I want to swap in a Hyundai engine into a wrecked and stripped integra. I'm mean.
I want to swap in a Hyundai engine into a wrecked and stripped integra. I'm mean.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: Ferrari says to its engineers "I want 360 hp from my engine" and they respond by making a monstrosity with 48 or 40 valves (F355 or 512TR), four camshafts, no parts sharing with anything, sky high cost, small displacement, poor reliability and appalling economy.
Bob writes: so Ferrari makes a small displacement engine that puts out 360hp and it's ridiculous, but Mitsubishi's turbocharged small displacement is godlike? 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC engines are bad things? The poor reliability of Ferarri engines is more anecdotal hyperbole than fact, they seem to do pretty well in endurance racing. The maintenance and repair costs may be ridiculous, but they're a lot more reliable than you think. Their 'F1' transmissions, however, do have some issues.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: Lamborghini says "give me 550 hp" and their engineers come back with a massive weight, huge dimensions, 48 valves, four cams, basic design from 1965, no torque and a maximum of 9 mpg to go with crap reliability and the need to share oil with the transmission.
Bob writes: how much does a Lamborghini engine weigh? I looked for numbers but couldn't find anything. It's an all aluminum V12, so it will weigh more than an all aluminum V8, but please tell me how much it really weighs. Again, what's wrong with 4 valves per cylinder (just like your beloved 4G63), four cams and 12 cylinders? No torque? The 6.2L V12 makes 577hp and 480lb-ft of torque. A 6.2L LS3 in a Camaro makes 426hp and 420lb-ft of torque. I've never heard someone say the Camaro is lacking torque. Bump up the V12 to 8.8L as in the marine version and you get 880hp and a nice jump in torque too. Basic design from 1965? Big deal, it still works, and is producing 670hp in some road applications and can still be increased another 2L in size. The fuel economy sucks, but do you really think anyone who buys a Lamborghini cares about economy? If they did they would put a lot more work into it and would improve the economy of the engine and the efficiency of the rest of the car. Instead, they focus on getting a lot of power out of their engines and making a car that performs incredibly well with much fewer resources than a large company.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Ferrari with a Mitsubishi motor of the same vintage. The 4g63 makes more torque, nearly as much horsepower, weighs much less, needs only 4 cylinders, 16 valves and two cams, is vastly more efficient, packages so much better it's actually kind of funny and can be had for very little money.
Bob writes: Alright, let's compare. I'll ignore the NA 4G63's and start with the turbo'd Talon/Eclipse version. In 1990 they made 195hp/203lb-ft from a 2L engine. The 3.4L V8 in the 1990 Ferrari 348 made 300hp/217lb-ft. The 4.9L V12 in the 1990 Testarossa was making 390hp/360lb-ft. That doesn't seem like "more torque, nearly as much power". How much less does a turbocharged 4 cylinder weigh than a small all aluminum V8 or an all aluminum V12? Remeber, the 4G63 has a cast iron block, a turbocharger, cast iron manifold, and an intercooler, all which add a lot of weight. I don't think you're saving as much weight as you think. Now let's jump up to 2003, when the Evo had 271hp/273lb-ft but still had a cast iron block. Ferrari's 3.6L V8 was now making 400hp and 275lb-ft. Does the 4 cylinder package better? Sure, but is it really "actually kind of funny"?. Have you ever looked at a Ferrari V8? They're actually pretty compact, and you don't have to worry about packaging an intercooler, or worrying about the immense heat of the turbo. Can it be had for a lot cheaper? Sure, but Ferrari's making plenty of money so I don't think they, or their customers, really care. How long would that stock 4G63 last in endurance racing? The Ferrari has a dry sump oil system to improve on track performance and reliability.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Lamborghini V12s to the top of the line Chevy Small Blocks. Basically the same power but the Chevy weighs much less, needs only a third of the valves and a quarter of the cams, packages much easier, comes close to tripling the fuel economy, is more reliable and can be had for a small fraction of the cost.
