Bobzilla wrote: Still waiting on that 385lb fully dressed factory 302.
Point out the quote of who claimed that.
Bobzilla wrote: Still waiting on that 385lb fully dressed factory 302.
Point out the quote of who claimed that.
Javelin wrote: Looks like an F20C is around 326-328 for just the motor, but complete. The best guess I can come up with for a light turbo kit is a 56Lb additional weight quoted for one of the high-end kits (nice header, modern turbo, A2A IC, forged BOV, etc). So we're at 384 plus the boost controller, wiring, and extras. Say 390Lbs total being pessimistic. Assuming we use the same trans no matter what... A Ford 302 is 475Lbs complete in all-iron, carburetor'd, 1960';s form. The 5.0 EFI is 425Lbs also fully dressed (all iron still except the intake). The Explorer version (aluminum heads, EDIS, smaller intakes) is 385Lbs. So it's pretty much a wash there. A modern, alloy head 5.0 is about the same as a turbo F20C tit-for-tat. The 5.0 could lose more in a rebuild and the T5 might weigh less, but the F20 can go lower, too (flywheel, pulleys come to mind). LSx is 385-425 depending on source. I imagine it might be a Gen III/Gen IV small-bore/big-bore thing?
Here's your quote, Chris.
ls6. Duh
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Javelin wrote: Looks like an F20C is around 326-328 for just the motor, but complete. The best guess I can come up with for a light turbo kit is a 56Lb additional weight quoted for one of the high-end kits (nice header, modern turbo, A2A IC, forged BOV, etc). So we're at 384 plus the boost controller, wiring, and extras. Say 390Lbs total being pessimistic. Assuming we use the same trans no matter what... A Ford 302 is 475Lbs complete in all-iron, carburetor'd, 1960';s form. The 5.0 EFI is 425Lbs also fully dressed (all iron still except the intake). The Explorer version (aluminum heads, EDIS, smaller intakes) is 385Lbs. So it's pretty much a wash there. A modern, alloy head 5.0 is about the same as a turbo F20C tit-for-tat. The 5.0 could lose more in a rebuild and the T5 might weigh less, but the F20 can go lower, too (flywheel, pulleys come to mind). LSx is 385-425 depending on source. I imagine it might be a Gen III/Gen IV small-bore/big-bore thing?Here's your quote, Chris.
Thanks. I'd be inclined to believe it with the aluminum heads and intake, as mine was approx. 400 lbs with iron heads but aluminum intake and shorty headers. Again, I had my car on the scales at Fordahl Motorsports back when it was built (when Greg was setting it up for autocross), and it weighed less than a stock turbo 13B powered RX7, even though it still had the full interior AND a roll cage.. Yeah, the bare rotary was light (I've rebuilt many 12As on my old kitchen table (not to others, do not do this when married)) but in running form in the car it weighed a bunch apparently.
The Explorer 5.0 came with iron GT-40P heads. A swap from OEM iron heads to aftermarket aluminum heads is supposed to drop about 40lb of weight off of the longblock so I'm agreeing with ~385lb but the added price of aftermarket heads needs to be accounted for if budget is a factor (and I believe it is per the original post).
LONG BLOCK, I'd believe. Fully dressed with waterpump and accessories? Hell no.
385lbs FULLY dressed, though? That's what i'm having a problem with. I'm sure you can get block, heads, manifolds in the 385lb range... But fully dressed, i'm not buying it. Especially when block/aluminum head combo NON-dressed motors are coming in at right around 400lbs according to Factory Five, and various other companies that sell crates.
Holy crap, I didn't even know there was all this bull honky going on in here! All of those numbers came from other people using a google search, like we've all been doing the whole thread. WTF is wrong with some people?
As for the 385, IIRC that number was from a kit car website. Their version of dressed is probably water pump, intake, alternator, but no A/C or PS or anything like that. It didn't seem unreasonable based on the other 302 weights.
Nowhere did I claim I weighed it myself or any crap like that. SOMEBODY needs to lay the eff off. 
Javelin wrote: As for the 385, IIRC that number was from a kit car website. Their version of dressed is probably water pump, intake, alternator, but no A/C or PS or anything like that. It didn't seem unreasonable based on the other 302 weights.
Yeah, if you look at my car, I was in the PNW, so none of my cars ever had A/C, and a light car like the RX-7 needed no PS, so I didn't have that, either. I was going by my engine, running, in the car, compared to an identical car with a different, smaller engine.
Bobzilla wrote: OK, looks like a fully dressed G13B is 54kg's without trans.... so a fully dressed G13B is 119lbs. Holy crap. Even if you added 100lbs for turbo, cooler pipes, intercooler etc.... you're looking at ~200lbs for 300+hp. I think we may have a winner winner chicken dinner here.
I've had enough g13b's to know they are more than 119lbs. I weighed one once and I think it was closer to 200lbs. I have it written down somewhere, I just have to find it.
A G13B isn't that much smaller than a Honda ZC and those are over 200.
If you want exotica, why not come up with reverse-flow cams for a 60 degree GM V6 and put a turbocharger between the banks? The little ports on the outside of the engine won't be too much of a problem with 45 PSI manifold pressure!
Less exotic, is there an aluminum 60* V6 with internals that'll stand that power? They're certainly small enough to save weight on mounts, braces, etc.
mw wrote: I've had enough g13b's to know they are more than 119lbs. I weighed one once and I think it was closer to 200lbs. I have it written down somewhere, I just have to find it.
