Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB

- Engine Swaps (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=92)

- - Toyota V6 & V8 motor swap info (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70929)

The 7M-GTE can be absolutely reliable with an Ajusa head gasket and opening the partly closed cooling channels that weren't used. Plus other mods if you want like electric water pump, new electric fans...
But I stick with you that it's not a great choice for the 86.
It's big, heavy, old and it needs some mods as well to really gain power.
My Toyota mechanic over here in Germany owns an Mk3 Supra like me. Daily driven 7M-GTE, built to >450hp and fully street legal. But the money and time spent to get there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeoneWhoIsntMe (Post 1870737)

the 7mgte is a huge pile of fuck, they're not solid with a headgasket or with anything else, and you're smoking crack if you put one back into a mk3 supra after you pull it out let alone put it into another car let alone an FT86

Sounds like you simply didn't know how to build it :)

Stock rebuild with a MHG and proper supporting mods (including a standalone), the record is over 700HP. They're just as stout as a 2JZ, but the big difference is always going to be MKIV Supra owners throw more money at their cars and go to a standalone sooner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim-Reaper (Post 1870742)

Ajusa is rare and expensive, HKS is easier to come by and better. There isn't any issues with the cooling channels, they don't need to be opened up. Electric fans are a downgrade, and electric water pump is fine so long as it's a helper and not the only pump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTV86 (Post 1870749)

There are parts. You just won't find them at Walmart or on ebay. Kelford have about 10 off the shelf cam options, for stock ecu, race NA, FI, and everything in between. They're also able to advise on a custom grind. I was in there the other day, and the UZ cams are still one of there more popular moving lines.
You can buy pistons and rods, valves and springs. ITB manifolds. Flywheels. Bellhousings to suit common gearboxes. Headers. Modified stock looms. Wiring kits with Links.

What more parts do you need!

7M is the older generation straight 6's that lead to the JZ. They have their good and bad points, but they don't suit the purpose of this thread (that being lightweight toyota V configuartion motors)

Coming from the Supra community, the 1UZ is a nice motor, but a hell of a lot of work and money to get it anywhere near the power level of a lightly modded 7M, let alone a 2JZ. There's far better options power wise because in the end you're dumping tons of cash on only 1 liter more displacement.

3UR-FE is slowly coming down in price as more and more Tundras are made and eventually end up in junkyards. Going to have to buy all the same parts to get a 1UZ in the car, and a 3UR+TRD supercharger is maybe about $10K. 500HP and 550ft-lbs might have other issues though :)

just a quick correction to something I see a lot here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTV86 (Post 1868721)

Foreword: Hi. I'm going to use this thread to provide information to people considering swapping out their motors for Toyota V motors. I'm going to focus on these motors only, as this is where my own knowledge and interest lies.

I'm sure similar threads for JZ and LS swaps will appear as the people doing these swaps choose to share their information.

Please bear with me as I put populate this information, and my own build thread. I don't have time to sit and do it all in one hit.

While the goal of this information is to provide facts to those interested, no doubt I'll slip in the occasional opinion.

Not intending on it becoming a step-by-step walk through or a DIY. It's more about putting all the relevant information together so that one can make an informed decision. Many of these motor swap options have very little information online, as the majority were found in JDM cars only, and some only in uncommon cars sold elsewhere.

FAQ...

Q. The FA20 is all alloy and is really light. Won't a motor swap add a lot of weight and ruin the handling?

A. Short answer? No.
Long answer, let's break it down.
For a start, my FA20, full dressed, with gearbox was a smidge over 220kg. I didn't bother splitting the motor and box. I know the box weighs a bit over 40kg. That puts a dressed FA20 at 180kg.
Let's talk about those two weights.
Firstly, is the FA20 light? NO.
My sr20det redtop, dressed, with a turbo on the manifold, and a 5 speed box was less.
My 3SGE Blacktop Beams dressed, which is a genuine 200whp NA motor (with some work) which is an iron block, and superior to the fa20 in every way, weighed less as well. This was with a j160 6 speed, which is very similar to the GT86 box.
Admitidlly, both combos were only marginally lighter (literally a few kgs) and the 3SGE had a very light flywheel, that if it had the OEM would've made in a couple of kg more than the FA20) but the point is that the FA20 is not the featherweight everyone assumes it is.

