Roobus's K20A2-Powered LBZ on BaT

[lanciahf]

. If Abarth got a hold of it, then it would be the 1750cc

Wishful thinking Steve. Don’t confuse the Abarth of today with the Abarth we all know and love. The Abarth of today would put extra stickers on, give it 5 more horsepower and wonder why no one thinks it’s special, ala new Fiat 124 spider.

They should have put the 4c motor in the 124 spider from the beginning.

 

[Longitudinal]

Zero cut, minimal cut installation
Manual transmission
...
200HP to the wheels m/l

May I assume that turbocharging and/or engine development/increased boost is acceptable to reach 200WHP? If not, 200WHP without cuts to the body will be a tall order.

Without speculating about durability and reliability, I think a breathed-on MINI Cooper R56 engine could get you there. So might a more heavily breathed-on 500 turbo engine, but I think 200 at the wheels is a lot to ask out of the 500 engine and trans, and I don't recall if cutting was necessary.

The problem that requires cutting is not always the dimensional size of the engine, but more the way it is laid out and the places the factory put usable thread bungs on the block from which engine mounts can be planned and built. Many modern transverse engines are mounted in with a pivoting/weight bearing mount at the front of the engine and the back of the trans and a dog bone underneath to manage torque. I don't think that's the best answer from a performance standpoint, but it might make fitting an engine easier.

Maybe a VW 06A engine of one sort or another? I suspect that the external water pump of the EA827 engines would interfere with the X's front crossmember in the same way that the K20's water pump does. (The interference isn't as bad as the cuts to the body in that area would suggest. I cut more than was actually needed, and everybody afterward followed suit.) The 06A block has an internal water pump that is placed higher up, so the pump won't interfere. The bores of these engines are small and the bore center spacing is tight (undersquare engines,) so their length would be less than a FIAT SOHC engine. Would the trans fit without cutting? I don't know, but it might.

 

[KBabcock]

They are. I have owned several over the years. But transverse mounting them is bound to be a challenge. (I know that it has been done, even by a member here.) The eccentric shaft comes out the center of the engine, unlike any piston engine that has ever been attached to a transverse transaxle, in which the crankshaft comes out near the bottom. This means that the engine would be pushed very low in the car.

Also, supply of many central components of the engines is beginning to dry up. Rotor housings do still exist new, but Mazda stopped producing them several years ago. Irons have been out of production for decades now. Irons and housings that would have been considered trash twenty years ago are now considered usable because of dearth of good parts.

And the Renesis engines are no help at all. What a disappointing end for a legendary engine!

I owned a RX-8 for 8 years, sold it when the extended warranty expired, did not trust the engine. The car it self was one of the best I had ever owned but the rotary is a high maintenance partner.

I was averaging gas milage of 11 to 13 MPG. The engine has to be above 5K rpm to get into any real power and then only delivers 232 Hp and 159 Ft/lbs. For the gas it consumes the power does not match, the engine is not very thermal efficient due to the polymorphic combustion chamber and exhaust is 300 to 400 degrees hotter then a piston engine, not great in a little rear engine compartment.

The biggest complaint was the engines were dying left and right, some people I knew were on the 3rd engine. It was later concluded that the caused of these failure was heat. Mazda did a lot of cost cutting and it came back to bite them.

 

[Longitudinal]

I was averaging gas milage of 11 to 13 MPG. The engine has to be above 5K rpm to get into any real power and then only delivers 232 Hp and 159 Ft/lbs. For the gas it consumes the power does not match, the engine is not very thermal efficient due to the polymorphic combustion chamber and exhaust is 300 to 400 degrees hotter then a piston engine, not great in a little rear engine compartment.

The rotary was a fantastic performance engine package in the time when high performance I4 engines made 120HP after being breathed on and cammed to the limit of the valve springs. When NA 2L I4 engines began making 200HP from the factory and V8 engines were able to make 500HP with only the slightest modification, the rotary engine ceased to make any sense.