I've seen a ~120ish pound figure cited for the three-cylinder engine.
mw wrote:Bobzilla wrote: OK, looks like a fully dressed G13B is 54kg's without trans.... so a fully dressed G13B is 119lbs. Holy crap. Even if you added 100lbs for turbo, cooler pipes, intercooler etc.... you're looking at ~200lbs for 300+hp. I think we may have a winner winner chicken dinner here.I've had enough g13b's to know they are more than 119lbs. I weighed one once and I think it was closer to 200lbs. I have it written down somewhere, I just have to find it.
i KNOW I built mine on the bench in hte garage then lifted it by hand and put it on the engine stand to get everything mocked up. There's no way I'm lifting a 200lb engine by hand....
I love engine weight threads. There's so much totally random information going on and so much complete garbage available through Google.
Keith wrote: I love engine weight threads. There's so much totally random information going on and so much complete garbage available through Google.
While I dont disagree with you, we need to have someone start making a nice big list of actual weights, measured in whatever form (fully specified), on the same scale so at least our numbers can be used against one another. I can't do that as I don't have anything to do that. However, I might think a certain enterprising individual may be able to do just such a thing. Someone who has quite the history with engine swaps of the GRM variety...
chaparral wrote: Less exotic, is there an aluminum 60* V6 with internals that'll stand that power? They're certainly small enough to save weight on mounts, braces, etc.
See my earlier post. VQ is the answer you are looking for.
Regarding the LNF motor mentioned several times (2.0 DI Turbo Solstice/Sky engine), its limited by the direct injection. It will easily make low-mid 300s at the wheels, but I understand it hits a wall quickly because there isn't an easy way to get more fuel except a non-DI injector in the intake/manifold. Not sure how far people have gone with that.
surcharged Hayabusa, extremely light, very drivable being supercharged not turbo, and they fit in a mini or fiat 500 even :-D
another debate begins :D
It would seem to me a couple extra lbs to have a stock ls1 with stock reliability and drivability would be better than a highly modified highly tuned 4 cyl. It doesnt really matter if you save 50 lbs if the car spends half it's time in the shop.
I still vote for the ls1 as the easiest, most reliable light 400hp. That or a 302 based motor, but a build motor would still not likely match the reliability of a stock one.
A camshaft change and a little porting and you are there.
From the internet:
L33
The L33 (VIN code "B") is an aluminum block version of the LM7, and was referred to as the Vortec 5300 HO in marketing materials. Power increased by 15 hp (11 kW), to 310 hp (230 kW), over the LM7, and torque was unchanged. It was only available on extended cab 4WD pickup trucks. Only 25% of trucks made in 2005 had the L33 engine.
L33 applications:
2005–2007 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4WD 2005–2007 GMC Sierra 1500 4WD
Weights:
aluminum 5.7 LS6 with main caps: 82lb
iron 6.0 with main caps: 162lb.
iron LSX with caps prior to boring: 248lb
L33 has similar sleeve OD and block features as the LS6, but the L33 sleeves are .060 thicker to produce the smaller bore, so add a few pounds versus the LS6. If you bore it to 3.90" then it probably weighs within a pound of LS6. Likewise, the 5.3 and 4.8 have thicker cylinder walls than the 6.0 (though not the same OD), and they also have the DOD bosses in the valley, so I'll make a rough guess that the 5.3/4.8 weighs 6-10lb. more than the 6.0 shown above.
B430 wrote: It would seem to me a couple extra lbs to have a stock ls1 with stock reliability and drivability would be better than a highly modified highly tuned 4 cyl. It doesnt really matter if you save 50 lbs if the car spends half it's time in the shop. I still vote for the ls1 as the easiest, most reliable light 400hp. That or a 302 based motor, but a build motor would still not likely match the reliability of a stock one.
400hp is hardly a lofty goal for a 4-cylinder anymore, for what it's worth.
That said, the LSx is certainly "the easy button." 
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
But there was talk of a 1.3l revving to 9k and running 25+ psi. That's about under same level of stress as a 1500 hp v8. I don't think either would be anywhere near stock reliability.
For a reliable 400hp 4 cyl most of the best choices are iron block and not especially light.
OK - here's a standard for the engine weight. I call it "Dyno Stand Design Weight".
The engine will be weighed with whatever equipment is needed to run and make the claimed power, but not with what is needed to install it in a chassis and drive it.
Items which need to be included:
-Long-block (block, heads, rotating assembly, valvetrain, sump)
-Water and oil pumps, with belts and pulleys if needed
-Intake manifold up to the filter
-Exhaust manifold up to the cat
-Oil enough to run it and water to fill the passages (but not the radiator/oil cooler)
-Alternator, starter, and wiring (a dummy weight of 10 lbs for wiring and the engine management computer's acceptable)
-Include the flywheel; weigh it and note its weight if you can.
B430 wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: But there was talk of a 1.3l revving to 9k and running 25+ psi. That's about under same level of stress as a 1500 hp v8. I don't think either would be anywhere near stock reliability. For a reliable 400hp 4 cyl most of the best choices are iron block and not especially light.
Oh, gotcha. Yeah... i wouldn't have picked the 'Zuk 1.3 mill to make 400hp no matter the application, personally. 
Your example simply shows two motors that make their power in different places. Fast is fast, and i don't care HOW it does it.
This is a subject worthy of a thread of its own. I'm curious, I know that the drag racers have very general rules of thumb on E.T vs weight, etc. But are there any graphs/curves/stats on general HP vs Torque for acceleration curves from 0-100, 60-120, etc. give different engine performance/weight? Anything online?
You'll need to log in to post.
