Z2000 Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 You may be right about it being a little harder to hit 2,000 lbs. I dont remember exaxtly, but I read somewhere that the f20c full engine, tranny, ecu, wiring harness, ect. weighs 360 lbs all together. I dont know if thats correct or not but its what i heard. I also remember reading that the l24 weighs something like 385 lbs JUST block and head alone. Correct me if these numbers are wrong. That being the case I think the car would be somewhere in the 2,150-2,200 lb range just from the engine change. Other weight saved: subie lsd r160 -15 lbs??, aftermarked cv axle kit -10 lbs EACH SIDE, panasport wheels -?? not sure but they're friggin light, carbon fiber hood -20 lbs?? aluminum drive shaft -a couple lbs, Toda flywheel -15lbs, and getting rid of those chrome bumpers. Im sure i will come up with something else that needs change but i cant remember off the top of my head. and like I said, correct me if any of these numbers are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritech-z Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 I wasnt trying to direct that back at you in a bad way bro. I was just pointing out a couple of technical specs that come to mind so often since I'm a cylinder head porter. Plus my outlook was from the N/A point of view and thats where the flow numbers are so curcial. Ah, I didn't realize you were planning on keeping it NA. I always disregarded the NA option under 3 liters as being impractical on the street. Back in my Honda days, the LS/Vtec was just becoming everybody's dream powerplant, and I always wanted a turbo LS. Actually had a B18B1 on an engine stand next to my bed and a Garrett T04 on my pool table ready to go first into my Hatch, then into the CRX I'd traded it for...then the CRX threw a rod on it's built D16 and left me stranded on the bridge between Tampa and Clearwater, and I bought my first 280z as a replacement. I've been driving Nissan ever since. Maybe things have changed and I'm out of touch, but the solution in the honda crowd back then to small displacement was increasing RPM, and stripping the car out to the point that it looked like a theft recovery. Neither of those options did anything for me. I remember being super impressed with this guy I bumped into a few times that had a 92 hatch (one of the best looking hatchbacks ever in my opinion) that had somehow managed to get an H22 in there, stock everything, even had a stock airbox and exhaust manifold. He was running high 12's in the 1/4, and his car idled quieter than my 98. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z2000 Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Ah, I didn't realize you were planning on keeping it NA. I always disregarded the NA option under 3 liters as being impractical on the street. Back in my Honda days, the LS/Vtec was just becoming everybody's dream powerplant, and I always wanted a turbo LS. Actually had a B18B1 on an engine stand next to my bed and a Garrett T04 on my pool table ready to go first into my Hatch, then into the CRX I'd traded it for...then the CRX threw a rod on it's built D16 and left me stranded on the bridge between Tampa and Clearwater, and I bought my first 280z as a replacement. I've been driving Nissan ever since. Maybe things have changed and I'm out of touch, but the solution in the honda crowd back then to small displacement was increasing RPM, and stripping the car out to the point that it looked like a theft recovery. Neither of those options did anything for me. I remember being super impressed with this guy I bumped into a few times that had a 92 hatch (one of the best looking hatchbacks ever in my opinion) that had somehow managed to get an H22 in there, stock everything, even had a stock airbox and exhaust manifold. He was running high 12's in the 1/4, and his car idled quieter than my 98. I too was a honda junkie back in the day. had several of them, the first one was a 92 cx model and i started off with swapping in a b16a engine with a 7lb flywheel and that setup got me 13.4 @ 102 mph 1/4 mile slips on street tires, then i changed out the bottom end for a b18c block with type r pistons and that setup got me my first 12.9 @ 105 mph run its first track day still on street tires, then my final setup for that car was cramming in a h22 with lsd tranny and that setup got me 12.6 @ 108 mph with 1.854 60 ft on street tires and 12.3 @ 110 mph on slicks with a 1.701 60 ft time. All track days were with a ram air setup. In 2002 the baddest beast I ever built for myself (I believe I was the first) was a 89 240sx with rb26dett setup. the stock rb engine with a little boost increase got me another 12.3 @ 118 mph on street tires and no tach... if i had slicks and a functioning tach would be mid 11's easy. so even though the Z's not gong to be built for drag racing i do believe it will be capable of a snagging an 11 sec time slip with its 50 hp over my 12.3 civic setup and rwd to boot. the Z's vehicle weight should be about the same as my civic hb as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careless Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 300ish hp with a stockish weight 280z will net you high 11 second run or there-abouts. 2000 lbs and 240hp + mods will net you a mid to low 10 second run, i'd bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Make sure to post numbers in the process and when finished. I really think your overshooting your expectations in every way. By the way, I thought it's going to be a road car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z2000 Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Make sure to post numbers in the process and when finished. I really think your overshooting your expectations in every way. By the way, I thought it's going to be a road car? Yes it is going to be built for road racing/mountain runs. Was just stating that it should also be able to pull decent drag times as well. I'd call it a well rounded car. As far as the expectations, you may be right about overshooting but i have ran the numbers again and again and at first I thought there was no way. I regained some faith in the numbers when I started comparing this project to previous cars I'v built and raced. And the truth is we can debate the project and the numbers over and over again but we'll never know until I get it completed. Once again I want to thank everyone for their two