Heretical Motor Swaps

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

You think they're all vulgar? I would love to own a turbo Porsche or any Skyline GTR. I'd kill for a C4 ZR1. Hell, I even admire the F40. The difference being, the engineers who made those cars seem to have chosen parts and dimensions for solid, justifiable reasons, not because it would be cool to make a V87 with quadruple overhead turbo camshafts.

turbo Porsche - homologation.

Skyline GTR - homologation (4WD allowed them to run WIDER tires?!?)

F40 - Group B homologation

ZR-1... there's an interesting thing about that. I don't think there was any justification for its existence other than "we need something more badass". Lotus designed the engine. Mostly. GM brass saw that they went to a different bore spacing than the small-block, which is fine since it wasn't going to be built by Chevy or share any components. "Nope, it has to be the same as the small-block." "Why? If we narrow it then the valves will have to be smaller and it won't make as much power."

"We'll accept that. It has to be the same bore centers as the small-block, no matter what."

(Paraphrasing here)

Schmidlap wrote: I wasn't going to post again, but I can't help it, and I won't bother quoting, because, like you said, formatting would be difficult. Anyways, you asked us to compare the 4G63 with a Ferrari engine of the same vintage claiming the 4G63 performed similarly, and I showed that the F-car V8 had more power and torque. If you want to argue weight, the F360 engine weighs ~390lbs (http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/engine-conversions/130791-ferrari-v8-into-105-stepnose-13.html see post 104). The 4G63, with turbo, intercooler etc weighs ~375 lbs (http://torontojdm.com/lite/cart.php?target=product&product_id=4299&category_id=96 lists the weight as 387lb, but I assume that included a pallet) so you're not saving much weight (the new 4B11 Mitsu only loses about 23lb). Packaging? A V8 with dry sump is going to be pretty short (in height) compared to a 4 cylinder with a similar crank stroke and a wet sump oil pan, but the difference is probably pretty much a wash. The lengths will similar since they're both 4 cylinders long, the F-car being slightly longer due to the banks being offset. As for width, the V8 intake is packaged in the V, and the exhaust manifolds sit almost completely underneath the banks, so they don't add much width. The intake on the Mitsu sticks out quite a bit, as does the exhaust/turbo on the other side. Yes, the 4G63 will be narrower, but probably not by a lot. Compared to a flat 12, yes the 4G63 could package a lot better but will still be down on power. Yes, the 2005 FQ-400 makes about the same power as a Ferrari flat 12 from 1991, and falls slightly lower than a flat 12 from from 1994 (440hp). Again, however, you originally asked us to compare the 4G63 to Ferrari engines of the same vintage and the FQ-400 pales compared to the 2005 Ferrari 5.7L V12 making 530hp/434lb-ft or the 483hp/343lb-ft of the 4.3L V8. Yes, 400hp from a 2L is impressive, but again, the "ridiculous complexity" of the Ferrari engines seem justified to me since they thoroughly trounce most other engines of the same vintage. Yes, a boosted LS engine will make as much power with a little less complexity (fewer valves and cams, but you have to add in a few pushrods, a supercharger and intercooler system too) for less cost. GM does build impressive engines. And just for fun, I'd say that the 4G63 may be more of a Rube Goldberg device than a Ferrari V8 (or 12). Yes, the V8 has 5 valves per cylinder (in some applications) compared to 4 for the 4G63, and yes it has 2 banks of cylinders instead of 1, but it doesn't even have variable valve timing or even VTEC like many lesser engines, whereas the turbo on the 4G63 is pretty Rube Goldberg-ish if you ask me. "Lets take our exhaust gas, which we normally just dump, and we'll run it through a turbine. But right before the turbine, lets throw in a dump valve with an actuator just in case we don't want the exhaust to go through the turbine. Now, the shaft supporting the turbine will have some bearings, which need an oil feed, and lets flow some coolant around the oil to keep it from coking. Now, the shaft that the turbine rotates on, lets attach the other end to a compressor, and have the compressor force air into the engine. Now, because the compressor heats up the air, we'll route it through a heat exchanger to cool the air and we'll have coolant flowing through the heat exchanger to cool it down, but that requires us adding another heat exchanger in another part of the car to cool down the coolant, and a water pump to circulate it." Oh, and you did insult Lamborghini engineers: "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..." That's why I wrote the part about the Lamborghini engineering manager. Sorry for the ridiculously long post again. Brevity is obviously not a strength of mine. Bob

Don't worry, it's not a strength of mine either.