Bob writes: I already did this a few paragraphs up for identical sized engines. Now let's compare the top of the line engines. The supercharged 6.2L in the ZR1 makes 638hp/604lb-ft. The 6.5L V12 in the Murcielago makes 632hp/487lb-ft. So the Vette V8 makes the same power and a lot more torque with fewer valves and cams, but it does need a huge supercharger mounted on top of it. I don't know how much a Lamborghini V12 weighs, but I'd be surprised if a V8 with a supercharger and intercooler/heat exchanger has a huge weight advantage. Again, if you have actual numbers, please let me know, I'm genuinely curious. As for tripling the fuel economy? That's quite a stretch. Mileage for the Murcielago is 8/13, while the ZR1 is 14/20. That's about an 80% gain in the city, but only about a 50% gain on the highway. That's still alot better, but nowhere close to tripling it. For another comparison, the Lamborghini 5.2L V10 makes 530hp (up to 560hp is available) and 400lb-ft, while getting 12/20 mileage, while the 6.2L naturally aspirated Corvette makes only 436hp/428lb-ft and gets 16/26 mileage. Again, the mileage is a nice 30% jump, but it's way down on power despite having 20% more displacement. I guess those 4 valves per cylinder and 4 cams are good for something.
MrBenjamonkey wrote: It seems to me like a lot of what goes into supercars isn't really about making them better, it's about making them dumber for marketing purposes.
Bob writes: It seems to me that you what you think is "making them dumber" is really just that they're not making their design compromises in the way you want. Ferrari engines make a lot more power than the 4G63 but you like the 4G63 better because it's cheaper and packages better and because you mistakenly think it competes with the Ferrari in power and torque. Ferrari packages the engine just fine and makes tonnes of money off it, so who cares? They chose to compromise packaging and efficiency in the name of performance. The Chevy V8s need a supercharger to make the same power as a similar sized Lambo engine, but you like the Chevy better because it gets better mileage (again, a Lamborghini buyer doesn't care so why should Lamborghini) and costs less. I'd say that Lamborghini engines probably don't cost nearly as much to actually produce as you think, but the overhead cost of only producing a few thousand cars a years drives up the cost dramatically, versus the millions of cars a year that GM sells. Lamborghini is able to survive at this level, while GM couldn't, so should we complain about the high cost? I don't think so. If Lamborghini wanted to produce a low cost car/engine and sell millions of them they probably could, but they choose to produce expensive cars/engines and only sell a few thousand. Did you know that the former engineering manager of Lamborghini (when they were owned by Chrysler) actually had a lot to do with the cylinder heads on the latest LS engines, so saying that Lamborghini engineers suck while GM engineers rule is pretty shortsighted.
I guess what it all comes down to is that different engines are better at different things and different people like them for different reasons. I happen to like the exotic engines, and realize that they are actually engineered very well, and are not Rube Goldberg devices.
Bob
Enjines are awesum!
