Time to whore it out again.
2720lbs with the Ford 5.0, full interior and Autopower cage. No attempt at lightening it, only moving the battery to the rear seat well area (where the rear seat would be if it had one). 49/51 f/r wight distribution. 330RWHP and a built AOD 4 speed auto. With the Tokiko HP struts, Tokiko sport springs, and a good autocross alignment, it pulled 1.2G on Yoko A032Rs back in the '90s. Miss that car.
Appleseed wrote: If you decide on a manual trans, a T56 will break the bank unless you are really lucky. If you don't need overdrive, m21-22-23, or Super T10 transmissions will work just fine.
Definitely want a manual, at some point. Might make it's first Challenge appearance with the included TH400.
In reply to Chris_V:
Very nice. Was that car at the Challenge??
SVreX wrote: In reply to Chris_V: Very nice. Was that car at the Challenge??
No, I built it in '93 for $2500, from a car I already had, so it wouldn't have counted.
Question about the older V8s like the stock Ford 5.0/302, isn't the power kind of mediocre with a rather low redline?
I briefly checked power outputs and it doesn't seem like it would be super fun to drive... I definitely wasn't impressed with the old Fox body GT back in the day... At least the rotary could rev - which I found fun with some proper gearing.
amg_rx7 wrote: Question about the older V8s like the stock Ford 5.0/302, isn't the power kind of mediocre with a rather low redline? I briefly checked power outputs and it doesn't seem like it would be super fun to drive... I definitely wasn't impressed with the old Fox body GT back in the day... At least the rotary could rev - which I found fun with some proper gearing.
In stock form, yes. You need higher compression and better flow and a much larger carb than one would think you need (or high flow fuel injection). Mine revved to 7500 due to a 10.5:1 compression ratio and Dart II heads with Chevy 1.90/1.60 valves. 302 Cleveland heads from Australia would do very well in this application, but it requires the Aussi intake manifold, as well... With the stock RX7 final drive ratios, the off-cam low rpm stuff wasn't a problem, and the torque band was still much wider than the rotary.
SVreX wrote: Didn't realize a GM computer was tunable- how does that work? I think I kind of like the 4.8L. Revs better, and I can afford to loose a little torque in a 2200 lb package. A cam should be all I need to get me the power I am looking for. But, if I go LS, I will probably take what I can get (unless I buy the RX7 package). Anyone voting Ford?
I think Ford's sound better.
Yes, I had one of those Foxbodies in my car hoard recently. Stock set up delivered all the torque at once and then started falling off about 4,500 rpm. Designed for impressive pep around town and quick blasts up to street-legal speed. The computer cut the fuel at something like 6,250, but it was irrelevant because the motor was way out of breath by then.
Ford sold a mild cam upgrade that shifted the torque curve to the right, and it was a popular upgrade for anybody that tracked the car. But the chassis did not exactly dance around corners, so it wasn't something I was going to spend a lot of time improving. I just transferred the drivetrain to a different chassis and started from there with intake, heads, injectors, cam, and tune. The main thing that can be said for it is, it can be done for cheap.
In reply to Huckleberry:This defines grm for me. I have a thought you guys ponder the consequences and I save thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours not messing up. Z3'S have been a long time fascination for me and LS swaps seem appropriate.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the z3 has the rear suspension of the e30 with trailing arms and the z4 is like the e36
You'll need to log in to post.
