4-cylinder crate engines?-Page 2: Grassroots Motorsports forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2

June 1, 2011 7:56 a.m. njansenv HalfDork

ransom wrote:

In reply to njansenv:

Is the aluminum block really that much lighter? I confess to dubiousness...

Even if it is, the nose-heaviness of this car makes me want to stay away from long engines. I'd be more tempted by a similarly-weighted V6.

While I'd love to avoid the plumbing, it really seems like a turbo four is going to be the best combination of packaging and autocross-friendly flat torque curve. If I can substitute displacement for turbo (perhaps the 2.4L Ecotec mentioned above), that might work out...

Word is, the M54 is ~20lbs heavier than an S14 (E30 M3 engine). I'd expect a DOHC M42/4 to be about the same. Add a turbo and you're at nearly equal weights. Weights I've heard (take them with a grain or three of salt...) S14 350lbs
M54 375lbs
M20 438lbs
M50 440lbs
S50 440lbs
I get what you're saying about polar moment....though the difference might be mitigated a little if you plan on using a front mount intercooler.
June 1, 2011 8:09 a.m. m4ff3w SuperDork

Ian F wrote:

ransom wrote:

m4ff3w wrote:

http://www.turnkeyenginesupply.com/products/2.4L-Ecotec-4cyl-190-HP.html

Holy carp! On closer inspection, that's a remarkably complete package. It's a chunk for someone more accustomed to junkyards and home rebuilds, but that's everything from ECU to engine oil... Neat!

Yeah... definitely interesting... How hard is it to find a RWD bell housing for an Ecotec?

Pontiac Solstice/Saturn SKY.
June 1, 2011 8:24 a.m. ransom Reader

Man... I've got a standing Craigslist search for a scale I can use to weigh engines (not that I'll have access to all the candidates).

The difficulty of getting reliable data for engine weights is horrendous. I know of a site or two that have engine weights, but they're compiled from different sources, with notes for what state the engine was in. It's like a giant basket of apples and oranges as described by people with rose-tinted glasses and nonstandard scales...
June 1, 2011 9:30 a.m. e_pie New Reader

What about an F20/F22 out of an S2000?

240hp and comes with a RWD transmission
June 1, 2011 9:48 a.m. tuna55 SuperDork

First google link says the shipping weight of a complete ecotec turbo kit is 70 lbs

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product...
June 1, 2011 9:51 a.m. ransom Reader

In reply to e_pie:

I've never actually driven an S2000, but my impression is that while they make a bunch of power and are absolute screamers, they're not much for torque. This strikes me as both sub-optimal for autocross (though I know S2000s do well there) and a bit out of character for the 2002.

I should go look at some dyno charts and find out what "no torque" is in real terms...
June 1, 2011 9:59 a.m. kreb Dork

FWIW, I like the idea of keeping the thing remotely period-looking. There was a bunch of Duratec 2.5L (I think) motors being sold through e-bay a while ago, and selling for under a grand. That motor is extremely light and will easily top 200 HP with a little bit of help on the breathing end. So here's the recipe: e-bay Duratec($900), cams and header ($1,000), megajolt ($400), intake manifold with Mikunis: ($1,000). Cover up the plastic belt and cam covers with Aluminum, and you've got a lightweight, high HP motor that looks like it belongs on that car.

Also bear in mind that these varous high HP options will overwhelm the recipients stock suspension/brakes IMO.
June 1, 2011 10:57 a.m. ransom Reader

In reply to kreb:

Where rules don't require it, I will never own another carburetor again... I'm intrigued by the Duratec option. I'm guessing a 200hp 2.5L engine's going to have a pretty healthy torque curve. Hrm... couldn't find any 2.5L fours on eBay... Or 2.3, which was the other that sprang to mind (was SVT Focus a 2.3L?)

The stock suspension and brakes are going in the bin. The front end's starting from scratch from the subframe out, and possibly the rear as well, depending on my sanity after doing the front.
June 1, 2011 11:14 a.m. WilberM3 Dork

ransom wrote:

In reply to e_pie:

I've never actually driven an S2000, but my impression is that while they make a bunch of power and are absolute screamers, they're not much for torque. This strikes me as both sub-optimal for autocross (though I know S2000s do well there) and a bit out of character for the 2002.

I should go look at some dyno charts and find out what "no torque" is in real terms...

yea i think it'd be a great engine for the car. my friend's putting a 2.0L engine in his (some pics here, looks good in there) and according to him when you compare an S2000 to a stock 2002's m10 it still makes about 20%+ MORE torque while increasing rpm range and more than doubling horsepower