cents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Looking forward to see you work, post pics! You seem really confident in what your doing, I wish you luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I'm changing the title of this thread. We want users to be able to know what is in the thread before opening it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Do you plan on installing a cage to ANY group spec? (scca, nhra, etc) If so I think that 2000 pounds is a joke. Even the race prepped S30 cars aren't close to that, and you're not gonna save enough weight on the engine to make THAT big of a difference. That being said, even a 2300 pound vehicle is nothing to scoff at. But I'm not sure I'd go with the F20C or F22C myself. Realistically because of it's major lack of torque it's not going to have a ton of usable power, and is going to be EXTREMELY liniar. I'd try to find something with a few more cubes that was still low weight. Weight placement is just as important as weight itself, within reason. And I think gaining a little weight, while lowering weight in a V6 or V8 motor will give you nearly identical results in the long run in the handling department. The F20C is NOT a cheap motor. If you CAN source one for cheap, I'm sure it'd be a GREAT swap that few here would dare bash and would be respected. But for similar money you might be able to source an aluminium LS motor that probably won't weight much more in the long run, have a lower center of gravity, way more stock HP, more potential power, just as reliable (if not more reliable in race conditions), and it's an easier (or more covered at least) swap. And I'm not even a chevy fan. I just think life will be easier for you going with a lower hp per/cubic inch motor giving you a broader power range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifton Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Do you plan on installing a cage to ANY group spec? (scca, nhra, etc) If so I think that 2000 pounds is a joke. Even the race prepped S30 cars aren't close to that, and you're not gonna save enough weight on the engine to make THAT big of a difference. That being said, even a 2300 pound vehicle is nothing to scoff at.. 2000 is very possible with a lighter engine if it isn't to be a street car. My 71' is 2058 lbs with full cage, R200, and L28 turbo, and about 7-8 gal of fuel. I know there are lighter n/a Z's too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z2000 Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Do you plan on installing a cage to ANY group spec? (scca, nhra, etc) If so I think that 2000 pounds is a joke. Even the race prepped S30 cars aren't close to that, and you're not gonna save enough weight on the engine to make THAT big of a difference. That being said, even a 2300 pound vehicle is nothing to scoff at. But I'm not sure I'd go with the F20C or F22C myself. Realistically because of it's major lack of torque it's not going to have a ton of usable power, and is going to be EXTREMELY liniar. I'd try to find something with a few more cubes that was still low weight. The car probably wont be scca spec for a while if at all. The primary build will be for mountain runs with my local crew. As for the weight... Since this is a 240 the starting platform is in the 2300 range completely stock and with the Iorn inline six. Just swappin out the iorn six for an aluminum four should drop weight down between 2150 and 2200 lb range with nothing else done. So after mods I dont see any problem achieving 2000 lbs or even hitting sub 2000 lbs for that matter. The powerband... I have driven and rode passenger in many S2000's and their powerbands have all made good power and had a very usable powerband. I could see your complaint if you were trying to race from an idle because you need to rev this engine to get to the real power, but the reality is that we race in our engines powerband no matter which engine it is or what type of racing it is. With that said, if a car falls out of powerband in a race its usualy driver error or drivetrain not being setup correctly for the type of race. I do understand where you are comming from with all of this. But the F20C is very drivable at low rpms which will be great for around town and it screams from the crack of V-TEC all the way to the 9000 rpm redline. And on the top it all off lets not forget about efective gearing. I will be running 4.44's in the rear which will net me much better torque to the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I looked up some specs on the S2000 engine from a SCC review: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/roadtests/0403scc_2004_honda_s2000/index.html F20C: 203 RWHP @ 8500 RPM, 136 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6300 RPM F22C: 210 RWHP @ 8000 RPM, 146 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6400 RPM Those torque numbers do occur at high RPMs, but they're comparable to an L6, stock for stock. These 4 cylinders may be smaller than the L6's, but they make more torque/liter in stock form. Of course, compare that torque to a well built NA L6 and all bets are off. However, I do remember reading of a built NA S2000 engine (Can't remember if it was F20 or F22) making a little over 200 Ft-Lbs RWTQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.INSANE Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I looked up some specs on the S2000 engine from a SCC review: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/roadtests/0403scc_2004_honda_s2000/index.html F20C: 203 RWHP @ 8500 RPM, 136 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6300 RPM F22C: 210 RWHP @ 8000 RPM, 146 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6400 RPM Those torque numbers do occur at high RPMs, but they're comparable to an L6, stock for stock. These 4 cylinders may be smaller than the L6's, but they make more torque/liter in stock form. Of course, compare that torque to a well built NA L6 and all bets are off. However, I do remember reading of a built NA S2000 engine (Can't remember if it was F20 or F22) making a little over 200 Ft-Lbs RWTQ. I Highly doubt you leave from a standstill at 8,000 Rpm's unless your drag racing, The point is there is no lower end torque. The L series has a good torque range and makes alot more off the bat than the F20C or F22C Also the transmission uses an electronic speedo sensor so you'll have to convert that aswell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Quote:Originally