Schmidlap wrote: MrBenjamonkey wrote: Ferrari says to its engineers "I want 360 hp from my engine" and they respond by making a monstrosity with 48 or 40 valves (F355 or 512TR), four camshafts, no parts sharing with anything, sky high cost, small displacement, poor reliability and appalling economy. Bob writes: so Ferrari makes a small displacement engine that puts out 360hp and it's ridiculous, but Mitsubishi's turbocharged small displacement is godlike? 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC engines are bad things? The poor reliability of Ferarri engines is more anecdotal hyperbole than fact, they seem to do pretty well in endurance racing. The maintenance and repair costs may be ridiculous, but they're a lot more reliable than you think. Their 'F1' transmissions, however, do have some issues. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Lamborghini says "give me 550 hp" and their engineers come back with a massive weight, huge dimensions, 48 valves, four cams, basic design from 1965, no torque and a maximum of 9 mpg to go with crap reliability and the need to share oil with the transmission. Bob writes: how much does a Lamborghini engine weigh? I looked for numbers but couldn't find anything. It's an all aluminum V12, so it will weigh more than an all aluminum V8, but please tell me how much it really weighs. Again, what's wrong with 4 valves per cylinder (just like your beloved 4G63), four cams and 12 cylinders? No torque? The 6.2L V12 makes 577hp and 480lb-ft of torque. A 6.2L LS3 in a Camaro makes 426hp and 420lb-ft of torque. I've never heard someone say the Camaro is lacking torque. Bump up the V12 to 8.8L as in the marine version and you get 880hp and a nice jump in torque too. Basic design from 1965? Big deal, it still works, and is producing 670hp in some road applications and can still be increased another 2L in size. The fuel economy sucks, but do you really think anyone who buys a Lamborghini cares about economy? If they did they would put a lot more work into it and would improve the economy of the engine and the efficiency of the rest of the car. Instead, they focus on getting a lot of power out of their engines and making a car that performs incredibly well with much fewer resources than a large company. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Ferrari with a Mitsubishi motor of the same vintage. The 4g63 makes more torque, nearly as much horsepower, weighs much less, needs only 4 cylinders, 16 valves and two cams, is vastly more efficient, packages so much better it's actually kind of funny and can be had for very little money. Bob writes: Alright, let's compare. I'll ignore the NA 4G63's and start with the turbo'd Talon/Eclipse version. In 1990 they made 195hp/203lb-ft from a 2L engine. The 3.4L V8 in the 1990 Ferrari 348 made 300hp/217lb-ft. The 4.9L V12 in the 1990 Testarossa was making 390hp/360lb-ft. That doesn't seem like "more torque, nearly as much power". How much less does a turbocharged 4 cylinder weigh than a small all aluminum V8 or an all aluminum V12? Remeber, the 4G63 has a cast iron block, a turbocharger, cast iron manifold, and an intercooler, all which add a lot of weight. I don't think you're saving as much weight as you think. Now let's jump up to 2003, when the Evo had 271hp/273lb-ft but still had a cast iron block. Ferrari's 3.6L V8 was now making 400hp and 275lb-ft. Does the 4 cylinder package better? Sure, but is it really "actually kind of funny"?. Have you ever looked at a Ferrari V8? They're actually pretty compact, and you don't have to worry about packaging an intercooler, or worrying about the immense heat of the turbo. Can it be had for a lot cheaper? Sure, but Ferrari's making plenty of money so I don't think they, or their customers, really care. How long would that stock 4G63 last in endurance racing? The Ferrari has a dry sump oil system to improve on track performance and reliability. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Lamborghini V12s to the top of the line Chevy Small Blocks. Basically the same power but the Chevy weighs much less, needs only a third of the valves and a quarter of the cams, packages much easier, comes close to tripling the fuel economy, is more reliable and can be had for a small fraction of the cost. Bob writes: I already did this a few paragraphs up for identical sized engines. Now let's compare the top of the line engines. The supercharged 6.2L in the ZR1 makes 638hp/604lb-ft. The 6.5L V12 in the Murcielago makes 632hp/487lb-ft. So the Vette V8 makes the same power and a lot more torque with fewer valves and cams, but it does need a huge supercharger mounted on top of it. I don't know how much a Lamborghini V12 weighs, but I'd be surprised if a V8 with a supercharger and intercooler/heat exchanger has a huge weight advantage. Again, if you have actual numbers, please let me know, I'm genuinely curious. As for tripling the fuel economy? That's quite a stretch. Mileage for the Murcielago is 8/13, while the ZR1 is 14/20. That's about an 80% gain in the