Leafy wrote: There's been too many engines suggested that just arent going to berkeleying fit. All yall 4 banger people with tall as motors (Fs of both manufacturers, mrz, etc), stop. LFX if you dont care about branding, 2011+ mustang v6 if you care about being scca street mod legal since thats the same block that comes in the cx9.
The MZR has been done, so.... yeah.
doesn't the stock rotary get horrible gas mileage?
Swank Force One wrote:Leafy wrote: There's been too many engines suggested that just arent going to berkeleying fit. All yall 4 banger people with tall as motors (Fs of both manufacturers, mrz, etc), stop. LFX if you dont care about branding, 2011+ mustang v6 if you care about being scca street mod legal since thats the same block that comes in the cx9.The MZR has been done, so.... yeah.
I couldnt find it before. Just a build thread that was started and then stopped midway through like every other engine swap build thread where the engine didnt actually fit.
Leafy wrote:Swank Force One wrote:I couldnt find it before. Just a build thread that was started and then stopped midway through like every other engine swap build thread where the engine didnt actually fit.Leafy wrote: There's been too many engines suggested that just arent going to berkeleying fit. All yall 4 banger people with tall as motors (Fs of both manufacturers, mrz, etc), stop. LFX if you dont care about branding, 2011+ mustang v6 if you care about being scca street mod legal since thats the same block that comes in the cx9.The MZR has been done, so.... yeah.
I'll have to dig it up again. There was a completed 2.3 DISI swap overseas. There's also been a Saab swap completed to the best of my knowledge.
Yep. Saab B204.
http://www.uksaabs.co.uk/UKS/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=109691
There's track day video of it as well.
1jz/2jz has been done, too.
In reply to Leafy:
if all else fails you just need a bigger hole in the hood.
goes to craigslist to find dead roll royce's
Swank Force One wrote: In a straight line, it's MILES faster than anything that you currently own, maybe not counting the bike.I'm a speed junky like everyone else, but i didn't find he 2009 Sport we recently test drove to be "slow."
It's been a long time since I've driven an RX-8. I don't recall it being very quick. Don't they run low 15s?
Yeah, not what I would call "slow", but pretty much the same territory as the Forte.
My answer: anything relatively inexpensive than can make a reliable 300-350hp and has decent aftermarket support.
ProDarwin wrote:Swank Force One wrote: In a straight line, it's MILES faster than anything that you currently own, maybe not counting the bike.It's been a long time since I've driven an RX-8. I don't recall it being very quick. Don't they run low 15s? Yeah, not what I would call "slow", but pretty much the same territory as the Forte.
Early ones were mid 14s. Later ones were faster.
Honestly, they're pretty much within a driver's race with an S2000. They just don't have that lumpy powerband that makes you feel like you're going anywhere. It's a feel thing rather than outright capability.
The 09 we drove had no problems working the hell out of traffic anywhere we drove, without even beating on it.
In reply to Swank Force One:
Umm.... http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2009_mazda_rx-8_r3 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mazda-rx-8-first-drive-review-specs-page-3
Both of those showing 14.9 or a 15.0 1/4. THat's pretty far from a "mid-14". Here's an early one running a 15.2. http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/comparison_tests/2004_nissan_350z_vs_2004_mazda_rx_8
Compared with a lot of modern hardware yeah it is kinda slow, being as I can have a hard time keeping up with a 6cyl Camry. Then again so does the S2k, FRS/BRZ, miata, civic SI exc. but people don't say much about those.
In keeping with the thread if my S2 ate it and I did not do a 20b, I would definitely think about an mzr engine, but much more likely would be the SAAB swap due to cheap and easy 350-400hp without ruining too much weight wise.
Bobzilla wrote: In reply to Swank Force One: Umm.... http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2009_mazda_rx-8_r3 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mazda-rx-8-first-drive-review-specs-page-3 Both of those showing 14.9 or a 15.0 1/4. THat's pretty far from a "mid-14". Here's an early one running a 15.2. http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/comparison_tests/2004_nissan_350z_vs_2004_mazda_rx_8
March 2004 Motor Trend got a 14.49 out of one.