A GR family motor, is around 15kg more than the FA20.
A UZ family motor, is around 30kg more than the FA20. (All are at least double the displacement)
A UR family motor, is around 40-50kg more than the FA20 (depending on which UR you're comparing.
Keep in mind we're comparing to a stock FA20. Adding power to it adds weight. Whether its a turbo system or a supercharger system. These FI systems can weigh 20kg or more.

Q. I've seen some weights of conversions already, and they add more weight than that.
A. I agree. Above we're just comparing motor weights. Often these conversions have added stronger gearboxes, more cooling, bigger wheels are tyres etc. Exactly as you would need to do to a boosted FA20 (to keep it realiable) Of course you could run a similar weight box, and minimal cooling to keep the weight down if you were really worried about it.

Q. Even if it isn't as light as it should be, its was made a boxer because it has better CoG.
A. Let's not fall for the marketting too hard here. Its a boxer because its a Subaru. Toyota just lent them a diff and some direct injection, then slapped their badge on it. If the car was a Toyota, they would not wasted their time developing a new motor layout when they had the 3SGE beams, the 2ZZ, and if they wanted something larger, one of the GR units. All of these motors are superior to the FA20.
If you truly believe the car received a boxer for CoG reasons, they ask yourself why it was mounted 200mm further forward than it needed to be. Surely if they were so concerned about CoG and balance, that's something they would've addressed? (By the way, the FA20 was installed where it was, almost certainly because it was easier to assemble and service. But it was done at the expence of ideal placement.

Q. Why a Toyota V6/V8? Why not an LS?
A. Toyota make exceptional motors. They have done since the 70's. The LS motors are certainly a great option for this platform and I don't discount them at all. Some people prefer DOHC V8's, others would rather a pushrod V8 as it saves quite a bit of weight and space. (As a point, an LS motor is similar weight to a UZ motor, but has significantly more displacement) Another major consideration is availability. LS motors came in very few cars sold in my part of the world, yet we get flooded with JDM imports, and so have an abundance of their parts. A UZ motor is far cheaper than an LS here as a result. The opposite maybe the case in your area. If both motors we the same price, same availabilty yada yada, would I choose an LS over a UZ, possibly. It's not all power and torque numbers, other things are important to some. How it delivers that power, how it sounds. Again in that respect, some prefer DOHC, some prefer push rod. Some might just want to put a Toyota engine in, so the car feels more like a Toyota. This isn't really my motivation, but know others think this way.

Q. What about wiring and tuning?
A. Will answer later

Q. Whats a vauge costing on such a motor swap
A. Will answer later

I just wanted to correct a term reference here because something is being lost in the translation...

You refer to CoG and then immediately talk about front to rear bias...

CoG doesn't reference front to rear weight distribution, it's top to bottom weight distribution.

The more top heavy the motor the more roll you get when cornering.

The fa20 has a lower center of gravity, top to bottom weight distribution, than even the fj25, which has a really low CoG...

As to whether or not it's still feasible to swap for performance gains, I'm all ears and may be open to doing so myself...

I'd love to do a twin turbo v6 toyo engine in this bad boy...

Jaden

It is not simple as plug n play. Nobody in N.America that i know makes turbo manifolds for the 1uz. So everything would have to be custom.

I appreciate the OP putting so much time and energy into sharing information on Toyota motors.

I'm not sure I agree with all his opinions on which motors are best, but he does share some fantastic data and information.

The only issue I have that I would call out as simply incorrect is referring to the COG. As @Jaden points out a couple posts above this, the COG benefit from the boxer motor is not one of front vs. rear weight bias. Rather, it's a measure of weight from bottom to top of the car. The FRS/BRZ's center of gravity is 18.1 inches. That's lower than the Porsche Cayman and lower than a Ferrari 458 Italia for example. This was the focus in engineering this chassis and this is what the FA20 motor was designed for.