city, but only about a 50% gain on the highway. That's still alot better, but nowhere close to tripling it. For another comparison, the Lamborghini 5.2L V10 makes 530hp (up to 560hp is available) and 400lb-ft, while getting 12/20 mileage, while the 6.2L naturally aspirated Corvette makes only 436hp/428lb-ft and gets 16/26 mileage. Again, the mileage is a nice 30% jump, but it's way down on power despite having 20% more displacement. I guess those 4 valves per cylinder and 4 cams are good for something. MrBenjamonkey wrote: It seems to me like a lot of what goes into supercars isn't really about making them better, it's about making them dumber for marketing purposes. Bob writes: It seems to me that you what you think is "making them dumber" is really just that they're not making their design compromises in the way you want. Ferrari engines make a lot more power than the 4G63 but you like the 4G63 better because it's cheaper and packages better and because you mistakenly think it competes with the Ferrari in power and torque. Ferrari packages the engine just fine and makes tonnes of money off it, so who cares? They chose to compromise packaging and efficiency in the name of performance. The Chevy V8s need a supercharger to make the same power as a similar sized Lambo engine, but you like the Chevy better because it gets better mileage (again, a Lamborghini buyer doesn't care so why should Lamborghini) and costs less. I'd say that Lamborghini engines probably don't cost nearly as much to actually produce as you think, but the overhead cost of only producing a few thousand cars a years drives up the cost dramatically, versus the millions of cars a year that GM sells. Lamborghini is able to survive at this level, while GM couldn't, so should we complain about the high cost? I don't think so. If Lamborghini wanted to produce a low cost car/engine and sell millions of them they probably could, but they choose to produce expensive cars/engines and only sell a few thousand. Did you know that the former engineering manager of Lamborghini (when they were owned by Chrysler) actually had a lot to do with the cylinder heads on the latest LS engines, so saying that Lamborghini engineers suck while GM engineers rule is pretty shortsighted. I guess what it all comes down to is that different engines are better at different things and different people like them for different reasons. I happen to like the exotic engines, and realize that they are actually engineered very well, and are not Rube Goldberg devices. Bob
Giant wall-o-text pwn!
This talk about 'make the same power' regarding viper v10 vs 6.1 hemi and 'make the same torque' 4g63 vs ferrari has me cringing.
Peak numbers do NOT tell the tale. I personally would NOT like to have a 4g63 with a turbo big enough to flow 360hp stuffed into a 3400 lb 512.
And, to a much smaller extent, the same is true regarding the v10 vs the 6.1 hemi. Sure, the 6.1 makes a lot of torque off idle and in low rpms, but still significantly less than all of the viper v10s. And about the horsepower, you're talking about the oldest version of the v10, right? Yeh, it made only 400 hp vs 6.1's 425. But then they got the v10 to make 450 hp by... dun dun dun.... revving it higher! The 6.1 makes peak power at 6200 rpm.. but the version of the v10 that makes peak power at similar rpm is rated at.. 600 hp! Seriously, its a stretch to say that any viper v10 has made less overall power than the 6.1.
Not that im against the whole heretical swaps idea, but i just think the 4g63 with a laggy turbo in a heavy car is a particularly bad idea, and the v8 viper is just kind of a downgrade overall.
LSx in place of anything = not heresy
The problem I have with a lot of these proposed engine swaps is that an engine is more than just the thing that makes the car go. Put a 4G63 in a Testarossa and I'll break your legs. There's nothing on Earth that sounds like a Ferrari V12, and replacing that incredible noise with an Evo engine would be reason to stand before a firing squad. I don't care if the 4G63 makes 6 times the power; it sounds and looks like garbage next to that big beautiful 12 cylinder.
amg_rx7 wrote: The only heretical motor swap is swapping in anything other than a rotary in an RX7Everything else is acceptable. In fact swapping out the 1.6 boinger from a Miata and replacing with a rotary makes it mo' better.
I got that vibe from people with my vg30et powered FB. 
But I don't like the idea of swaps just to tweak a purist.
Some of the examples from the OP are going to tweak the purists but also have real car guys * shaking their heads.
i.e If I'm in a Ferrari I'm not concerned with 'appalling economy' I might even consider it a compliment.
I find myself cringing at certain swaps, but at bottom the owner makes the choice, and I'd rather have more auto-crazy than less.
-James
in england a rally driver in a mk2 Escort used Vauxhall's 2liter engine that was popular in the nineties, but I also remember vaguely some Opel Manta driver with a Ford engine balancing out the cosmos.
