Thought exercise.....lightweight 200 HP engine

I also saw this one, about double challenge price. But with jag IRS 

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/191088589391436/

if it was challenged price I would be going to look at it. 

Wikipedia is probably full of lies but it claims the 1.6T in my Veloster and a bazillion other Hyundai Kia products weighs 155lbs (rated at 201hp).

I would guess the easy button to 200hp, light, RWD is Ecotec.

S2000 drivetrain would qualify also.

In reply to ProDarwin :

155 would make it lighter than an air cooled VW motor, which I doubt. If the short block were that light it would still be impressive.

Find an xc90 with the twin turbo six and a broken transmission.  Nice power, sturdy as hell.

960 is no turbos, and has a nice automatic behind it and is rwd.  Unobtainable five speed from European model if you must row your own.

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

155 would make it lighter than an air cooled VW motor, which I doubt. If the short block were that light it would still be impressive.

Yeah, I doubt it also, but it has me curious.  I found this site which suggests ~220lbs, but I'm guessing that doesn't include the (heavy) turbo parts.  That seems reasonable, but not very impressive.

I still think Ecotec is the 200 hp easy button.  Not sure whats lighter - LE5 or LSJ.

In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :

How much power would you like to have?  Jaguar makes an all aluminum 6 cylinder 4 valve head 4.0 liter.  Junkyards are full of them and the price is shockingly cheap.  
  It's a stone reliable engine.  And if you want even came with an optional supercharger. 
      If you insist on American the Atlas engine found in midsized GM SUV's is patterned after it.  And makes up to 290 Horsepower.  Plus Since FORD owned Jaguar there is a corporate connection as well. 

Just saying that 1962 Falcon and "pleasant street car" don't belong in the same sentence.  My restored 289 '65 Mustang 2+2 was a garbage street car.  Any current econo-box would have blown the doors off of it in any automotive contest you could name.

maj75 (Forum Supporter) said:

Just saying that 1962 Falcon and "pleasant street car" don't belong in the same sentence.  My restored 289 '65 Mustang 2+2 was a garbage street car.  Any current econo-box would have blown the doors off of it in any automotive contest you could name.

One of my friends from junior high turned out to work at the shop where I started working in another city entirely a few years later.  His daily driver was a '61 Falcon.  It worked just fine for him commuting ~30-40 minutes every day.

He said the only problem was that if it was really rainy, he had to ride the brakes a while to boil the water out of the front drums before they did anything, and then it would pull to one side until it was boiled out of both.  This sounds horrifyingly antique, but it's something I have to do on my 2006 car (that is 45 years newer) because the 330mm disk Brembo caliper brakes apparently have so much friction surface area that they ice over when it's cold and wet.

Hmmm, I had a 1964 Ranchero (Falcon truck). It was a decent enough street car for the period, and with a 302 and some bolt-ons was a jack-rabbit in a straight line. Although mine handled like sh-t, I was on a group backroad drive recently and the guy in front of me had a very good handling Ranchero which proves that anything can be tamed with the right stuff.

Sorry about the tangent, but one of the best mannered cars from that period was, wait for it........ the second generation Corvairs. If you want to have some fun with a six-cylinder from the period, take  a Porsche or Subaru transmission and put a LFX or EZ behind it. 

I don't think an engine swap thread would be complete without Curtis mentioning a diesel.

1.9L TDI with the knob turned up a bit.  Cheap swap.  There is a cheap conversion plate that makes it GM-trans compatible.  Lots of Ford Ranger guys went this way with a T5

2.8L VM Motori from a Jeep is another good diesel option.

OM606 is the 2JZ of the diesel world.  Reliable to about 750 hp at which point you'll blow head gaskets.  Swap to a mechanical pump from an OM603 and get nozzles to make your 200 hp.  Not exactly light at 450 lbs, but when you have nearly 500 ft-lbs, who cares.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

And then it shreds the 6.5" ring gear rear differental and the weight of the engine makes the shock towers bow in and pretty soon your 2500lb car weighs 3500lb and defeats the whole purpose of the excercise.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Actually, that would likely have the 8" rear, and he's not adding 1000 lbs by removing one 400-lb engine to replace it with one that weighs 450 lbs.

Those were available with an all-iron SBF, so the towers aren't going to bend unless you drop in a Powerstroke.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

But then he would smell like diesel fuel all the time, and only lot lizards would find him attractive.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Actually, that would likely have the 8" rear, and he's not adding 1000 lbs by removing one 400-lb engine to replace it with one that weighs 450 lbs.

Those were available with an all-iron SBF, so the towers aren't going to bend unless you drop in a Powerstroke.

A '62 should have had the end loading rear, not the 8".

The chassis was too flimsy even for a  V8.  Surviving '64-66 Mustangs usually have a ton of negative camber because of how much the chassis has shifted over the years.

Just because the factory did it doesn't mean it was at all well engineered.  You were expected to buy a new car after a year, maybe two years tops.  If you got 50k from an engine without what we would consider major repair, you were lucky.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

Heck, if he smelled like diesel, I would find him attractive.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

He could make bio fuel and smell like french fries all the time, still only lot lizards would find him attractive. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Actually, that would likely have the 8" rear, and he's not adding 1000 lbs by removing one 400-lb engine to replace it with one that weighs 450 lbs.

Those were available with an all-iron SBF, so the towers aren't going to bend unless you drop in a Powerstroke.