Any other engine swap will increase the center of gravity height and that will have an adverse effect on handling.

I'm not saying the extra power doesn't make up for it in lap time or that other motors are easier to maintain or can handle more power, etc.. Those are all very valid points. But at this point in time, I think adding power to the FA20 is the best bang for your buck and you keep that COG as low as possible. We all know Moar Lower is Better!

Quote:

Originally Posted by eikond (Post 1873052)

Yeah the main short comings in the frs are a lack of power and loose tires stock...

Throw some TRD springs on it, or coil overs (maybe) if you're going to track A LOT and a supercharger to get to ~300whp and the frs hits supercar territory as far as performance.

Unless you're wanting to turn it into a drag machine, I think around 300 whp is the magic number for the toyobaru twins and people are getting that with CARB approved stuffeses on pump gas running less than 10 psi boost.....

so let's go have some fun in our toyobaru twins... whether it be autocross or :burnrubber: cruising down the highway... or mountain terrain or burning up the quarter at 11 seconds...

Jaden

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTV86 (Post 1873111)

I don't think I incorrectly referred to COG. I agree that it means centre of gravity. The reason while discussing this I started to talk about balance was to prove that COG was NOT the reason the boxer was chosen. Because if it were, they would also have been as equally focussed on maintaining front/rear bias, which is equally important for handling, and as I explained, could have been better allowed for in the fact that the motor could've been mounted 200mm or more further back then it was. But it wasn't because it was easier to put it where they did.

The boxer engine does have a low COG. But that wasn't why it was chosen. It was chosen because the car is a Subaru, and the motor was their next gen motor. The COG was just something they could then market after the fact. As being "we chose a boxer to keep the COG low, which is good for handling" (Again, not denying that low COG is good for handling, or that a boxer has low COG) I'm saying that if they truely cared so much about handling, enough to govern the congifuration of motor used which would give the lowest COG, then in my eyes, they would have also have been equally focused on front to rear balance, which could have been much better acheived by mounting the motor further back than where it was.

I see a lot of people arguing this point about centre of gravity, good handling etc. But it seems more about self-justification. Put it this way, if you really cared about the centre of gravity, and view it as the golden goose of handling, then why are these same people usually running stock - 20mm lowered cars? Lower car means lower centre of gravity. Because they've also accepted the forum hype of "lowering the car more than 20mm is bad" which is in part true. Its the suspension geometry of the car that works in that ideal range, not the car. You can lower the 60mm, and correct the suspension geomtery back to the ideal range; yet now you're 40mm lower, with the same geometry. Ditto with smaller wheels. 16" and 15" both fit over stock brakes, and even the AP Sprint kit. Smaller wheel, Smaller overall wheel/tyre diameter; equals even lower COG. You don't need to run big wheels and big tyres.

But a COG purist that points out the boxer as being superior , is almost certainly not doing either of these points I mention above. Also, once you've got the car that low, the aero effects, particularly from a difuser, are hugely increased; which have even further positive effects on handling.

So yes, I do understand COG quite well. But I also think it's a bit rich pointing out its value if you're also running stock to near stock ride height, on 18" wheels.

Not a direct dig at you @eikond btw.

You don't seem to give much credit to the Subaru/Toyota engineers. You seem to insinuate that they were lazy and stopped short of perfection without good reason.

Here's the reason:
"Tetsuya defends the FR-S's front weight bias as suiting the power level of the car better than a 50/50 weight distribution. If the car had 300 horsepower instead of 200, he says, then he'd prefer a less nose-heavy weight bias to facilitate traction.

Looking under the hood, the engine sits low but there's a curiously large gap between the rear plane of the engine and the firewall. This car doesn't need to package axles to the front wheels (there will never be an all-wheel-drive variant), so why not shove the engine to within a millimeter of the bulkhead, thereby reducing the car's polar moment of inertia to an absolute minimum?

