scardeal wrote: Why do I feel the need to suggest magic spinning triangles? I don't even like rotaries all that much.
If ever there were an engine with LESS torque than a 3S, that's it. I feel like it would be cheaper and easier to do the 3S.
In the interim, I may buy a jdm altezza BEAMS engine and trans, and build the turbo engine at a slightly slower pace. Motor mounts and all that would be the same right?
My love for the Mk3 is epic. You sir have my full support.
If you're going to throw in a BEAMS, just turbo that.
I'm sure a LeMons team could come up with a 2700lb Supra...
but perhaps you meant that it had things like a windshield and fenders?
scardeal wrote: I'm sure a LeMons team could come up with a 2700lb Supra... but perhaps you meant that it had things like a windshield and fenders?
well...yeah. but not much else. I am going to try to learn to hand form some Carbon Fiber...Wet carbon of course, I am not ready for autoclaves and vacuum forming.
+1 for supporting the epic MKIII love. Part of me wants to agree with the LSx people, but I like your idea.
Hmmm
Would a GR series V6 be a viable alternative? Short, light, could be turboed.... And it comes in several rwd platforms....
But otherwise, awesome idea. Do it!
93celicaGT2 wrote: If you're going to throw in a BEAMS, just turbo that.
I thought the BEAMS motor was super-high compression?
For the record, a BEAMS would be the perfect motor for a 1st-gen Celica.... 
BEAMS engine + E85 + booooooost = ?
There was a company in the Philipines, I think, that was making S block to W5x transmission bell housings. Toyota actually made one for a van or van-like vehicle once, but it was never sold in the US. I think it went to the Philipines.
On the 1st-gencelica boards, I thought I remembered seeing something about the VZ bellhousing for W-series trannies from the pickup being one bolt off from the S block bellhousing, and they were used for S-block swaps.
ReverendDexter wrote: On the 1st-gencelica boards, I thought I remembered seeing something about the VZ bellhousing for W-series trannies from the pickup being one bolt off from the S block bellhousing, and they were used for S-block swaps.
I had heard that too. Does anyone have any more information about that? It would be super cool to have a JDM Altezza 6-speed in there, but I already have a W58 that I can use.
93celicaGT2 wrote: I think the idea here is to make a MKiii version of the JGTC 3sgte supras. They didn't run American V8s....
Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to perpetuate the suckage?
Platinum90 wrote: I had heard that too. Does anyone have any more information about that? It would be super cool to have a JDM Altezza 6-speed in there, but I already have a W58 that I can use.
Apparently the MZ engines bolt to S-engine transaxles with only one bolt unaccounted for.
By the way - you do, in fact, want to click that link. It's a really high dollar build (Motec???) but notes can be taken.
ARGH! And I see an error. It says that when the turbo spools, the blower actually feeds power back into the crank. Exact opposite is the case! It takes a lot MORE power to drive, because it's ram-stuffing compressed air into the engine instead of atmospheric air.
Platinum90 wrote:scardeal wrote: I'm sure a LeMons team could come up with a 2700lb Supra... but perhaps you meant that it had things like a windshield and fenders?well...yeah. but not much else. I am going to try to learn to hand form some Carbon Fiber...Wet carbon of course, I am not ready for autoclaves and vacuum forming.
Vacuum bagging is really no harder to do then a wet layup. I did vacuum bags before I did any wet layups. Also if you have an aerospace companies in your area, make friends with a couple employees and try to get some of their out of date pre-preg for free. You can't use it for structural stuff but you could use it for small parts. You just need a vacuum pump and an oven. 
93celicaGT2 wrote: It's not so much the weight difference, though i imagine it'd be at least 50lbs, it's the weight distribution. The JGTC cars did it soley to move the motor back. Makes it a "Mid-front" car instead of just straight up front. No part of this motor if done right should be in front of the front axle.
Moving the battery to the trunk would make more of a difference.
How much longer is the engine? The engine's CG is only going to move half as much.
I really wonder why people get so hung up on if any part of the engine sticks in front of the axle centerline or not. It's like the posers and fender gap. What difference does it make in the real world?
My favorite: Subarus don't handle as well as Evos because Subarus have the engine in front of the front wheels. Um. Subarus have an engine that weighs about as much as two half-full Dixie Cups and almost the entirety of the (rather porky) transmission is behind the front axle. Evos have a heavy engine that - surprise - ALSO sits in front of the front wheels, and so does the transmission. By the drivetrain weight and CG theory, Subarus should own face against Evos. Could it be that there's maybe other factors at work here?