A '62 should have had the end loading rear, not the 8".

 

The chassis was too flimsy even for a  V8.  Surviving '64-66 Mustangs usually have a ton of negative camber because of how much the chassis has shifted over the years.

 

Just because the factory did it doesn't mean it was good enough.  You were expected to buy a new car after a year, maybe two years tops.

All V8 versions got the 8" axle (baby 9:).  All non-V8s got the 7.25" axle.  Either one will survive a lot of torque.  The 7.25" will explode if you give it 500 ft lbs AND traction.

The chassis was not too flimsy for a V8.  There are/were millions of Falcon/Ranchero/Maverick/Pinto cars out there with 460s laying down 9s in the quarter with nothing more than a tower brace.  They aren't the beefiest, but not weak.  We did have one fat/skinny Ranchero that liked to crack windshields on launch... with wrinkle-walls and a 520 ci BBF making 900 hp.

I would look at the 3.0 V6 from a Lincoln LS and a manual trans.  Easily makes the HP and Torque in stock form.  All alu.  The only thing that you would have to look at is the width.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

And then it shreds the 6.5" ring gear rear differental and the weight of the engine makes the shock towers bow in and pretty soon your 2500lb car weighs 3500lb and defeats the whole purpose of the excercise.

Pete.
The rear end will probably be fine  unless he's a jerk who has to smoke cartoon wide tires.  Even then it's a internet search to find a stronger rear end to replace it. There are a million older Mustang V8 rear ends out there that can be made to fit easily. 
    If the towers are as weak as you seem to claim it's a quick job to fabricate a removable brace that weighs less than 5 pounds.  

You want one form a 2002 as it has slightly better HP and Torques than the earlier ones

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Actually, that would likely have the 8" rear, and he's not adding 1000 lbs by removing one 400-lb engine to replace it with one that weighs 450 lbs.

Those were available with an all-iron SBF, so the towers aren't going to bend unless you drop in a Powerstroke.

A '62 should have had the end loading rear, not the 8".

 

The chassis was too flimsy even for a  V8.  Surviving '64-66 Mustangs usually have a ton of negative camber because of how much the chassis has shifted over the years.

 

Just because the factory did it doesn't mean it was good enough.  You were expected to buy a new car after a year, maybe two years tops.

All V8 versions got the 8" axle (baby 9:).  All non-V8s got the 7.25" axle.  Either one will survive a lot of torque.  The 7.25" will explode if you give it 500 ft lbs AND traction.

The chassis was not too flimsy for a V8.  There are/were millions of Falcon/Ranchero/Maverick/Pinto cars out there with 460s laying down 9s in the quarter with nothing more than a tower brace.  They aren't the beefiest, but not weak.  We did have one fat/skinny Ranchero that liked to crack windshields on launch... with wrinkle-walls and a 520 ci BBF making 900 hp.

Who cares about drag racing as a measure of chassis durability?  It only has to see power for a few seconds at a time and the rest of the time doesn't matter.

Rail dragsters are some of the floppiest noodliest chassis in the world, and they EXPLOIT this flexibility for torque reaction.

Ford inline 6 from Australia? There seems to be a selection on E Bay Australia. Some of those 6s may reach into the crazy and expensive but a manufacturer correct choice.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Actually, that would likely have the 8" rear, and he's not adding 1000 lbs by removing one 400-lb engine to replace it with one that weighs 450 lbs.

Those were available with an all-iron SBF, so the towers aren't going to bend unless you drop in a Powerstroke.

A '62 should have had the end loading rear, not the 8".

 

The chassis was too flimsy even for a  V8.  Surviving '64-66 Mustangs usually have a ton of negative camber because of how much the chassis has shifted over the years.

 

Just because the factory did it doesn't mean it was good enough.  You were expected to buy a new car after a year, maybe two years tops.

All V8 versions got the 8" axle (baby 9:).  All non-V8s got the 7.25" axle.  Either one will survive a lot of torque.  The 7.25" will explode if you give it 500 ft lbs AND traction.

The chassis was not too flimsy for a V8.  There are/were millions of Falcon/Ranchero/Maverick/Pinto cars out there with 460s laying down 9s in the quarter with nothing more than a tower brace.  They aren't the beefiest, but not weak.  We did have one fat/skinny Ranchero that liked to crack windshields on launch... with wrinkle-walls and a 520 ci BBF making 900 hp.

Who cares about drag racing as a measure of chassis durability?  It only has to see power for a few seconds at a time and the rest of the time doesn't matter.

 

Rail dragsters are some of the floppiest noodliest chassis in the world, and they EXPLOIT this flexibility for torque reaction.

 

 

10 points for using "noodliest" in a sentence.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Since the klde was available in a ford probe, a klze is close enough to get the job done, it would make pretty noises as well. 

dean1484 said:

You want one form a 2002 as it has slightly better HP and Torques than the earlier ones

 

2002

LS V6

2,967 cc (3 L; 181 cu in) Jaguar AJ V6

220 hp (164 kW) @ 6400 rpm

215 lb⋅ft (292 N⋅m) @ 4800 rpm

18 mpg‑US (13 L/100 km; 22 mpg‑imp) / 25 mpg‑US (9.4 L/100 km; 30 mpg‑imp)

Getrag 221 manual & 5R55N automatic

 

That was a great powertrain for a Miata, that's for sure.  Was a great car to drive.

Finding a donor..., well....