There is tons of info on engine swaps and costs on miata.net. It is not cheap if you do it right. After all one is basically replacing the entire powertrain.
But, for all the money I have spent so far on my turbo mods, and an engine build to replace a blown motor... |
and it took how many liters to make this pittance of power? I just don't think it is comparable to a built turbo 2.0L money wise
|
|
to each their own.
wayy too much work for a swap. a turbo 2.0L will make more power and be much easier to accomplish |
Originally Posted by robino
(Post 364688)
to each their own.
wayy too much work for a swap. a turbo 2.0L will make more power and be much easier to accomplish |
I can attest that a 2.0 liter will make more power (at least more than FM's Elvis). I suspect that, all else being equal, the LSx Miata will destroy me in an autocross or on a tight track. There are a couple of sub-500 hp LS3s being installed at FM currently currently :eek3:
Doesn't matter to me though. A high-boost, high-revving 4-banger suits the Miata's personality, which is why I took this route. |
ls1 miata is badass...I dont give a fuck what kind of power you can make with a built stock engine, the v8 will always be more badass. something about power/torque being EVERYWHERE and the car being so damn smooth that makes me drool when I see one.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by robino
(Post 364688)
to each their own.
wayy too much work for a swap. a turbo 2.0L will make more power and be much easier to accomplish Attachment 208409 416ci stroker LS3, intake manifold, headers, aggressive cam, intake, tune. 91 octane, through cats. |
Theres no replacement..
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 364748)
Find me a two-liter turbo motor making 400ft.lbs at 2500rpm and 515whp and I will make you a rich man.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...on/evilgto.jpg 416ci stroker LS3, intake manifold, headers, aggressive cam, intake, tune. 91 octane, through cats. |
[QUOTE=robino;364663]the torque is nice
the hp figures are peaky though, you only have 1000 rpms of 350 hp, rest of the time you're way below that. /QUOTE] Big fat area under the torque curve for the win. Small tiny area under the 280 HP line in an RSX for the lose. |
Originally Posted by mazda/nissan
(Post 364784)
I am not hating on V8's, just GM. I love the VH45, and the M62B44, but the LTX/LSX motors are just behind the curve.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 364748)
Find me a two-liter turbo motor making 400ft.lbs at 2500rpm and 515whp and I will make you a rich man.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...on/evilgto.jpg 416ci stroker LS3, intake manifold, headers, aggressive cam, intake, tune. 91 octane, through cats. |
Originally Posted by deliverator
(Post 364489)
In a car that weighs 30% less than a corvette, I bet it'd get better than 26mpg highway.
Might not be as good as the 1.8's mileage, but I bet it'll be within 20%. Buddy of mine had a 500rwhp SC SS and got right at 22 on the highway, and around 17-18 just playing around. LS1 motors are ridiculous. Simple, yes. But that doesn't make them any less badass. |
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy
(Post 364803)
The LS engines are behind the curve??? How do you figure this?
|
Originally Posted by robino
(Post 364663)
the torque is nice
the hp figures are peaky though, you only have 1000 rpms of 350 hp, rest of the time you're way below that. The turbo car makes 80% of peak power from 5200-7000 RPM. That's a ratio of 1.35:1. The V8 makes 80% of peak power from 3900 to 6050 RPM. That's a ratio of 1.55:1. The ratio of the RPMs is what matters, not the difference. Not to mention, the V8 makes more power than the turbo's peak from 3750 RPM to redline. |
Originally Posted by mazda/nissan
(Post 364902)
they could be making more power than they are, but GM doesn't think like most people. The design of the LS1 isn't horrible, but it doesn't match horsepower/liter with motors such as the BMW M60B40. The one advantage it has is its compact size due to it not having overhead cams.
Yes, if money was no object, I'd prefer the AMG engine. The point is that Chevy did very well that motor and in many ways it is world class. |
Originally Posted by DeerHunter
(Post 364916)
There was an article in one of the car mags (Road & Track?) a while back where they compared engine technology, output and cost. They looked at the 7.0l Z06 motor (505 hp) vs. the 6.3l AMG V8 (514 hp or so, depending upon application). The AMG motor has all the modern bells and whistles (DOHC, VVT, etc, etc), weighs more, takes up significantly more space and barely makes more power per liter than the Corvette mill. The kicker is that you can walk into any Chevy dealer and buy an LS7 engine for about 18 grand, while AMG will charge you north of 60 :eek5:
Yes, if money was no object, I'd prefer the AMG engine. The point is that Chevy did very well that motor and in many ways it is world class. Z06 LS7: 505HP/7L=72.14HP/L E39 M5 S62: 395HP/4.9L=79HP/L If GM modernized their motors they could see substantial gains with that much displacement. I wouldn't bUy an AMG engine, not much of a Mercedes guy myself. It is surprising to see how much better the LS7 does HP/L than the LS1 though. |
I can't believe I'm even getting caught up in this discussion. I didn't want to do a V8 in my Miata (doesn't suit the character of the car, IMO), I don't particularly like Chevy (I'm an import guy) and the previous generation of M5 has always been one of my dream cars.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better. Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine: * All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps * Dry sump oiling * Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm) This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard. |
Originally Posted by DeerHunter
(Post 364954)
I can't believe I'm even getting caught up in this discussion. I didn't want to do a V8 in my Miata (doesn't suit the character of the car, IMO), I don't particularly like Chevy (I'm an import guy) and the previous generation of M5 has always been one of my dream cars.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better. Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine: * All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps * Dry sump oiling * Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm) This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands