Low End Or High End

[turbosix]

i wasnt taking it seriously, anyone that has fabrication skills would not waste money on a $13k crate motor when they could build something comparable for 1/3rd the cost.

crate motors are for people that want something that they can drop it and make 580rwhp. People like foose, boyd, and the other discovery/TLC shops that spend their time doing custom interiors and bodywork and dont have the time to dyno tune for this and that.

viper designed for speed and handling? you know street vipers dont really handle that well, right?

you could say the same about every supra fanboy that puts a huge single turbo setup on that is good for only one thing, highway racing. i thought supras were supposed to be sports cars, right?

none of the supras in dallas are good for anything but highway racing.

 

[cribbj]

Andi B. sold his '98 T67 single awhile back, but I thought there were still a number of Supra road racers in the Dallas area?

Not all Supra owners' goals include T88's and 4 digit horsepower......

John
1997 T61 Supra, 6spd RSP hardtop
1994 BPU Supra, TT, A/T

 

[WDoherty]

turbosix, gotta disagree with you man. i wouldn't compare putting a bigger turbo on a supra being similiar in change or character of change to a viper that's got a big block chevy, a 2 speed powerglide, and tubed. Those supra's still do what they weren't meant to do well, and most understand turbo sizing as well, besides the dyno queens.

 

[jibbby]

Guys, the LS1 would be a better option for the money for sure for a swap... I am just saying the crate motor has some wicked torque potential and is not that much heavier then the LS1, which I happen to think is a great motor also...I would welcome an LS1 under the hood of my SC4 with a smile if it would fit ... The 4 liter 1UZ-FE are the best engines for the size and are built like tanks, but I always loved the big boys (the big liter engines).


PS: An N/A motor that produces 620whp is measly?

 

[turbosix]

Guys, the LS1 would be a better option for the money for sure for a swap... I am just saying the crate motor has some wicked torque potential and is not that much heavier then the LS1, which I happen to think is a great motor also...I would welcome an LS1 under the hood of my SC4 with a smile if it would fit ... The 4 liter 1UZ-FE are the best engines for the size and are built like tanks, but I always loved the big boys (the big liter engines).


PS: An N/A motor that produces 620whp is measly?

one, the 572ZZ makes 620 crank hp

two, plenty of LS1 here in texas make 400+hp with a cam and slight boltons

three, i didnt mention na in my statement, i just said 620hp is pretty weak for $13,000

 

[turbosix]

turbosix, gotta disagree with you man. i wouldn't compare putting a bigger turbo on a supra being similiar in change or character of change to a viper that's got a big block chevy, a 2 speed powerglide, and tubed. Those supra's still do what they weren't meant to do well, and most understand turbo sizing as well, besides the dyno queens.

other than the glide, there is nothing wrong with that viper. just because it is tubbed doesnt mean he cant bolt on a set of 18" HRE's all around with track rubber.

and i'd bet that huge v10 doesnt weigh that much less than that bbc...

 

[WDoherty]

i wish i had a picture of it, then you guys might feel where i'm coming from. Anyway, yeah the v-10 is as heavy as a big block chevy. I mean, how would you feel about a supra with the same set-up, big block chevy with a massive blower out of the hood, powerglide, and that viper i think had a 9in ford rear end, so that too. That's the angle i'm coming from, i'd be upset if i saw a supra like that.

 

[turbosix]

i wish i had a picture of it, then you guys might feel where i'm coming from. Anyway, yeah the v-10 is as heavy as a big block chevy. I mean, how would you feel about a supra with the same set-up, big block chevy with a massive blower out of the hood, powerglide, and that viper i think had a 9in ford rear end, so that too. That's the angle i'm coming from, i'd be upset if i saw a supra like that.

i would think it was awesome.

i like people that do different things, i think its fun.

 

[WDoherty]

to each his own. and for that matter i'm not a sbc,or, bbc, or any engine hater, i appreciate most things mechanical.

 

[Lextreme II]

So what do you guys think of a 5.3 liter into a Lexus LS400? I have been thinking about stroking a 4.7 liter Tundra block to 5.3L and stuff it into my LS400. Its about 85 lbs heavier in the front... but hey.... why not?