Turbochargers are well tested, old technology. They also allow smaller engines to make power like normally aspirated large engines. They IMPROVE efficiency. That exhaust gas recapture is taking waste energy and recycling it. It has a rational purpose. Just ask Ferrari, they used to turbo charge everything.

Now, which Ferrari engines do you want to compare with the 4g63? Right now you're comparing it to the v12's power and the v8's weight. Let's pick one or the other. I read that entire thread on the Alfa swap, btw. He was weighing the 360 motor before he found an intake or exhaust, which makes it a long block. 4g63 long blocks are about 150 pounds lighter. I'll grant you that the intake and exhaust plumbing on a 4g are heavier, but still, the weight loss would not be inconsiderable.

Ferrari V8s vs 4g63. In 1995 Ferrari had the 312 hp 3.4L 348. Mitsu's top of the line 4g at the time made 270 hp in the Evo IV. Ferrari switched to the 355, which made 375 hp, in 95. They continued producing the 355 until 2000, at which time the top of the line EVO was the Makkinnen VI, conservatively rated at 286 hp. In 2000, Ferrari switched to the 400 hp F360 which continued in production until 2005, by which time the more powerful, 405 HP FQ400 was available. Since then, the new FQ400 Evo X has continued at the same power levels while the F430 has jumped to 483 hp. The differences are not huge, you have to admit.

And as for Lamborghini, I insulted the work those engineers did, not the engineers themselves. Sort of like saying I thought 88 Minutes sucked doesn't mean I think Al Pacino is a moron.

Knurled wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: 3. 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.

On what fuel, to whose emissions specs? Gotta compare apples to apples. Would those engines meet US regs and run on US peewater the way the Ferrari engines will? And the whole turbo-four supercar worked so well that even Lotus went to a V8! I remember the reviews of even the best of the four-cylinder Esprits. "Sucked" is a good synopsis. Now, I've never driven a turbo Lotus, but I've driven many 4G63 powered things, and the turbo lag is mind-bogglingly bad. Maybe it's not as bad as the Lotus, but it's still not what somebody expects when they spend Ferrari money. You don't spend Ferrari money to get a Mitsubishi driving experience. I can't believe I'm defending Ferrari here

They are bone stock, warrantied cars in the UK. They run on premium, but UK premium isn't that different from US premium. They also pass emissions.

What 4g63 did you drive? My 90 Talon with the crappy older 14B turbo made boost/power from 2800 rpm (at least as low as a Ferrari) and the Evo 8s I've driven were fine from 3K up.

And the turbo four thing has caught on. People really seem to enjoy their 944s, Evos, STIs, Mazda 3 Turbos, Renault Meganes, Mini Coopers, Genesis Coupes and SRT4s.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to show that many exotics spend oodles of money to produce engines with little or no advantage over run of the mill production motors.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: What 4g63 did you drive? My 90 Talon with the crappy older 14B turbo made boost/power from 2800 rpm (at least as low as a Ferrari) and the Evo 8s I've driven were fine from 3K up.

A whole lot of AWD and FWD models and one Galant VR-4, which was a disturbingly bad car. (Disturbingly, because until I got chance to drive one, it WAS one of my dream cars)

So you're at, oh, 3500, and you floor it. One one thousand, two one thousand... HEY it finally started doing something. THAT is lag.

And the turbo four thing has caught on. People really seem to enjoy their 944s, Evos, STIs, Mazda 3 Turbos, Renault Meganes, Mini Coopers, Genesis Coupes and SRT4s.

Notice something about all of those cars? They're CHEAP.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to show that many exotics spend oodles of money to produce engines with little or no advantage over run of the mill production motors.

Exotic cars are not about performance. They're automotive jewelry, and as such they need to look and sound a certain way.

Proof: How many Lamborghinis or Ferraris are sold, and how many Moslers are sold? Moslers are exotics that are purpose-built to be FAST and who cares what they look or sound like.

