin small engines go fast is easy.

Its the makin them enjoyabe to drive around town, without lots of throttle input, that doesnt really happen, and kills the fun in the end.

At least with an M90 or M112 it may have a small ray of hope.

 

I am liking the go-fast goodies your bringing up! Keep the ideas coming!

 

First off let me ignore the first post like everyone else and put an opnion. What is the big deal? Its not like he is putting a b20 or sr20det in it. He is wanting a chevy motor in a chevy. How is that much different from the iron duke? Or even the 4cy mustangs? I'm big into hot rods ad if you go further back, people are putting all different brands and size motors in old hot rods, why not muscle cars?


Ok that being said, if I'm not mistaken, the honda s2000 has a special motor that won't work in front wheel drive. So I'm wondering with that logic, maybe a sky or solstice engine might work better?