 

[turbosix]

So what do you guys think of a 5.3 liter into a Lexus LS400? I have been thinking about stroking a 4.7 liter Tundra block to 5.3L and stuff it into my LS400. Its about 85 lbs heavier in the front... but hey.... why not?

if it fits go for it

 

[bango]

Dunno...the beauty of the 1 uz was the smallish v8, alloy,light weight quad cam 4 valves and all the good things with it,hell if i wanted bigblock torque,ill look elsewhere,like bigblock chev etc,but hey,your choice..

 

[jibbby]

Stroke it LEX....All day long....

turbosix- Yes the crate engines are way to little bang for the buck, I agree...$13,000 is too much mulla......A used but good LS1 engine would be a much better choice...I agree with you 100%...

You say with cams the LS1 is making 400hp....Stock what are they rated at, 300hp or so? 100hp with cams only. now that's impressive if true? Those must be some wicked cams...Curious, what else are people doing to these engines to make power besides AFI? You guys have got me more interested in the LS1... I could pull one out of local junk yard with an ECU for around $1000.. Those engines are probably the best bang for the buck...I can't see any better engine to make power then the LS1 for that price....

LS1, ECU with the Corvette tranny all swapped into an SC4, I don't think I would cringe......You would basically have a Vettexus.....

 

[WDoherty]

lex, i'd say drop it not into an ls400, but an sc400, or better, a supra chassis (maybe a flood car for cheap) or something even lighter, is there another rwd car that you like. How will the heads re-act to a larger bore? Maybe 2uz heads would be best for a 5.3.

 

[WDoherty]

jibby, here is a forum with all the info you might want on the ls1.
www.ls1tech.com

 

[jibbby]

jibby, here is a forum with all the info you might want on the ls1.
www.ls1tech.com

Thanks WDohery, good info........

 

[turbosix]

Stroke it LEX....All day long....

turbosix- Yes the crate engines are way to little bang for the buck, I agree...$13,000 is too much mulla......A used but good LS1 engine would be a much better choice...I agree with you 100%...

You say with cams the LS1 is making 400hp....Stock what are they rated at, 300hp or so? 100hp with cams only. now that's impressive if true?

stock ls1... rated 300hp right?

every single car i've seen dynoed made 300hp+ to the wheels.

on average most made 310rwhp

fwiw..

 

[Nick M]

The LS1 had a change in '00 or '01. I have seen plenty of dynos that were 265-280 rwhp, which was a big jump over the LT1. In GM performance mags on a dynojet. The year it switched to a 5 hp jump, they were pretty consistent to 300 rwhp. From what I remember. Either way pretty darn good.

i thought supras were supposed to be sports cars, right?

One was, one wasnt. That ugly ass abomination that came out in 93 was a very good sports car, but has an ugly ass interior with too much cheap plastic. Sort of like my old 5.0. I guess when you are hard up to drop weight, you do what you can.


Now this is a real Supra. Very well rounded.

 

[Nick M]

http://gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0311htp_projls1/

I would say that is pretty typical. A monkey could put that car deep in the 13's bone stock.

 

[cribbj]

That ugly ass abomination that came out in 93 was a very good sports car, but has an ugly ass interior with too much cheap plastic.

Sorry for the thread drift, but just to respond to the MKIV Supra comments; I've owned a MKII, a MKIII and (2) MKIV Supras, and I would say the MKIII is a far more appropriate target for your "abomination" description than the MKIV. IMO, both the mechanical and styling designs just weren't finished for the MKIII, and much of the work that was done was flawed. I believe the MKIII was only a transition design to keep the model in the market until the MKIV was ready. Toyota has always had a tradition of being "the last, but the best" in the Japanese sports car wars, but the MKIII was never the best in its time, and most would agree that it was an overweight, underpowered poor third place to Nissan's and Mazda's offerings. Too, its body lines still reflected some of the early 80's Celica/Supra heritage that most Supra owners would just as soon forget.

After the MKIII, Toyota knew they HAD to get it right, and they did with the MKIV..... Regarding that "abomination", Ferrari evidently thinks so much of this thirteen year old design that their new 2006 model 599GTB is a virtual lookalike. It's true, the interior of the MKIV is probably its weakest area; Toyota plainly spent the money on the mechanicals, styling, and weight reduction, and the interior did get the short end of the stick, but where else could you buy a car with the performance the Supra had in 1993, for the money? Shoot, I can still take my 12 year old Supra out and embarass many 2006 sports cars.

Nick, plainly you're a MKIII fan, and I'm a MKIV fan, so perhaps we should agree to disagree on which one is better! At least we can both agree that we like Supra's

John