If Dilbert had an exotic, he'd have a Mosler. (This isn't a bad thing)

Knurled wrote: I want to put a Saturn twin-cam in a longitudinal VW. Those engines weigh next to nothing, are fairly tough, and unlike Hondas, actually spin the proper direction. Sadly, the supply of rusted out Saturn engine-donors is rapidly drying up.

I've seen them in dune buggies before. Dirt cheap, reliable, and as you said, weigh about 200 pounds fully assembled, 250ish with accessories and manifolds on them. Two people can easily lift one. I have no idea why they aren't used for Locosts and stuff like that...they make pretty decent torque for a tiny 4-pot, too. 122 ft-lb at 4800.

And you're right, the supply is dwindling slightly, but I still don't have a problem finding junkyard ones with good motors.

I've seen that V8 Saturn before. Most of those are hack jobs, they have to angle the engine downward towards the back of the car to clear the firewall, and then the driveshaft has this awful kink in it. I'd much rather do a insane 4- or 6-cylinder swap (F20C or a VQ haha). A V8, you'd almost have to put it in the back seat and do the mid-engine thing.

Knurled wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: What 4g63 did you drive? My 90 Talon with the crappy older 14B turbo made boost/power from 2800 rpm (at least as low as a Ferrari) and the Evo 8s I've driven were fine from 3K up.

A whole lot of AWD and FWD models and one Galant VR-4, which was a disturbingly bad car. (Disturbingly, because until I got chance to drive one, it WAS one of my dream cars) So you're at, oh, 3500, and you floor it. One one thousand, two one thousand... HEY it finally started doing something. THAT is lag.

And the turbo four thing has caught on. People really seem to enjoy their 944s, Evos, STIs, Mazda 3 Turbos, Renault Meganes, Mini Coopers, Genesis Coupes and SRT4s.

Notice something about all of those cars? They're CHEAP.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to show that many exotics spend oodles of money to produce engines with little or no advantage over run of the mill production motors.

Exotic cars are not about performance. They're automotive jewelry, and as such they need to look and sound a certain way. Proof: How many Lamborghinis or Ferraris are sold, and how many Moslers are sold? Moslers are exotics that are purpose-built to be FAST and who cares what they look or sound like. If Dilbert had an exotic, he'd have a Mosler. (This isn't a bad thing)

Hmm, not my experience at all. Granted, my Talon had a 3 inch exhaust, but anything over 3 grand, put my foot down and I didn't get any lag. I mean, it would shoot to 7 psi immediately at be up to 11 psi within a second. I didn't even notice the turbo in the Evos once I started driving angry. Are you sure you weren't driving cars with seriously clogged cats?

Those cheap four cylinder cars with turbos may be cheap, but last time I checked, that was a good thing.

You're right. Most Ferraris, every Lamborghini, a lot of Aston Martins and many of the smaller supercar makers are the sporty equivalent to Hummer H2s on dub-dubs. Very flashy, not particularly good at anything for the cost. But not all of them. Porsches are exotics, my favorite exotics, because they are Moslers with everyday practicality. I would say the same thing about Nissan GTRs and Corvettes.

So, my idea for a Slant Six powered Locost isn't so far out?

Why desecrate a work of art, like a Ferrari, with an appliance motor from Mitsubishi?

Not to try and sidetrack the thread, but up until 5 or so years ago, there was a Japanese Manufacturer's "Gentlemen's Agreement" that stated that all US(?) cars had a maximum published hp rating of 270.

Just sayin'.

slantvaliant wrote: So, my idea for a Slant Six powered Locost isn't so far out?

Absolutely not!!! Just make the engine a stessed part of the chassis and figure a way to get a Toyota 5 spd tranny in the mix. And stretch the wheelbase a little...

Can you imagine the pull out of a corner?

slantvaliant wrote: So, my idea for a Slant Six powered Locost isn't so far out?

I want to build one like that with Eleven bodywork instead of a Seven style Locost. Somebody managed to stuff a 170 with the Hyper-Pack intake into an Eleven when they were new, using the slant six as a stressed member of the chassis. They say Colin Chapman was impressed with the results, which also lowers the heresy factor a bit.

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO.

okay sure.

Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

Platinum90 wrote:

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO. okay sure. Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

Thread is about "Heretical", and, well, those are. Not GOOD Heretical swaps, just ones where people may well want to phsyically hurt you for it....

RealMiniDriver wrote: Why desecrate a work of art, like a Ferrari, with an appliance motor from Mitsubishi?