Odds are, that if you swap an engine that doesn't belong you will piss someone off. I like the idea of putting different engines in cars, however, I also think that if you did it to the very last of any car you should be shot.
racinginc215 wrote: I want to get even with that fast and furious movie not sure which one. where they stuff the skyline engine in the Mustang. Now I want to stuff a Mustang engine in a Skyline. Preferably a 429 but I would a 5.4 from a new Shelby.
If you really want to tick them off, drop in an econo-special 2.3 from a Mustang II.
I saw a Jeep Wranger with a S2000 engine 
I still think it depends on how trashy the donor chassis is. I don't like seeing good examples of anything rare suffer stuff like this, but if the thing is trashed, put whatever you want in it.
Perfect "survivor" example, do this:
Trashed rust bucket you found in a field, do this:
Aside to Dr. Hess..if Colin his own damn self didn't care where he found engines (Series 1 Europa=Renault?!?), than neither should you. If that man was alive today, he'd grin like the Cheshire Cat at what you're doing. 
Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang?
American V8 BMW....
V8 GNX
....
Schmidlap wrote: MrBenjamonkey wrote: Ferrari says to its engineers "I want 360 hp from my engine" and they respond by making a monstrosity with 48 or 40 valves (F355 or 512TR), four camshafts, no parts sharing with anything, sky high cost, small displacement, poor reliability and appalling economy. 1.Bob writes: so Ferrari makes a small displacement engine that puts out 360hp and it's ridiculous, but Mitsubishi's turbocharged small displacement is godlike? 4 valves per cylinder and DOHC engines are bad things? The poor reliability of Ferarri engines is more anecdotal hyperbole than fact, they seem to do pretty well in endurance racing. The maintenance and repair costs may be ridiculous, but they're a lot more reliable than you think. Their 'F1' transmissions, however, do have some issues. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Lamborghini says "give me 550 hp" and their engineers come back with a massive weight, huge dimensions, 48 valves, four cams, basic design from 1965, no torque and a maximum of 9 mpg to go with crap reliability and the need to share oil with the transmission. 2. Bob writes: how much does a Lamborghini engine weigh? I looked for numbers but couldn't find anything. It's an all aluminum V12, so it will weigh more than an all aluminum V8, but please tell me how much it really weighs. Again, what's wrong with 4 valves per cylinder (just like your beloved 4G63), four cams and 12 cylinders? No torque? The 6.2L V12 makes 577hp and 480lb-ft of torque. A 6.2L LS3 in a Camaro makes 426hp and 420lb-ft of torque. I've never heard someone say the Camaro is lacking torque. Bump up the V12 to 8.8L as in the marine version and you get 880hp and a nice jump in torque too. Basic design from 1965? Big deal, it still works, and is producing 670hp in some road applications and can still be increased another 2L in size. The fuel economy sucks, but do you really think anyone who buys a Lamborghini cares about economy? If they did they would put a lot more work into it and would improve the economy of the engine and the efficiency of the rest of the car. Instead, they focus on getting a lot of power out of their engines and making a car that performs incredibly well with much fewer resources than a large company. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Ferrari with a Mitsubishi motor of the same vintage. The 4g63 makes more torque, nearly as much horsepower, weighs much less, needs only 4 cylinders, 16 valves and two cams, is vastly more efficient, packages so much better it's actually kind of funny and can be had for very little money. 