Engine Swap ...

[baldolera]

1LR-GUE hahaha!!!

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

Not a bad power to weight ratio right there and beautiful torque numbers, that'd be a ball in this car.

Agreed.

I would even take 250-ish hp/250-ish ft.tq (which was about what the Jaguar D type produced). In a light car, you'd be good to go.

[82mm 4g63]

300-400 hp? Maybe for starters. This damn thing better get some fast aftermarket support or a swap will be in order. I want it to take over where my RX-7 is now. The RX is moving onto bigger and better things (BatMoWheel). And once she does there will be a vacancy, for upper 500rwhp, in my garage. lol

:happy0180:

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

300-400 hp? Maybe for starters. This damn thing better get some fast aftermarket support or a swap will be in order. I want it to take over where my RX-7 is now. The RX is moving onto bigger and better things (BatMoWheel). And once she does there will be a vacancy, for upper 500rwhp, in my garage. lol

:happy0180:

No offense, but are you sure that the FT-86 is the right car for you? Why go for a car that is all about lightness and handling when what you want is HP? One would think that you should go with a car that is faster to begin with and modify from there.

Cheers. :happy0180:

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

You are welcome! Yeah sure, I'd love 350hp in this car but I don't see that being practical. I want this car for everyday use and I drive pretty far to work and graduate classes and need something that wont rape me at the pump. I mean, at those numbers it's goit a better power/weight and torque/weight ratios than G37, IS350, 335i, the list goes on and on. Not to mention it's going to handle better as well. With that power, I think the toughest part will be keeping the car gripped and down on the road. My concern is winter time here in CT lol

I love the way you think!!!. It's all about the power to weight ratio. I like a ratio close to 10.1. If a sports car weighs 2800 lbs then 265-280 hp is great along with 240+ torque to go with it.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

300-400 hp? Maybe for starters. This damn thing better get some fast aftermarket support or a swap will be in order. I want it to take over where my RX-7 is now. The RX is moving onto bigger and better things (BatMoWheel). And once she does there will be a vacancy, for upper 500rwhp, in my garage. lol

:happy0180:

500rwhp+ in a 2700 lb car is freaking insane!!! Sounds like you want to go to 60 in 3 seconds and to 100 in 6.5 seconds.

[chaoskaze]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

500rwhp+ in a 2700 lb car is freaking insane!!! Sounds like you want to go to 60 in 3 seconds and to 100 in 6.5 seconds.

It's all about grip after u pass the horse power/weight ratio. =p

[suprachica79]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I love the way you think!!!. It's all about the power to weight ratio. I like a ratio close to 10.1. If a sports car weighs 2800 lbs then 265-280 hp is great along with 240+ torque to go with it.

Yea I always look at the ratios because I think they tell the real story. I would much rather have a 2500lb car with 250 hp than a 3500lb car with 350hp for the simple fact that it'll probably get 25-30mpg as opposed to 15-20mpg. Its just more practical for a DD. And less weight normally spells better handling as your not throwing an extra halfton into a tight corner.I think it makes for a much better driving experi:happy0180:ence.

Who said girls don't know nothing bout no stinking cars?!

[Levi]

Originally Posted by Marrk

No offense, but are you sure that the FT-86 is the right car for you? Why go for a car that is all about lightness and handling when what you want is HP? One would think that you should go with a car that is faster to begin with and modify from there.

Cheers. :happy0180:

If a car can be lighter, why should it have less HP? Do you get what I mean? It is way easier to add power on a light car than to loose weight on a powerful car.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by suprachica79

Yea I always look at the ratios because I think they tell the real story. I would much rather have a 2500lb car with 250 hp than a 3500lb car with 350hp for the simple fact that it'll probably get 25-30mpg as opposed to 15-20mpg. Its just more practical for a DD. And less weight normally spells better handling as your not throwing an extra halfton into a tight corner.I think it makes for a much better driving experi:happy0180:ence.

Who said girls don't know nothing bout no stinking cars?!

Damn!!! For a girl I love the way you think.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Levi

If a car can be lighter, why should it have less HP? Do you get what I mean? It is way easier to add power on a light car than to loose weight on a powerful car.

Because power does not come with zero added weight.

Because there is such a thng as too much power (this is car guy heresy, I know ).

Because a really cool $22,000 car might be a car with the right balance of usable power and low weight.

Because if you really want 500+ hp, there are, like I said, better cars to start with.

Because if you really want 500+ hp, something tells me that you want to go in a straight line and run the quarter mile. So, you don't need a light car that handles well; you need a car that will keep the power wheels on the ground.

Because . . . I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here.







250-265 hp and a torque number that begins with a "2" would be awesome on a less-than-2500-lb. car.

[Levi]

I do not think 300 PS from turbo worsen the cars balance and handling, and with 255 tires it should not have any problems putting its power to the ground, all this for 1000 kg stripped down car. Take an M3, you won't have it lighter than 1400 kg, but more power won't be controlable, just look at the G-Power M3's.

[serialk11r]

Again I'm really sorry but some of you guys have zero understanding about what the maximum torque figure actually means.

A high revving engine will be geared to take advantage of the maximum horsepower. The "lack of torque down low" some people complain about tends to be BS, if you just look at the max. torque curve. If you want max. power at a lower rpm, that's actually worse, because it means the engine efficiency drops faster at high rpm. Max torque means very little when the more sophisticated variable valve timing systems come into play, because the engine can more or less be optimized for multiple rpm ranges. The only thing you can read from the max. torque figure is if the engine is performance oriented, then it gives some kind of indication of how efficiently they were able to use the displacement. Even then, the difference is generally pretty small.

The moral of the story is, max horsepower means a lot more than max torque, because max horsepower (with weight considered) is what gives the manufacturer the ability to make a faster accelerating car.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Again I'm really sorry but some of you guys have zero understanding about what the maximum torque figure actually means.

A high revving engine will be geared to take advantage of the maximum horsepower. The "lack of torque down low" some people complain about tends to be BS, if you just look at the max. torque curve. If you want max. power at a lower rpm, that's actually worse, because it means the engine efficiency drops faster at high rpm. Max torque means very little when the more sophisticated variable valve timing systems come into play, because the engine can more or less be optimized for multiple rpm ranges. The only thing you can read from the max. torque figure is if the engine is performance oriented, then it gives some kind of indication of how efficiently they were able to use the displacement. Even then, the difference is generally pretty small.

The moral of the story is, max horsepower means a lot more than max torque, because max horsepower (with weight considered) is what gives the manufacturer the ability to make a faster accelerating car.

Duly noted.