The Renesis in your Rx-8 looked at first like a major step and the salvation of the rotary. 250HP (originally claimed, later adjusted) out of a NA rotary, nearly the power made by the FD's twin turbo? Awesome! Porting overhaul that decreased emissions to nearly piston engine levels? Super! And then people began buying them and driving them. 40-60k mile engine life. 232HP, not 250. Rampant side seal failures.

And I'm for things being what they actually are. What was the real point in trying to make a 4 door look like a 2 door? I understand the reasoning behind it; give dad a sports car and let mom have somewhere to put the kids. But some compromises just shouldn't be made.

I owned three Rx-7s--two first gen 12A cars and one Turbo II. I loved them all. They were pure joy to drive.

 

[rx1900]

View attachment 66703

Haha.....yeah...you got me there

although....of course I was referring to a factory engine/tranny combo. Clearly this was done by mating a Mazda rotary engine to some sort of FWD or Fiero tranny. You can see an adapter plate there.

Whatever.....that is some mighty impressive fabrication and engineering to get all that in there. My hat is off to the builder !!!!

 

[NigelProdrive]

Haha.....yeah...you got me there

although....of course I was referring to a factory engine/tranny combo. Clearly this was done by mating a Mazda rotary engine to some sort of FWD or Fiero tranny. You can see an adapter plate there.

Whatever.....that is some mighty impressive fabrication and engineering to get all that in there. My hat is off to the builder !!!!

I swapped a 13B mated to a FWD Subaru transmission using a Kennedy Engineering adaptor into my old hillclimb car. Brrrappp. Brrrapp!

Don't know if Kennedy is still around but if they are could be worth checking out what all adaptors they are making now for more modern swaps.

 

[Santa Barbarian]

I swapped a 13B mated to a FWD Subaru transmission using a Kennedy Engineering adaptor into my old hillclimb car. Brrrappp. Brrrapp!

Don't know if Kennedy is still around but if they are could be worth checking out what all adaptors they are making now for more modern swaps.

Oh, KEP is definitely still around. And they do some wild combos-- usually around VW-Porsche transaxles, though.
They will do pretty much any EJ20 derivative to a Boxster gearbox, for instance. Wasn't aware they did anything for Subie transaxles though.

They are also great for custom clutch assemblies for odd applications.

 

[Longitudinal]

I swapped a 13B mated to a FWD Subaru transmission using a Kennedy Engineering adaptor into my old hillclimb car. Brrrappp. Brrrapp!

Rotary onto a Subaru trans is a natural combination since both have their crankshaft coming out of the center of the engine and the capacious and wide engine bay in a Subaru.

I might have done something with a mid engine Subaru layout by now if Subaru hadn't altogether stopped making FWD cars more than a decade ago. Somebody does make a center diff delete for a Subaru trans, but I never got interested.

 

[KBabcock]

The rotary was a fantastic performance engine package in the time when high performance I4 engines made 120HP after being breathed on and cammed to the limit of the valve springs. When NA 2L I4 engines began making 200HP from the factory and V8 engines were able to make 500HP with only the slightest modification, the rotary engine ceased to make any sense.

The Renesis in your Rx-8 looked at first like a major step and the salvation of the rotary. 250HP (originally claimed, later adjusted) out of a NA rotary, nearly the power made by the FD's twin turbo? Awesome! Porting overhaul that decreased emissions to nearly piston engine levels? Super! And then people began buying them and driving them. 40-60k mile engine life. 232HP, not 250. Rampant side seal failures.

And I'm for things being what they actually are. What was the real point in trying to make a 4 door look like a 2 door? I understand the reasoning behind it; give dad a sports car and let mom have somewhere to put the kids. But some compromises just shouldn't be made.

I owned three Rx-7s--two first gen 12A cars and one Turbo II. I loved them all. They were pure joy to drive.

This was my first Rotary and my daily driver, those rear sides allowed me to have a pure sports car experience while being able to take my son his friend and all our equipment on a camping trip. If not for the fuel economy and the engine failures I'd still have that car today. To me those 2 extra seats made the car practical choice.

