Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rabrooks

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. rabrooks

    3.6l LFX camaro v6 swap

    After alot of contemplation over this 280 build and which engine to use, I think I've decided to go with a Nissan SR20DET engine. I really want to concentrate on weight savings. After all teh power adders on the SR20, its weight will be a little above the VQ37 engine but it will have more power. The trans for the SR20 is considerably lighter and smaller than the VQ trans. I was hoping to stay NA for a track car but I'll go turbo and just learn how to drive it and keep it in the high rev zone. Any insight is appreciated.
  2. rabrooks

    3.6l LFX camaro v6 swap

    My conscience wont let me buy or use a Coyote engine. May sound childish but I have my reasons. terrible shame my conscience controls that, because it is by far the best sounding engine on the market today. The only engine sound that rivals it for sound is the ferrari.
  3. rabrooks

    3.6l LFX camaro v6 swap

    After reviewing everything, I'm leaning back to the LS package. Plus there seems to be so much more info on the LS conversion. Isnt the LS2/LS3 packages in the 380 lb range. On the LFX engine, I entertained fabbing an oil pan but as you mentioned earlier, that pan is structural and I wouldn't want to create a block stress problem. I did consider building a structural pan along with a dry sump system. The pans that ARE makes for their dry sump systems are very robust. But that's another 5k to the build. If I had an unlimited racing budget, it would be a no brainer. But I don't. My goal was to achieve good power as light as possible. Overall weight is as important to the project as the power, So that does make me think about the 370Z, VQ37VHR engine. I believe that engine weighs 320 lbs. Not sure how the trans for that engine compares to the weight of theT56. My guess is it is lighter. This leaves me in a quandary as to take the project the easy way and go with the LS, or stay the course with a light weight goal.
  4. rabrooks

    3.6l LFX camaro v6 swap

    I'm not so sure power to the ground will be very hard. to accomplish. It seems the lighter weight will allow the car to rocket off the corners with great torque and acceleration with proper throttle modulation. agree the engines were talking about can overpower these little cars, but I think the traction will be really good compared to the heavier more powerful cars. we're talking 1/3 less weight or potentially even more. So based on the non fit situation of the 3.6 l engine, this points me in maybe three different directions. one light weight mid power direction would be the VQ37VHR from a 370Z. I dont know much about them. A second choice is the LS swap and I'm quite familiar with that engine as I replaced a few LS7's in my vette. Third would be the Coyote. No doubt it is the best sounding engine on the road today. The LS engines sound good but only at high rpms. at idle without a hot cam they sound like a tractor
  5. I started a thread in the engine swap section so we can continue to discuss this 3.6l swap. I'd love to hear your thoughts and review your information
  6. rabrooks

    3.6l LFX camaro v6 swap

    In talking about my build in the suspension forum I mentioned I wanted to install this engine in the 280. A member said it may not be the best idea. So I'm starting a thread here to see if any others might have some input. The engine is 345 lbs as installed. It has 323 hp. It's a dohc so it might be a little top heavy so what do you guys think about this engine
  7. Since there is a secondary fuel pump. Will I need to create a fuel return line to the tank or does the secondary pump recirculate
  8. Yes, I am referring to the same engine. The one I'm after is the LFX or the LGX. I'd like to run a t56 behind it but I think it will actually be a AY6
  9. So someone help me with a question I asked earlier in the thread. Concerning Roll Centers. It seems under many circumstances the rc is low in the front and high in the rear. If I undestand Mt geometry correctly, as the roll center is low and dynamic under compression aren't I adding extra weight to the front outside tire as I turn. And does lowering the rear to match the front balance the potential traction. Or have I got that backwards. I know the rear will squay on exit which may be better for roll center to work in my favor. So is that why most cars seem to have a high rear rc
  10. For the sake of further discussion, I've decided to install the GM 3.6l doc v6 with 60 degree v and 340 lbs and 323 hp in stock form. And no need for heavy exhaust manifolds. This engine is in the camaro and caddy. A twin turbo version is in the caddy making 465 hp. I have looked at the chassis works front beam and suspension. I believe I can modify the beam set up to build in better adjustment and add to the rear of it to provide engine mounts for the short v6 and keep it as far back as is reasonable. But as I mentioned earlier, Apex engineered has a new deal about to be introduced. I won't do anything g til I see that setup in completion
  11. Thank you for bringing positivity to the discussion and waking up the thread. I realize how easy it is to hear a comment about what someone might do, and speculate that it will never happen. But I can assure the naysayers, if I can create a better setup without a total butcher job, I will get it done. My track experience has taught me alot. But I know there's alot to learn, hence the reason for the tbread. Feel free to teach me
  12. I agree that the Z suspension is a good setup. But I have never thought that a strut setup is a setup that could be adjusted to most situations. IT has some limitations. All suspensions have limitations. I believe the double a arm suspension offers more options with less trade off. So while i have the car completely stripped, I'd like to make any improvements that I can. At least until I learn more, it seems that the lower control arms on the car are good and I am looking at what it would take to add an upper arm and what its advantages may be. All suggestions are welcome. Just don't beat me up too bad. Roger
  13. My posts seem long to me so I do my best to condense in an effort to shorten the post and provide the viewer the info needed. In doing so it may seem that I am just rambling, especially when talking about suspension because it is all a large component and it is all dynamic. It is true, I don't fully understand all that I should but that's why I'm here. Educate me You may not have seen the apex component I'm referring to. Its not yet introduced and isn't on they're website. Its currently in testing. Thanks Roger
  14. OP is back. Thanks for all the input. I wasn't expecting so much discussion and diversity. So let me try to explain my purpose for the thread and my idea of a suspension swap. The strut arrangement is a good setup when all the geometry is right. My problem is I don't like the fact that the spindle is fixed to the strut. So the suspension will always be at an angle based on the rotating position of the lower control arm. If the suspension is a double a arm setup I feel like I will have more adjustability. I like the idea of setting camber and having built in geometry that the camber remains under compression. So the shorter upper a arm, attached to the chassis at a more outboard point allows negative camber to remain and can be better dialed in. Also, I feel like the suspension will move around less as a double a arm setup. My previous track car was an 09 c6 z06. It was an awesome track car. I found the car to be unparalleled in high speed corners and of course the straights because of the power. Slow corners, I was unable to hang with the good Porsche's. Since I started this thread, I found something in the aftermarket that is for the Z and it is an awesome setup. I can't share anymore than that because I promised I wouldn't share the information. Keep your eye on Apex Engineering. After looking more closely at the rear suspension and fender well of the car, it appears I will have to cut out the inner fender well and move it inward in order to create an attachment point for the upper a arm. The lower one is fine as is. Please share your thoughts on this. I want to do this because of my comfort in double a arms and because of the statement below about roll centers. On a different tangent. I have some roll center questions. Determining roll center is easy enough for front and rear. It seems most cars are set up with a lower roll center in the front and the rear is typically higher. So that puts a roll center axis thru the car front to back not being level. So is that the best set up or is the best setup for cornering and tire wear to have the roll center level. Keep in mind, I realize roll center is dynamic. But is seems if the roll centers were more level it would be a better setup. Having said that, maybe a good cage and stiff chassis with a roll center high in the rear would put alot of pressure on the front outside tire. maybe too much causing a huge push Thanks Roger