IMO, as long as you're not seriously throwing things out of whack like putting an aircraft engine behind the rear wheels (looking at you, Porsche) then it's nothing really to worry about. And even so, Porsche learned to get very, very good at suspension tuning by sheer necessity, and Porsche drivers learn to take advantage of their cars'.... quirks.
PS - I will gladly produce a Subaru-engined Evo if someone is willing to sponsor the build.
Do it for sheer awesomeness.
Engine forward of the front axle center line equals AWSOME understeer!!! Hang on tight, and keep cranking the wheel.
With the Porsche, you can use the engine's weight--with the right suspension--to help rotate the car in a turn. And they've been tuning that layout for a long time. OTOH, a downhill, off-camber, decreasing radius turn, in the rain, strikes a bit of fear in any 911 driver who didn't know said turn was coming.
See Polar Moment on Inertia.
ReverendDexter wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: If you're going to throw in a BEAMS, just turbo that.I thought the BEAMS motor was super-high compression? For the record, a BEAMS would be the perfect motor for a 1st-gen Celica....
nope!
http://digitaladdict.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/2009-rsrs-scion-tc-500whp-powered-by-a-beams-3s-ge-turbo/
do it! and take lots of pictures
Knurled wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: I think the idea here is to make a MKiii version of the JGTC 3sgte supras. They didn't run American V8s....Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to perpetuate the suckage?
Sure?
Consider this: They were more successful with the 3sgte than they were with the 6-cylinder. Purely due to weight distribution.
Knurled wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: It's not so much the weight difference, though i imagine it'd be at least 50lbs, it's the weight distribution. The JGTC cars did it soley to move the motor back. Makes it a "Mid-front" car instead of just straight up front. No part of this motor if done right should be in front of the front axle.Moving the battery to the trunk would make more of a difference. How much longer is the engine? The engine's CG is only going to move half as much. I really wonder why people get so hung up on if any part of the engine sticks in front of the axle centerline or not. It's like the posers and fender gap. What difference does it make in the real world? My favorite: Subarus don't handle as well as Evos because Subarus have the engine in front of the front wheels. Um. Subarus have an engine that weighs about as much as two half-full Dixie Cups and almost the entirety of the (rather porky) transmission is behind the front axle. Evos have a heavy engine that - surprise - ALSO sits in front of the front wheels, and *so does the transmission*. By the drivetrain weight and CG theory, Subarus should own face against Evos. Could it be that there's maybe other factors at work here? IMO, as long as you're not seriously throwing things out of whack like putting an aircraft engine behind the rear wheels (looking at you, Porsche) then it's nothing really to worry about. And even so, Porsche learned to get very, very good at suspension tuning by sheer necessity, and Porsche drivers learn to take advantage of their cars'.... quirks.
I agree with you, but look at the length of a 3sgte vs. the length of a 7m. HUGE difference. The 3s is lighter, shorter, and again, if it DIDN'T make a difference, SARD/TRD wouldn't have done it. What i don't agree with you on is that moving the battery to the trunk would make more of a difference. Really? I'm assuming that was a tongue-in-cheek comment?
I don't think anyone here is saying that a 3sgte in a Supra is THE ULTIMATE y0! swap. It's just what he wants to do, and there are upsides to it. Would i do it? No. But it's not my car, and if i own a supra, it'll be to make enough horsepower to reverse the rotation of the earth, not necessarily to make it handle well and/or emulate what happened in the JGTC.
Yeah, I mainly just want to do something different. It has been talked about in the community, but it has never been done. I figure now is the time to do it.
I am probably starting this weekend, and I have all of next week off, so I will probably start by stripping the car down the rest of the way, and start stitch welding the chassis. I will let you all know how it progresses.
Oh yeah one other thing on carbon fiber. You can use a food saver to vacuum bag small parts for cheap and it will lighter then a plain wet layup. If you need help when you get to the composites part contact me and I can probably point you in the right direction.
Choose your 3SGTE motor carefully. There were three generations of motors and they improved with each iteration. The third generation motor was something special but it was a JDM only motor and the ECU was wired into everything. Back when I was active in the Alltrac community it was believed that the only practical solution was to go straight to stand alone.
You'll need to log in to post.
