Old car most needing engine swap?

I've been playing with the idea of transplanting a modern Duratec 2.3 into a Volvo 544; while also considering how, despite my love for my Miatas, I don't really enjoy working in the engine compartment due to all the crap in there. Which get's the mind turning:

What older cars have a lot of inherent goodness, but a substandard/unreliable/gutless powerplant? And what motor would be the magic pill?

Guidelines: Yes, I know that a LSX will make practically any car better, but that's too easy. Be creative but grounded. A turbo 3-rotor in an E-type is just wrong.......

Honda F20C engine into an AE86 chassis. The end.

kreb wrote: I've been playing with the idea of transplanting a modern Duratec 2.3 into a Volvo 544;

A buddy and I have talked about a 2.3 Duratec into a MkI Capri. That would be cool.

2JZGTE into a RA64 Celica coupe is another one I'd like to do.

When the 4AGE first came out I wanted to do one of them into a Triumph Spitfire. Still think that would be cool.

1.8t into a MkI Scirocco. Mmmm.

Nissan RB26DETT into Factory Five Roadster. Nissan burger logos where AC logos should be, single pipe exiting the rear of the car.

Supra 6 into Big Healey

fast_eddie_72 wrote: A buddy and I have talked about a 2.3 Duratec into a MkI Capri. That would be cool.

There was a project on FocalJet where someone was swapping a 2.3L Duratec into an old SVO mustang. Ranger trans or miata trans I think. Turbocharged of course.

http://forums.focaljet.com/team-rigz/501590-old-dog-new-tricks-mustang-svo-duratec-pr0n-inside.html

Triumph Spitfire 1500 - great car let down a bit by the mediocre engine

kreb wrote: Guidelines: Yes, I know that a LSX will make practically any car better, but that's too easy. Be creative but grounded. A turbo 3-rotor in an E-type is just wrong.......

How about a Jaguar XJ6 with turbo 3-rotor?

ArthurDent wrote: Triumph Spitfire 1500 - great car let down a bit by the mediocre engine

Similarly, Triumph GT6 Mk3 - great car (and structurally stiffer and better looking than a spit 1500), and although the engine is pretty nice for what it is, it's weight distribution destroys the car's handling.

Avanti II and replace the engine with an LSx.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

kreb wrote: I've been playing with the idea of transplanting a modern Duratec 2.3 into a Volvo 544;

A buddy and I have talked about a 2.3 Duratec into a MkI Capri. That would be cool.

http://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?5,41659 for the Duratec Volvo (although, newer than 544)

http://www.rallyrace.net/jvab/spgm/index.php?spgmGal=Capri&spgmPic=9&spgmFilters=#pic for the Duratec Capri

I'd kinda like to shoehorn a Subaru engine into an RX-7.

Hear me out: Two things that Subarus and rotaries have in common are that they require wide engine bays, and the crank centerline ends up rather high. However, the Subaru engine's all-aluminum construction makes for silly-light weight, and the short length is a nice touch, although, to be honest, I'd just lay the radiator down flat and vent the hood mid-engine style.

For completeness' sake, here's something that I've been toying with off and on:

I'm interested in the old school crusiers. I have a dream to pick up a 70 Pontiac Bonneville and do a duramax diesel swap. I miss the two we had when I was learning to drive. 400CID, Turbo 400 transmission, and a four barrel Carb. Nice times.

cxhb wrote: 2jz engine into an AE86 chassis. The end.

fixed that for ya

irish44j wrote:

ArthurDent wrote: Triumph Spitfire 1500 - great car let down a bit by the mediocre engine

Similarly, Triumph GT6 Mk3 - great car (and structurally stiffer and better looking than a spit 1500), and although the engine is pretty nice for what it is, it's weight distribution destroys the car's handling.

My favorite so far.

turbo 3-rotor XJ6? I like it, but purely in a Dr. Demento way.

boosted Atlas 4.2 in patgizz's '54 bel air

grimmelshanks wrote:

cxhb wrote: 2jz engine into an AE86 chassis. The end.

fixed that for ya

WHAT!? Your on the crack. The power would be awesome. But all that weight up front wouldnt be so awesome...

Knurled wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

kreb wrote: I've been playing with the idea of transplanting a modern Duratec 2.3 into a Volvo 544;

A buddy and I have talked about a 2.3 Duratec into a MkI Capri. That would be cool.

http://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?5,41659 for the Duratec Volvo (although, newer than 544) http://www.rallyrace.net/jvab/spgm/index.php?spgmGal=Capri&spgmPic=9&spgmFilters=#pic for the Duratec Capri I'd kinda like to shoehorn a Subaru engine into an RX-7. Hear me out: Two things that Subarus and rotaries have in common are that they require wide engine bays, and the crank centerline ends up rather high. However, the Subaru engine's all-aluminum construction makes for silly-light weight, and the short length is a nice touch, although, to be honest, I'd just lay the radiator down flat and vent the hood mid-engine style. For completeness' sake, here's something that I've been toying with off and on:

Why exactly do rotaries need wide engine bays? The engine bay in my SA isn't all that wide,and it could be a lot narrower if you ask me. There is heaps of room all around the engine,and the engine can't take up much more than 24" with the intake,and exhaust on it,maybe even a lot less I was just guessing. I would agree they require a large trans tunnel,but the engine bay doesn't need to be large.