3. Bob writes: Alright, let's compare. I'll ignore the NA 4G63's and start with the turbo'd Talon/Eclipse version. In 1990 they made 195hp/203lb-ft from a 2L engine. The 3.4L V8 in the 1990 Ferrari 348 made 300hp/217lb-ft. The 4.9L V12 in the 1990 Testarossa was making 390hp/360lb-ft. That doesn't seem like "more torque, nearly as much power". How much less does a turbocharged 4 cylinder weigh than a small all aluminum V8 or an all aluminum V12? Remeber, the 4G63 has a cast iron block, a turbocharger, cast iron manifold, and an intercooler, all which add a lot of weight. I don't think you're saving as much weight as you think. Now let's jump up to 2003, when the Evo had 271hp/273lb-ft but still had a cast iron block. Ferrari's 3.6L V8 was now making 400hp and 275lb-ft. Does the 4 cylinder package better? Sure, but is it really "actually kind of funny"?. Have you ever looked at a Ferrari V8? They're actually pretty compact, and you don't have to worry about packaging an intercooler, or worrying about the immense heat of the turbo. Can it be had for a lot cheaper? Sure, but Ferrari's making plenty of money so I don't think they, or their customers, really care. How long would that stock 4G63 last in endurance racing? The Ferrari has a dry sump oil system to improve on track performance and reliability. MrBenjamonkey wrote: Compare the Lamborghini V12s to the top of the line Chevy Small Blocks. Basically the same power but the Chevy weighs much less, needs only a third of the valves and a quarter of the cams, packages much easier, comes close to tripling the fuel economy, is more reliable and can be had for a small fraction of the cost. 4. Bob writes: I already did this a few paragraphs up for identical sized engines. Now let's compare the top of the line engines. The supercharged 6.2L in the ZR1 makes 638hp/604lb-ft. The 6.5L V12 in the Murcielago makes 632hp/487lb-ft. So the Vette V8 makes the same power and a lot more torque with fewer valves and cams, but it does need a huge supercharger mounted on top of it. I don't know how much a Lamborghini V12 weighs, but I'd be surprised if a V8 with a supercharger and intercooler/heat exchanger has a huge weight advantage. Again, if you have actual numbers, please let me know, I'm genuinely curious. As for tripling the fuel economy? That's quite a stretch. Mileage for the Murcielago is 8/13, while the ZR1 is 14/20. That's about an 80% gain in the city, but only about a 50% gain on the highway. That's still alot better, but nowhere close to tripling it. For another comparison, the Lamborghini 5.2L V10 makes 530hp (up to 560hp is available) and 400lb-ft, while getting 12/20 mileage, while the 6.2L naturally aspirated Corvette makes only 436hp/428lb-ft and gets 16/26 mileage. Again, the mileage is a nice 30% jump, but it's way down on power despite having 20% more displacement. I guess those 4 valves per cylinder and 4 cams are good for something. MrBenjamonkey wrote: It seems to me like a lot of what goes into supercars isn't really about making them better, it's about making them dumber for marketing purposes. 5. Bob writes: It seems to me that you what you think is "making them dumber" is really just that they're not making their design compromises in the way you want. Ferrari engines make a lot more power than the 4G63 but you like the 4G63 better because it's cheaper and packages better and because you mistakenly think it competes with the Ferrari in power and torque. Ferrari packages the engine just fine and makes tonnes of money off it, so who cares? They chose to compromise packaging and efficiency in the name of performance. The Chevy V8s need a supercharger to make the same power as a similar sized Lambo engine, but you like the Chevy better because it gets better mileage (again, a Lamborghini buyer doesn't care so why should Lamborghini) and costs less. I'd say that Lamborghini engines probably don't cost nearly as much to actually produce as you think, but the overhead cost of only producing a few thousand cars a years drives up the cost dramatically, versus the millions of cars a year that GM sells. Lamborghini is able to survive at this level, while GM couldn't, so should we complain about the high cost? I don't think so. If Lamborghini wanted to produce a low cost car/engine and sell millions of them they probably could, but they choose to produce expensive cars/engines and only sell a few thousand. Did you know that the former engineering manager of Lamborghini (when they were owned by Chrysler) actually had a lot to do with the cylinder heads on the latest LS engines, so saying that Lamborghini engineers suck while GM engineers rule is pretty shortsighted. I guess what it all comes down to is that different engines are better at different things and different people like them for different reasons. I happen to like the exotic engines, and realize that they are actually engineered very well, and are not Rube Goldberg devices. Bob
Wow, formatting is going to be a challenge here.