So that it would function better ...

Platinum90 wrote:

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO. okay sure. Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

There were just over 9800 SVO Mustangs built in total from '84-'86. Personally, I wouldn't do a V8 swap in an SVO....Turbo Coupe....yes...

JFX001 wrote:

Platinum90 wrote:

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO. okay sure. Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

There were just over 9800 SVO Mustangs built in total from '84-'86. Personally, I wouldn't do a V8 swap in an SVO....Turbo Coupe....yes...

So that means find a pristine SVO and drop in a LSX. I think the SVO guys heads would spin around and they would spit up green E36 M3.

mblommel wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

Platinum90 wrote:

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO. okay sure. Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

There were just over 9800 SVO Mustangs built in total from '84-'86. Personally, I wouldn't do a V8 swap in an SVO....Turbo Coupe....yes...

So that means find a pristine SVO and drop in a LSX. I think the SVO guys heads would spin around and they would spit up green E36 M3.

Yeah...they do tend to be a bit protective of the SVO.

Ooh this is a fun game! Let's see...

Mazda FE3 Turbo into a Porsche 944 S2.

Wait that actually sounds really nice...

JFX001 wrote:

Platinum90 wrote:

ScottRA21 wrote: Put a 5.0 in to an SVO Mustang? American V8 BMW.... V8 GNX ....

Who asked that question? There are enough 5.0 mustangs to avoid bastardizing an exponentially rarer SVO. okay sure. Again, why? only 540ish were made....waste.

There were just over 9800 SVO Mustangs built in total from '84-'86. Personally, I wouldn't do a V8 swap in an SVO....Turbo Coupe....yes...

Back around 1988 or so, one of the car mags tested a 'skunk works' car built by Ford engineers in their off time. The 'all off the shelf parts' recipe: a Turbo Coupe body and suspension, a 5.0 and 5 speed from a Mustang GT and the big brakes from the Lincoln version of the T Bird, I forget what it's called. The tester said it was fantastic; it was fast, handled well and could stop instantly and controllably with no fade even after repeated test laps. His column was an open letter to Ford to please build the thing. Of course it never happened.

A Hayabusa in a Miata! oh wait, someone beat me to it...

I tucked a Honda RC51 V-Twin into my grandmothers 1968 VW Bug Tar & feather me - It sure was fun!

John Brown wrote: I like the idea of a turbo rotory powered Chevrolet Monza.

Since the Monza was originally supposed to get the GM rotary, this is strangely appropriate.

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote: Why desecrate a work of art, like a Ferrari, with an appliance motor from Mitsubishi?

So that it would function better ...

Doesn't this assume on your part that the Ferrari is a superior Chassis? Why?

Hell, it's expensive, the parts don't interchange, horrible efficiency (only seats two ), yada, yada , the same argument you make against their engines.

So why would you put such a great engine as the Mitsu in a Ferrari, when there are so many better Chassis out there, from both a performance and practical standpoint?

Ever try to get a Ferrari fender from Rock Auto? Jeeze.

Oh, wait, the Ferrari is a beautiful car, is that what you mean? Is there something subjectively appealing about certain sights and sounds that defy practicality?

I could continue beating the dead horse (HA!) but you see the point.

-James

Radical's Hayabusa based V8 into anything mid engined.

jamscal wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote: Why desecrate a work of art, like a Ferrari, with an appliance motor from Mitsubishi?

So that it would function better ...

Doesn't this assume on your part that the Ferrari is a superior Chassis? Why? Hell, it's expensive, the parts don't interchange, horrible efficiency (only seats two ), yada, yada , the same argument you make against their engines. So why would you put such a great engine as the Mitsu in a Ferrari, when there are so many better Chassis out there, from both a performance and practical standpoint? Ever try to get a Ferrari fender from Rock Auto? Jeeze. Oh, wait, the Ferrari is a beautiful car, is that what you mean? Is there something subjectively appealing about certain sights and sounds that defy practicality? I could continue beating the dead horse (HA!) but you see the point. -James

You're right. My point was, the car would be objectively better without an exotic motor. And there are supercars I could not say that about.

An LSX would do nothing to improve this, for example.

Nor would any regular production motor improve this exotic.

The same cannot be said about the sillier, primarily Italian exotics.