The problem I have always had with the Subaru engine is that it almost always sits completely in front of the axle centre line in the Suby cars. To me that isn't the best place to put the engine. Now on the rotary the entire engine is behind the axle centre line,or it is on the generation one cars at least. I do like the compact height of the Suby flat fours,but then again they aren't that much more compact height wise than a magic spinning triangle engine when you figure the intake,and such.

kreb wrote: Guidelines: Yes, I know that a LSX will make practically any car better, but that's too easy. Be creative but grounded. A turbo 3-rotor in an E-type is just wrong.......

Take the ground off and go four 3-rotor motors in there to keep a 12 something under the bonnet.

Mazdax605 wrote: Why exactly do rotaries need wide engine bays? The engine bay in my SA isn't all that wide,and it could be a lot narrower if you ask me.

The engine itself is fairly wide compared to an inline four, and then you have to put manifolds on it, and they aren't at least up high like an inline has, and THEN you have to fit the steering around it, since the aforementioned crank centerline height means you generally have to get the engine as low as possible.

IIRC, an RX-7 bay is around 40" wide. I found this out when I looked into swapping in a Mustang II frontend to eliminate the strut towers, and found that the crossmember would practically fit inside the rails!

The problem I have always had with the Subaru engine is that it almost always sits completely in front of the axle centre line in the Suby cars. To me that isn't the best place to put the engine.

Like some people fixate on "fender gap", fixating on engine placement isn't necessarily a good thing.

Sure, the Subaru sets the engine in front of the front wheels. Almost all FWD vehicles do too! Think about it: the halfshafts run behind the engine, and the trans output centerline is usually a little in front of the axle centerline.

However... the Subaru engine is light, and almost all of the transaxle is behind the axle centerline. Transverse AWD units put the engine and most of the transaxle ahead of it... so if you care about where the drivetrain sits in relation to the axle, the Subaru method is actually the best.

Now on the rotary the entire engine is behind the axle centre line,or it is on the generation one cars at least.

It's not. Not even on my altered wheelbase car.

Put an anything else in a DeLorean.

I'd like an RB26 or a 2JZ in a 27 track roadser.

Not a fan of engine swaps (I owned a 289 Volvo years ago).

But I do like the K-Series swap in Spridgets.....that seems like a logical upgrade. They would have done that themselves if they still made these cars.

One swap I find appealing is to take a Box Nova (see below) and install one of the new five cylinder, twin-cam, aluminum GM VorTech engines (also below).

With Camaro suspension, it would a nice, balanced hot-rod that you could really live with.

^ That. But a wagon.

Knurled wrote:

Mazdax605 wrote: Why exactly do rotaries need wide engine bays? The engine bay in my SA isn't all that wide,and it could be a lot narrower if you ask me.

The engine itself is fairly wide compared to an inline four, and then you have to put manifolds on it, and they aren't at least up high like an inline has, and THEN you have to fit the steering around it, since the aforementioned crank centerline height means you generally have to get the engine as low as possible. IIRC, an RX-7 bay is around 40" wide. I found this out when I looked into swapping in a Mustang II frontend to eliminate the strut towers, and found that the crossmember would practically fit inside the rails!

The problem I have always had with the Subaru engine is that it almost always sits completely in front of the axle centre line in the Suby cars. To me that isn't the best place to put the engine.

Like some people fixate on "fender gap", fixating on engine placement isn't necessarily a good thing. Sure, the Subaru sets the engine in front of the front wheels. Almost all FWD vehicles do too! Think about it: the halfshafts run behind the engine, and the trans output centerline is usually a little in front of the axle centerline. However... the Subaru engine is light, and almost all of the transaxle is behind the axle centerline. Transverse AWD units put the engine and most of the transaxle ahead of it... so if you care about where the drivetrain sits in relation to the axle, the Subaru method is actually the best.

Now on the rotary the entire engine is behind the axle centre line,or it is on the generation one cars at least.

It's not. Not even on my altered wheelbase car.

I wasn't looking for an argument,and you have valid points. I wasn't fixated on engine placement with the suby engine. I was just mentioning I wasn't a fan of the way of mounting an engine. It's the same to me as the Porsche/ACVW engine placement which puts it so far in the back. I know these are all perfectly suitable engine placements,but I am not a fan of it.

You are right on the crank height being high on a rotary,but in my opinion it isn't a big deal as the engine isn't very tall to begin with even with an intake. How does a 40" wide engine bay compare to other cars? I truly don't know,but I have never considered the engine bay wide on any RX car,and I have had almost every one. Maybe they look large because the engine is so small. I look in the engine bay of my father in laws Falcon,and it looks really super narrow,but maybe it is because there is a fairly wide V8 in there,and the strut towers(maybe there not struts actually I forget) seem like they intrude into the bay way too much. Now if someone was so foolish to drop a 12A in there maybe it wouldn't look so narrow,but maybe I am wrong.

Again I am not looking to argue,but rather wondering if the RX engine bay looks wide with the narrow engine in it.

65 eldo with a powerstroke. Should get at least 20mpg and take away my last argument against a purchase.

I've mused about turbodiesels in the old big block barges as well.... where the weight wouldn't matter.

I missed buying an Auto Union MUNGA with a VW turbodiesel in it and was planning to doa 1.9TD swap into a Samuri when a cheap late model Tracker came along. (Should have stuck with the original plan)

Back in the days of the nasty GM Diesel, it was easy to find near near cars with blown engines. We discovered that Buick 350's would bolt right in, so we converted a bunch of these cars, my favorite being a fwd 1980 Seville (with the bustle back styling) that we dropped a warmed over late 60's Rocket 350 into... Dad drove that for several years.

And of course I think the Bitter SC platform needs a V8... the previous Bitter platfrom used a 327.