Posted by Dane I looked up some specs on the S2000 engine from a SCC review: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/ro...000/index.html F20C: 203 RWHP @ 8500 RPM, 136 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6300 RPM F22C: 210 RWHP @ 8000 RPM, 146 Ft-Lbs RWTQ @ 6400 RPM Those torque numbers do occur at high RPMs, but they're comparable to an L6, stock for stock. These 4 cylinders may be smaller than the L6's, but they make more torque/liter in stock form. Of course, compare that torque to a well built NA L6 and all bets are off. However, I do remember reading of a built NA S2000 engine (Can't remember if it was F20 or F22) making a little over 200 Ft-Lbs RWTQ. I Highly doubt you leave from a standstill at 8,000 Rpm's unless your drag racing, The point is there is no lower end torque. The L series has a good torque range and makes alot more off the bat than the F20C or F22C Also the transmission uses an electronic speedo sensor so you'll have to convert that aswell. You make a good point refering to the powerband of the two engines. However, for an NA L6 to make the same RWHP as the F20C/F22C is probably going to require a cam that reduces its low end torque. The VTEC feature of the F20C/F22C allows it to idle smooth and still make power at 8000 RPM. As Z2000 already mentioned, the F20C has good low end drivabililty...and if it isn't enough he can always change the diff ratio...the wheel torque is what accelerates the car, not the engine torque. He has stated that he has built many Honda engines that have powered fast cars, many in the 12's, so I'm apt to believe that an F20C/F22C powered 240Z would be fast. Just imagine an S2000 on a 500-800 lb diet. That wouldn't be a slow car...and thats if he keeps the engine stock. Thats basically what the 240Z with the Honda engine would be. In the end its his car...and if he wants to do this swap...thats awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TeamNissan Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Its not all hp and tq. Why spend 3x more? I'm still not seeing the point of spending what 6k+? on a motor that is comparable (stock for stock) with the one already in the car to begin with. You could take half what it would cost and get twice the output. Cost, weight, balance, installation difficulty, after market support etc.. doesn't matter what reason/s you choose there are better options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.INSANE Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 You make a good point refering to the powerband of the two engines. However, for an NA L6 to make the same RWHP as the F20C/F22C is probably going to require a cam that reduces its low end torque. The VTEC feature of the F20C/F22C allows it to idle smooth and still make power at 8000 RPM. As Z2000 already mentioned, the F20C has good low end drivabililty...and if it isn't enough he can always change the diff ratio...the wheel torque is what accelerates the car, not the engine torque. He has stated that he has built many Honda engines that have powered fast cars, many in the 12's, so I'm apt to believe that an F20C/F22C powered 240Z would be fast. Just imagine an S2000 on a 500-800 lb diet. That wouldn't be a slow car...and thats if he keeps the engine stock. Thats basically what the 240Z with the Honda engine would be. In the end its his car...and if he wants to do this swap...thats awesome. I'm not saying an F20C would be slow either, and of course the F20C has more RWHP you don't see an L series rev to 8 Grand often. I've honestly looked at this swap alot myself, But its already been said that the motor's are expensive, and need to have a lot of things adapted to the datsun, Throttle, Speedo Etc Etc. You would probally end up spending much more than just the cost of the engine getting everything working, with the Z's electronics and other things. But its not my money do what you please with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Well I can agree that for the gains in power and reduction in weight...its not a cost effective route. There are easier ways to get there...but if somebody is dead set on having that engine and has the time and money...its their own choice, and it would definitely be cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8INtheZ Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 As for the weight... Since this is a 240 the starting platform is in the 2300 range completely stock and with the Iorn inline six. Just swappin out the iorn six for an aluminum four should drop weight down between 2150 and 2200 lb range with nothing else done. So after mods I dont see any problem achieving 2000 lbs or even hitting sub 2000 lbs for that matter. That was one of the points I was trying to make. How much does your engine and trans weigh? The L6's are pretty light for how big they are, and the stock 4-speed only weighs about 75 pounds. There arent many transmissions lighter then that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datsun350Z Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Keep in mind that bolt ons for the S don't gain much power at all, and many available bolt ons are even losing power. You will have to have an exhaust made for the swap, and it's likely you will lose power there as well. I'm a huge s2000 fan, but the reality is there is no extra power without going the turbo or SC route. Just be ready to explain why you lost to a bolt on L motor for 4x the price. I hope you do the swap, and don't let the negative comments get you down. Good luck with whatever you choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest havoc Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 why spend 3x more? because imo v-tec motors have a serious fun factor associated with them, its just a blast when you zing that thing 8-9k and it just dont quit! it may sound a little (or alot!!) childish, but after taking a friends type r to buttonwillow and hittin it wot i had a grin that you couldnt pull off with the spaceshuttle and a towhook! although i havent found the right z 4 me, i have taken a lead foot to a friends 240 with a 280 drivetrain. it was pretty fun, but not the same feeling. i took my wifes 02 se-r to streets of willow and wasnt that fun. after all that babble the things that dont matter are hp, tq, and $$. the only thing that matters is "fun to drive". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.