View Single Post
Old 10-17-2014, 01:19 AM   #90
civdaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Drives: Slow
Location: U.S.
Posts: 261
Thanks: 48
Thanked 134 Times in 68 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poodles View Post
I've personally seen over 1500HP on a 2JZ... Leaving out the drivetrain loss, that's 250HP/cylinder and as the car was a 3.4 stroker, ~441HP/liter

You implied the 2JZ was in essence "crap" when it's been beating down supercars for years..



A lot of useless nonsense as I've never said I didn't like the LS motors (I do, I just wish GM knew how to put them into a car that was affordable that wasn't shit). V8's, just like V6's are done for packaging reasons and from a design standpoint are inherently weaker than the 3 perfectly balanced motors: I6, V12, and Boxer. This isn't a debate about what I like, it's clear and simple engine design fact.



Yep, if you want to run an engine that long, the car should be built around it. Personally I wouldn't do either engine swap because 1) the FA20 is still young and being worked out leading me to believe by the time I want to heavily increase the power, it will all be worked out 2) if I want a 2JZ, I'll get a Supra 3) if I want an LS motor, I'll buy a vette



The 2JZ is narrow allowing it to be mounted farther back and still clear the steering linkage, unlike the FA20, LS, etc... Yes it's heavy, but the iron block is why it's so stout so it's a trade off. Depends on your goals.



So we agree I'm still waiting for someone to toss a Porsche motor in one of these cars to piss off the Porsche purists...



It's mounted as far back as it can be without fouling on the steering linkage.
Flat 4 boxers aren't perfectly balanced. I think the flat sixes are. But just because it's a boxer, it doesnt mean its balanced in the scientific ways I don't understand, that inline sixes and v12's are.
civdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote