ok so ive been playing with this idea 2.8L v8 swap?

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Hell, the 327 was known for high revving, a destroked 327 should be super high revving.

Yeah I guess I could look at that...that might work out after all.

We'll see what I end up doing in what order...I'd like to get a stripped twin and a crashed '14 camaro ss and do a complete drivetrain swap and add an e'force as well, so we'll see...

But if I build my custom car first, then I could just do the swap on my current FRS....hmmm

planning to do, planning to do....

Jaden

After posting the other day, I went for a walk down memory lane and did a little digging.
Apparently the rod/crank geometry of the 302 is not special enough to account for how well it revved. It did contribute to the engine surviving sustained high rpm use (as in Trans Am series racing) but it isn't why it could rev high to begin with. Apparently, the reason for that is that Chevrolet made sure cams with ridiculously aggressive profiles were available for it. These cams were barely drivable on the street but they could feed a 302 CI engine at stupid high rpms. It also didn't hurt that the heads and manifold were sized for a larger motor so they moved plenty of fuel/air mix. No high rpm starvation on those bad boys.

[Boofneenee]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

the idea was thrown up in the air, the engine comes ready-to-race, they go for around 12k-18k(edit:used) depending on what you want in the engine, they are well built and ive never heard of problems resulting in build quality from them, i love to rev, i love hp, but i also love na, and this is a nice little package, with the right final drive and with this car being light enough, also with the manual and automatic transmissions holding up to over 300+ tq from accelerated prefomance's turbo build, small modification to the transmission bell housing and it should bolt up just fine, i do want to retain the butter smooth shifting in the manual, if the build can be done without buying a new transmission, that would be great... all my option are open, we will come to one solution if we decide to go down this route, i will let further development and R&D progress before i attempt the build

still deciding if i want to go auto or manual with this engine aswell

i think you can get a brand new H1 for 30k or something like that, but you pretty much just check valve tolerances and change the oil and thats all you do to maintain them...

EDIT: they also have a 4.0L v10 with 600hp under development, that will weigh as much as a standard 2.4L car engine, forgot the source, i found some info on it when i was researching the engine....

manual transmission is a no brainer. I would be bored to tears with an auto. who gives a shit if its a few fractions of a second faster. Drive the car dont let it drive you

[ZDan]

Regarding shorter-stroke small-blocks, destroking doesn't really work that effectively for increasing revs, GM only did it to meet the 5.0 liter limit for Trans Am racing. Rev potential varies roughly with the square root of stroke, so destroking by 10% doesn't get you 10% more rev potential, it only gets you about 5% more. But you've lost 10% displacement, so you've thrown away power potential. Always hear people wax romantic on "high revving" 302 and 327 SBCs, but a stroker 383 will have almost the same rev potential and have way more power potential, and generally will be more fun to drive. Also consider that you can tune a larger-displacement engine for high revs while still maintaining useful low-end torque. Win/win.

[SomeoneWhoIsntMe]

^Exactly. If you think a destroker motor is a good idea for a street car you're

a) missing the point because you don't need to sneak into a racing class with a set displacement

and

b) forgetting that while race teams can get away with short stroke motors because they can rev their motors to the moon to make up for the loss in displacement, you (probably) don't have a dry sump setup as well as multiple engines handbuilt by cosworth with the oil clearances and valvetrain for a 15,000rpm redline.

The other thing that gets me is people obsessing over Bore:Stroke and Rod:Stroke ratios. All that stuff is pretty theoretical and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in the real world. People act like you can drive a car around a track and get out and be like "WOW YOU SURE CAN TELL THE OVERSQUARE, LONG ROD NATURE OF THIS ENGINE REDUCED PEAK PISTON VELOCITY AND SIDE LOADING ON THE RODS, SHE SURE LOVES REVVING"...

None of that shit makes the engine "love revving", the engine will rev as freely as the reciprocating mass and balance allow it to, the rod ratio and all that just reduces the loading on some of the components slightly and means that for internal parts of a given size, the one with better ratios will be incrementally stronger.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by SomeoneWhoIsntMe

^Exactly. If you think a destroker motor is a good idea for a street car you're

a) missing the point because you don't need to sneak into a racing class with a set displacement

and

b) forgetting that while race teams can get away with short stroke motors because they can rev their motors to the moon to make up for the loss in displacement, you (probably) don't have a dry sump setup as well as multiple engines handbuilt by cosworth with the oil clearances and valvetrain for a 15,000rpm redline.

The other thing that gets me is people obsessing over Bore:Stroke and Rod:Stroke ratios. All that stuff is pretty theoretical and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in the real world. People act like you can drive a car around a track and get out and be like "WOW YOU SURE CAN TELL THE OVERSQUARE, LONG ROD NATURE OF THIS ENGINE REDUCED PEAK PISTON VELOCITY AND SIDE LOADING ON THE RODS, SHE SURE LOVES REVVING"...

None of that shit makes the engine "love revving", the engine will rev as freely as the reciprocating mass and balance allow it to, the rod ratio and all that just reduces the loading on some of the components slightly and means that for internal parts of a given size, the one with better ratios will be incrementally stronger.

Exactly - for a street engine none of that matters. For a race motor, sustained high RPM operation and optimized combustion (think NASCAR) it does matter but that's way out of the envelope of street driving. It's fun to talk about though! Science!

[Levi]

Ok, so your idea works, it has been done and we'll know more info about it soon @ Tokyo. Turns out to be a great idea finally.



NA 2.4l V8, +360 PS, +10,000 RPM, and this is what it sounds like:


[ame]http://youtu.be/XCwMX-cFKdk[/ame]

[tahdizzle]

Thats a synergy 2.4l v8.

two kawasaki engines. Synergy also makes a sequential 6 spd gear box for Front engined rear wheel drive applications.

Probably cheaper and mo betta.

[Manji]

Before your dingus gets too frumpy at that conversion, its a $70,000 NZD conversion.

That's what synergy quoted me.

Not a typo. Seventy thousand dollars.

[2much]

Originally Posted by Manji

Before your dingus gets too frumpy at that conversion, its a $70,000 NZD conversion.

That's what synergy quoted me.

Not a typo. Seventy thousand dollars.

do you see that intake manifold

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Manji

Before your dingus gets too frumpy at that conversion, its a $70,000 NZD conversion.

That's what synergy quoted me.

Not a typo. Seventy thousand dollars.

US dollars or NZ dollars? :p

[Pkush]

$55k USD

[tahdizzle]

yeah. :P Expensive swap, but not as expensive as the 2.8l lol

[Manji]

Originally Posted by 2much

do you see that intake manifold

Nothing too difficult about ITB's...

[2much]

Originally Posted by Manji

Nothing too difficult about ITB's...

yes but the quality and housing remind me of a formula 1 engine. I agree that the whole swap cost is far beyond prohibitive, but it's sexy as fuck.

are there any fa20 itb offerings?