Post-facelift cars are faster.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0403_compact_sport_coupe_comparison/viewall.html
Not that it really matters, but C&D also did the following: 14.6 @96mph: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2004-mazda-rx-8-long-term-road-test-performance-page-2 14.9 @95mph: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mazda-rx-8-first-drive-review
It's way more convenient to use the slowest possible tests as examples.
Those are the first three that popped up. Since the three pretty much correspond to one another, I did not dig further. You are more than welcome to show me otherwise.
But even if it is a "mid-14 second" car, at 18mpg on a good day it should be a 10-second car.
Wow, did not realize they were that fast. What do the post facelift cars run? What makes them quicker?
Bobzilla wrote: Those are the first three that popped up. Since the three pretty much correspond to one another, I did not dig further. You are more than welcome to show me otherwise. But even if it is a "mid-14 second" car, at 18mpg on a good day it should be a 10-second car.
Is "gas per quarter mile" the new ricer metric? 
Swank Force One wrote:Bobzilla wrote: Those are the first three that popped up. Since the three pretty much correspond to one another, I did not dig further. You are more than welcome to show me otherwise. But even if it is a "mid-14 second" car, at 18mpg on a good day it should be a 10-second car.Is "gas per quarter mile" the new ricer metric?
Based on typical RX8 fuel economy reports, you should get 4-6 1/4 mile passes on a full tank of gas.
ProDarwin wrote: Wow, did not realize they were that fast. What do the post facelift cars run? What makes them quicker?
I haven't dug into the post-facelift times much, because frankly i don't care about drag racing an RX8. I will tell you that the 09+ that we drove felt substantially quicker than a stock MSM, though. It had no problems reaching "Yeah... we should probably not be doing this" speeds pretty quickly.
They're faster because the rear end is shorter and are supposed to be lighter, which i suppose is true if you found a true base model somewhere.
Test driving them back to back, the difference is not subtle. The 04 feels lazy. The 09, not so much.
shorter rear end will do wonders to a torqueless wonder. Look at every honda 4cyl ever made.
Bobzilla wrote: shorter rear end will do wonders to a torqueless wonder. Look at every honda 4cyl ever made.
Shorter rear end makes every car ever better.
Knurled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: shorter rear end will do wonders to a torqueless wonder. Look at every honda 4cyl ever made.Shorter rear end makes every car ever better.
Not turbo Miatas.
Swank Force One wrote:Knurled wrote:Not turbo Miatas.Bobzilla wrote: shorter rear end will do wonders to a torqueless wonder. Look at every honda 4cyl ever made.Shorter rear end makes every car ever better.
Only if the turbo and cams are way too small. C'mon, are you building a car or a train diesel?
Swank Force One wrote:ProDarwin wrote: Wow, did not realize they were that fast. What do the post facelift cars run? What makes them quicker?I haven't dug into the post-facelift times much, because frankly i don't care about drag racing an RX8. I will tell you that the 09+ that we drove felt substantially quicker than a stock MSM, though. It had no problems reaching "Yeah... we should probably not be doing this" speeds pretty quickly. They're faster because the rear end is shorter and are supposed to be lighter, which i suppose is true if you found a true base model somewhere. Test driving them back to back, the difference is not subtle. The 04 feels lazy. The 09, not so much.
This is good to know. I feel dumb for having discounted these cars for so long. Between driving an early RX8 that was fairly lackluster feeling & owning an S2000, I thought the RX8s were slower (knowing the S2000 isn't that quick of a car anyway).
Still not a rotary fan, but I do see these pop up very cheap, sometimes in STX trim, so I might be swayed :)
I think all things being equal, the RX8 is slower, regardless, but they're also way less money, and more usable. 
What turns me off on the RX-8 is the massively long wheelbase. It's, what, 108"? That is large-sedan territory, not sporting chassis.
RX-7s are 95". Most "awesomely fun" cars are around 95". Miatas and 240Zs were 90". Food for thought.
I don't think that I've agreed with Bobzilla on anything, so I will say a 4.8 with heads, cam and intake. There are some very good write ups with this engine and the mixing and matching of LS parts.
You'll need to log in to post.