Yes. Compared to the Mitsu, both Ferrari engines I mention are vastly more complicated, vastly more expensive and not really better at anything except marketing. Like I said before, imagine how much better you could make the 512 or Testarossa minus a couple hundred pounds and with a couple cubic yards more space for aero. The F355 has a reputation for pounding out its valve seats and is a $5,000, engine out service car. The Flat 12 is also ridiculously expensive to maintain. I'm all for spending 86 times as much money on your engine, but shouldn't it at least be better? Shouldn't it be smaller and lighter and more powerful, and not just the world's most expensive noise maker?
The 6 and a half foot long Rube Goldberg contraption in question weighs 800 pounds with the tranny. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~anderson/EngineECC.htm There's nothing "wrong" with 4 valves per cylinder, but back to the Rube Goldberg comparison, Rube Goldberg machines are unnecessarily complicated. Therefore, if you can get the same result with 8 cylinders, one cam and 16 valves that you can from 12 cylinders and 48 valves with no real draw backs, clearly the V8 is better engineering. You know, the simplest solution usually being the best and all? As for no torque, watch top gear or any other similar program. The V12 is perhaps the largest production engine out there that needs 4000 rpm on the clock to start working. I also said top of the line LS, which would be the LS7 or the LS9. I included fuel economy to illustrate the point that the V12 is better at literally nothing. If Lamborghini really cared about getting a lot of power but (as a subsidiary of dirt poor Volkswagen AG) couldn't afford to develop a new engine, they would do the logical thing and build a less strained or larger motor with forced induction. There are many easier ways to get 577 hp out of 6.2 liters, especially if you don't care about fuel economy or the ability to accelerate under 4,000 rpm.
The stock 4g63T came in many forms. The Japanese Evos where making 280 HP (probably underrated, due to the gentleman's agreement) during the time of the F355 and during the F360's production cycle Mitsubishi was producing both the FQ360 and the FQ400. Take a wild guess on their rated power. I also originally said a 4g63 would be a candidate for swapping into a Testarossa FLAT 12, which is to compact what gold engraved cow pies are to good taste. As for weight, the Mitsu long block seems to be about 250-300 lbs. I have a hard time expanding that much over 550 with all the dressings and the tranny. http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/bolt-tech/86997-4g63-weight.html And yes, I knew that Ferrari's marketing excercises are profitable now (not so much in the past). The conversation, if you remember correctly, is about actual effectiveness. The concluding paragraph of the post you quoted of course saying that a lot of what makes a supercar is increasing stupidity for marketing pursposes, remember? Oh, and reliability in racing conditions. You do realize that the 4g63 has a lot more racing history than either of the Ferrari engines, right? The 512/Testarossa never raced and the F355 didn't race well. I don't remember reading much about Mitsubishis starving for oil either.
The LS9 is identically sized to the LS3 6.2 vs 6.2, but anyway. Well, unless the supercharger weighs . The LS7, which is comparable to the Lambo V10 in power, was EPA rated at 24 mpg highway. GRM has had Corvettes over thirty mpg. Good for what? Getting less power, less mileage, higher weight and higher cost out of a package that's less reliable?
They don't make design compromises? Wow, the reason Ferrari made a Flat 12 that costs a trillion dollars to make, made 390 hp and was disastrously expensive to maintain is that it allows them to market said Rube Goldburg contraption as exotic. As for making similar power, I'm simply right. http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/203051/mitsubishi_evo.html They chose to compromise packaging and efficiency in the name of performance? Why don't they get any more performance then?
And why do I act like the Chevy is better? Well, it gets better mileage, makes more power, is lighter, is simpler, is cheaper, is smaller, makes more torque, has better racing pedigree and is generally better at everything.
Lamborghini didn't survive either, it's now a subsidiary of VW.
I made no judgments on the skills of the engineers at either company. I said that the LS V8 is an excellent achievement that is in every way superior to the Lambo V12.
I don't even have a problem with exotic engines. Take the Porsche Flat6 turbos. They are light, they are torquey, they are very powerful, they are efficient and they package well. They actually are better in quantifiable ways than Chevy LS engines. Take the McClaren F1, which had an extremely powerful, very lightweight, compact engine that was better than anything available at the time. Take the Audi RS4/R8 4.2L. I could go on.
