Totally bench-dreaming a car build

Ian F wrote: MGB is the easy button. SBC/F V8 swaps are pretty common and relatively easy - there are even kits that make it an almost bolt-in project.

This is the answer, provided I understood correctly you are looking for something quick, easy & cheap. My understanding is that the rubber bumper B's are a better starting point due to changes in the engine compartment, which is convenient becuase they are still dirt-cheap.

In fact, if you want really cheap and easy, the GM 2.8 + T5 drops right into rubber bumper MGB's - this swap could be done with junkyard scrounging for possibly under a thousand - including the MGB. Might not be a V8, but a 2.8 puts out a lot of torque for a 2200lb car. Someone on the MG boards put it this way - a mild carbed 2.8 setup still puts out more HP than the MGB's the factory ran at Lemans.

SEADave wrote: In fact, if you want really cheap and easy, the GM 2.8 + T5 drops right into rubber bumper MGB's - this swap could be done with junkyard scrounging for possibly under a thousand - including the MGB. Might not be a V8, but a 2.8 puts out a lot of torque for a 2200lb car. Someone on the MG boards put it this way - a mild carbed 2.8 setup still puts out more HP than the MGB's the factory ran at Lemans.

Hmmm... that means a 3.8 turbo should also fit pretty easily.

wheels are turning

Spitfire plus V8 is going to handle like crap (because of the extra weight plus steering rack location) and require a complete re-do of the rear end.

My vote would go to a TR7. It handles better then the MGB IMHO and has a wonderfully comfortable seating position and will easily fit someone 6'1". Also still cheap as dirt for the most part.

No you won't fit in a Midget (not in any way comfortably). I am 6'2" and it just doesn't work.

93EXCivic wrote: Spitfire plus V8 is going to handle like crap (because of the extra weight plus steering rack location) and require a complete re-do of the rear end.

But would an aluminum LS weigh much more than an iron straight six like they put in the GT6?

No you won't fit in a Midget (not in any way comfortably). I am 6'2" and it just doesn't work.

Yeah, that's what I thunk.

I have always wanted a Spitfire. I think I'll research that and the MGB first. I've been looking hard at some cheap TRs too.

Of course.... this won't be for a while. I have a 65 Scout, a 66 Bonneville, a 67 LeMans, a 96 Impala SS, and a few thousand other projects that need to be completed first.

What about a Porsche 928? I know some ragtops were made, but how many? I also know they're not "small" or "light" but just thinking...

curtis73 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Spitfire plus V8 is going to handle like crap (because of the extra weight plus steering rack location) and require a complete re-do of the rear end.

But would an aluminum LS weigh much more than an iron straight six like they put in the GT6?

I'd be shocked if an LS would be that much heavier than the LBC. It's a cool little engine, but cast iron isn't pleasant.

Seems like a great thing about Spitfires is that they are multi-piece cars- so you can get all clear of the frame, install engine, and fit as needed. That, and some of the common mods seen in a hot rod can be done- like fully box the frame.

Light, cheap, simple... the only 'issue' is that its pretty common to put a large american v8 into a small british car.

Cut the top off of a MN-12 Tbird/Cougar/MarkIIIVIVIVI.

alfadriver wrote: I'd be shocked if an LS would be that much heavier than the LBC. It's a cool little engine, but cast iron isn't pleasant. Seems like a great thing about Spitfires is that they are multi-piece cars- so you can get all clear of the frame, install engine, and fit as needed. That, and some of the common mods seen in a hot rod can be done- like fully box the frame.

Boxing the frame sounds wonderful in principle, not so simple in practice. The OE transmission and driveshaft fit in between the frame with very little clearance. nearly all alternative transmissions are physically larger and require frame cutting to fit. Boxing the frame would basically require scratch-building a whole new frame. Not that this would be a bad idea as it would allow one to redesign (e.g: fix) the suspension and steering, but it won't be a simple project.

Asking if the LS is lighter than the GT6 lump is funny. Of course it is. However, nobody has ever used a GT6 as a benchmark for great handling, so the question is somewhat moot.

When it comes to stuffing a V8 into a LBC, there's a good chance it's been done: http://www.britishv8.org/

Might not be a V8, but a 2.8 puts out a lot of torque for a 2200lb car. Someone on the MG boards put it this way - a mild carbed 2.8 setup still puts out more HP than the MGB's the factory ran at Lemans.

If a 2.8 aint powerful enough for ya, you could keep right on going to a 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, or 3.9L version of that engine family. A cam'd and tuned 3.5 or 3.9 can make 300hp pretty easily, i think. A carb'd 3.4 would be punchy, too. And doesnt that old 4.9 v8 use that bellhousing pattern too? Plus the FWD 5.3 LS?

Vert s13 240sx plenty of room for sbc and still turns great. Plenty of aftermarket support.

My LS1-powered MG weighs the same now as it did stock - and that's with significant frame reinforcement. Those Brit parts are heavy.

curtis73 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Spitfire plus V8 is going to handle like crap (because of the extra weight plus steering rack location) and require a complete re-do of the rear end.

But would an aluminum LS weigh much more than an iron straight six like they put in the GT6?

No. I was thinking iron block. But seriously have you thought about the TR7?