Sad you missed the 3rd gen, that was the real cream despite the vacuum hose issues. I would have loved to have gotten one of those but at the time it was a rather costly indulgence.

 

[Longitudinal]

Sad you missed the 3rd gen, that was the real cream despite the vacuum hose issues. I would have loved to have gotten one of those but at the time it was a rather costly indulgence.

Third gen has always been out of my budget range. As my earning increases, so do their values to keep out of reach.

The truth is that I actually like the FC better than the FD. The FC is the "girl next door," whereas the FD is the "unrealistic supermodel." The FC was my first import sports car experience when my friend bought one just after high school. I didn't immediately fall in love, but I did eventually.

I actually like the FB most of all for the driving experience, but recognize that it is, to be kind, crude compared to the FC. I just enjoy the purity of it. It doesn't have anything that it doesn't need. Of course, it lacks a few things that it actually does need, but you forgive that.

 

[NigelProdrive]

Codriving at the limit so sideways and loud It’s the closest thing I’ll ever get to have rallied in a Stratos.

 

[Bobkat]

May I assume that turbocharging and/or engine development/increased boost is acceptable to reach 200WHP? If not, 200WHP without cuts to the body will be a tall order.

Without speculating about durability and reliability, I think a breathed-on MINI Cooper R56 engine could get you there. So might a more heavily breathed-on 500 turbo engine, but I think 200 at the wheels is a lot to ask out of the 500 engine and trans, and I don't recall if cutting was necessary.

The problem that requires cutting is not always the dimensional size of the engine, but more the way it is laid out and the places the factory put usable thread bungs on the block from which engine mounts can be planned and built. Many modern transverse engines are mounted in with a pivoting/weight bearing mount at the front of the engine and the back of the trans and a dog bone underneath to manage torque. I don't think that's the best answer from a performance standpoint, but it might make fitting an engine easier.

Maybe a VW 06A engine of one sort or another? I suspect that the external water pump of the EA827 engines would interfere with the X's front crossmember in the same way that the K20's water pump does. (The interference isn't as bad as the cuts to the body in that area would suggest. I cut more than was actually needed, and everybody afterward followed suit.) The 06A block has an internal water pump that is placed higher up, so the pump won't interfere. The bores of these engines are small and the bore center spacing is tight (undersquare engines,) so their length would be less than a FIAT SOHC engine. Would the trans fit without cutting? I don't know, but it might.

a local guy converted a VW 1.8T to NA with ITBs and It was making over well over 200 hp and redlined at 9k. It is in a MK2 golf.

 

[bjwhite]

Oh my.....

Just curious BJ...did you do this yourself ? Were you able to pull just the engine...or does the tranny have to come out too ??

And looking at the pic.....with that timing chain layout....would it be possible to say change a head gasket with the engine still in the car ??

And gosh....all those tensioners and plastic guides look like trouble in waiting......

No I didn't do it myself. JH Motorsport in Lathrop, CA did the deed.

I don't think the gearbox needs to come out. But they did remove mine.

 

[Longitudinal]

a local guy converted a VW 1.8T to NA with ITBs and It was making over well over 200 hp and redlined at 9k. It is in a MK2 golf.

That certainly can be done, but with sacrifices to drivability and torque; it's going to take a lot of cam to take an engine that naturally wants to make probably 130-140HP and force it to make 200. I'm not saying that it can't be done. People did it with the 16V engines back in olden times. But 200HP NA on a 20V 1.8L is a bragging rights thing, not a practical decision. Turbochargers make engines more powerful and quieter while retaining tame cam profiles, making them more efficient. And the torque--let's not forget the torque. There is no way to cam your way into the torque that a turbocharger would give you. Did he at least bore and stroke to 2L, or did he further put himself behind the 8 ball by keeping it at 1.8L?