Vigo wrote: This talk about 'make the same power' regarding viper v10 vs 6.1 hemi and 'make the same torque' 4g63 vs ferrari has me cringing. Peak numbers do NOT tell the tale. I personally would NOT like to have a 4g63 with a turbo big enough to flow 360hp stuffed into a 3400 lb 512. And, to a much smaller extent, the same is true regarding the v10 vs the 6.1 hemi. Sure, the 6.1 makes a lot of torque off idle and in low rpms, but still significantly less than all of the viper v10s. And about the horsepower, you're talking about the oldest version of the v10, right? Yeh, it made only 400 hp vs 6.1's 425. But then they got the v10 to make 450 hp by... dun dun dun.... revving it higher! The 6.1 makes peak power at 6200 rpm.. but the version of the v10 that makes peak power at similar rpm is rated at.. *600* hp! Seriously, its a stretch to say that any viper v10 has made less overall power than the 6.1. Not that im against the whole heretical swaps idea, but i just think the 4g63 with a laggy turbo in a heavy car is a particularly bad idea, and the v8 viper is just kind of a downgrade overall.
There is no difference between the turbo on a 366 hp FQ360 and a regular 286 hp Evo 8. The new 4B series FQ 360 Evo weighs more than a Testarossa.
As for the V8 Viper, my idea was an LS7 in an early Viper. The goal being similar/better power with a ton less weight.
Will wrote: The problem I have with a lot of these proposed engine swaps is that an engine is more than just the thing that makes the car go. Put a 4G63 in a Testarossa and I'll break your legs. There's nothing on Earth that sounds like a Ferrari V12, and replacing that incredible noise with an Evo engine would be reason to stand before a firing squad. I don't care if the 4G63 makes 6 times the power; it sounds and looks like garbage next to that big beautiful 12 cylinder.
Marketing stuff ... kind of like I said.
John Brown wrote: And a turbo VR6 powered SRT4
Maybe into a first gen, but the engine was the only good thing on the SRT4.
I ain't reading all this stuff. I will say that a recurring dream (nightmare?) is a Lexus V8/Supra 5 speed in either an XJS or (preferably) an XJ6 coupe. Yeah, I know. XJ6 coupes are rare. So frickin' what? 
That'd be cool. The Lexus V8 is even lighter than an LS series. Imagine how much pointier that front end would get.
Attention gentlemen:
The BMW + American V8 is not a heretical swap, there are numerous web sites and companies selling the conversion parts to drop either 5.0/LSx into either E30/E36.
Built LS1 in E36 with 285s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r82qX2VjqZc&feature=related
MrBenjamonkey wrote:Will wrote: The problem I have with a lot of these proposed engine swaps is that an engine is more than just the thing that makes the car go. Put a 4G63 in a Testarossa and I'll break your legs. There's nothing on Earth that sounds like a Ferrari V12, and replacing that incredible noise with an Evo engine would be reason to stand before a firing squad. I don't care if the 4G63 makes 6 times the power; it sounds and looks like garbage next to that big beautiful 12 cylinder.Marketing stuff ... kind of like I said.
I have to disagree with your assessment as being way too simplistic. If the way an engine sounds is nothing more than marketing, then the way it performs is nothing more than marketing, too.
I keep seeing the 4G63 being mentioned in comparison to the Flat 12 from Ferrari. I'm not saying it's a bad motor, but no upright 4 cylinder will be able to package as well as a flat motor.
IMHO I'd like to see a flat motor in more cars, and the absolute best engine swap would be a rotary into everything.....except for the whole 3000 mile reliability issue.
I've seen a 4g63t in a second-gen Porsche 911.
Wasn't there someone on here a long time ago that shoved a Northstar V8 into a 1g MR2?
I WILL eventually put an F20C into a 1st-gen Saturn sedan, converted to RWD. It'll take me like 20 years to accumulate the equipment and knowledge to do it, not to mention 1991-1995 Saturn sedans will be antiques by then, but whatever. Ima do it.
You'll need to log in to post.