Tada-san's explanation boils down to this: They had to make room for the steering rack. A front-mount rack location à la Mazda MX-5 was not an option since the boxer engine layout is inherently wide and blocks the way for a steering shaft. To accommodate a front-mounted rack the engine would have to be located where the pedal box currently resides. As such they instead employed a rear-mount rack location that places the rack between the engine and firewall, in the process pushing the engine forward somewhat."

As for your comments about "86" owners compromising the low COG with bigger and heavier wheels and lowering the car only a little when more is possible.. You are right about this. But you have to account for the goals and budget of each owner. Most people who spend only a couple hundred $ on lowering springs choose 20mm drop as a safe point. Sure they could go lower, but vendors and experts have warned that more than 20mm drop will cause the stock struts to fail early. Plus, lower than 20mm drop makes speed-bumps and driveways risky for daily driving.

Wheels are typically done for cosmetics.. myself include. I think anyone who is serious about tracking their car will opt for smaller, lighter wheels.

Back to your original point.. You say that swapping other engines (toyota specifically) would be a better option for "86" owners. I disagree.

Had the engineers placed more value on weight bias than low COG, they would have picked an inline 4 cyl similar to your beloved 3SGE BEAMS. But they didn't.. they went another route. It's a done deal..

So now owners have to decide what to do to make more power. You claim that an engine swap is a better way to make that power. If money were not part of the equation, then sure.. I'll agree with you.

But why swap a motor when you can turbo the FA20 and make 300 to 400hp reliably?

I guess the part of this discussion that interesting to me is this question:
What's more important to a car.. Front/Rear weight bias or COG height?
Will a car perform better with 50/50 split and 20" COG or with a 53/47 split and 18" COG?

I have been toying with ideas for making more power in my BRZ.

I still have not made my decision, but the idea of keeping the car N/A and just tuning it sounds better and better the more I drive my car.

Increasing the weight and adding to the CoG height by turbo or supercharger is becoming less appealing to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tahdizzle (Post 1873214)

I like the design from Accelerated Performance where the turbo is mounted low and rearward from the motor. *As long as you have reliable oiling* Mounting it in that location would still add weight to the car, but that weight would be more towards the rear and as low as possible. You're still adding weight forward and high with I/C piping and a few other things.. but this is still better than a top-mount turbo kit.

Yeah, that turbo design and the STS rear mount turbo interested me for a while.

Still leaning towards reducing spung and unsprung weight changing the final drive and getting tuned. Probably on pump gas; not corn because of availabilty.

Hopefully it will be a mid 13 second car N/A, and thats more than enough.

Perhaps this is a foolish question but what about throwing in the engine from a Cayman S? it will maintain the low cg of the boxer engine and it only weighs about 180kg including flywheel... I know that Porsche engines are ridiculously expensive, but hey all engine swaps are.

Dudes

Really an engine swap this far in the twins life?!
As others have post you can get 300 whp with FI and pump gas, also could be done in a week of lazy work (compared with swapping) or with more time/$ could get a built engine with an spicy 690whp from 7k to 9k RPMs, ...at that whp traction is scarce... :(

About the CoG... prefer 18" and 53:47 over 20" and 50:50, but I think it would make a marginal difference that won't be notice from 99.9% of us. We'll I could note difference with the AC on/off (up hill 1st gear 1/4 throttle then tern off the AC), also when the car is full or empty (right after filling the tank)... That's for DD.

OP always good to see new ideas! IS 350 or F swap, that would be different/interesting.
Any suggestion for a easy trany swap? That sounds bad Lol
For the FA20? Maybe the F trany? Lol

Don't forget the v160/161
The z33 will not fit without EXTENSIVE tunnel cutting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTV86 (Post 1872840)

Not sure what 1uz's you have experience with (if any)

1uz doesn't need money spent on it to take a turbo. Just bolt a turbo to it. It's a solid motor.

Spending a buttload of money to swap an engine and put a low boost turbo on it is simply foolish.

I'm talking $/HP here, the 1UZ is pretty poor choice.