I built a 2L 8V NA engine that made probably 160HP. It was a conventional counterflow head that was professionally ported and had a custom ground camshaft (300/284, .490/.460) with a header and an exhaust system that was optimized to the best of my ability without building my own header, which was beyond my ability at that time. It probably would have made more power if it weren't breathing through a KE Jetronic metering plate. But the sacrifice of drivability was real. It idled OK enough, but it was logy at tip-in off idle and wasn't much fun until about 4KRPM--all for 150-160HP. Of course, less cam would have been required on a 16V engine, but I wanted the (inverse) prestige of sticking with the 8V engine.

Fast forward a few years from that engine, and I was building 8V turbo engines for customers. These were mostly mild engines that made more power and torque than that wild NA engine on stock camshafts with just 10PSI of boost--one even with a purely stock engine except for the upgrade to head studs and a MLS head gasket. That lumpy 300 degree street engine was fun in its own way, but it wasn't as fast, made too much noise, and got 17MPG in combined driving.

 

[Santa Barbarian]

May I assume that turbocharging and/or engine development/increased boost is acceptable to reach 200WHP? If not, 200WHP without cuts to the body will be a tall order.

If I'm consistent with my "what would a modern powertrain do" mantra? Yeah, boost in one form or another is likely.
(We'd even looked, although only briefly, at seeing whether a 205HP LSJ GM Ecotec would fit. It won't. Neither will an LE5 or an Atlas 5)

If I'm reluctant there, it's only because I'd think the rear trunk area would be a natural place to put an inter-cooler, so I'm thinking my "no cuts" thing goes out the window.

However, the modern small turbos are a natural and the "hot side" placement is facilitated by the Xer layout.

Thanks for the great ideas.

 

[Longitudinal]

If I'm consistent with my "what would a modern powertrain do" mantra? Yeah, boost in one form or another is likely.
(We'd even looked, although only briefly, at seeing whether a 205HP LSJ GM Ecotec would fit. It won't. Neither will an LSJ or an LLY)

If I'm reluctant there, it's only because I'd think the rear trunk area would be a natural place to put an inter-cooler, so I'm thinking my "no cuts" thing goes out the window.

However, the modern small turbos are a natural and the "hot side" placement is facilitated by the Xer layout.

I have heard that the Ecotec engines are long.

I'm not so keen on the rear trunk as an intercooler location due to the fact that a lot of heat would be pushing up from the exhaust. Following the no-cut/lo-cut mantra, I think that a ATW cooler mounted to the left of the engine and a heat exchanger up front would involve the least cutting.

That's not to say that I think that the rear trunk is worth saving. I don't. It's small and hot and hardly worth using compared to the frunk. But if you don't want to cut, you don't want to cut.

VW I4 engines are about as compact for the displacement as they come.

 

[Santa Barbarian]

I have heard that the Ecotec engines are long.

I'm not so keen on the rear trunk as an intercooler location due to the fact that a lot of heat would be pushing up from the exhaust. Following the no-cut/lo-cut mantra, I think that a ATW cooler mounted to the left of the engine and a heat exchanger up front would involve the least cutting.

That's not to say that I think that the rear trunk is worth saving. I don't. It's small and hot and hardly worth using compared to the frunk. But if you don't want to cut, you don't want to cut.

Sorry for my earlier typo. I should have said LE5, also an Ecotec family motor. They are both longer and wider than you'd think, compared to other European I4 motors. We've given up getting anything GM to fit.

The LSJ actually uses an integral air-water intercooling scheme, so our thoughts were more along the lines of a (like the Redline ION) larger A-W intercooler in the trunk, with the pump system, but a front-mounted heat exchanger roughly where the AC hardware would have been.

So, to your point, you're most likely correct that my "no cuts" desire probably runs into the reality of "must have cuts".

 

[Bobkat]

That certainly can be done, but with sacrifices to drivability and torque; it's going to take a lot of cam to take an engine that naturally wants to make probably 130-140HP and force it to make 200. I'm not saying that it can't be done. People did it with the 16V engines back in olden times. But 200HP NA on a 20V 1.8L is a bragging rights thing, not a practical decision. Turbochargers make engines more powerful and quieter while retaining tame cam profiles, making them more efficient. And the torque--let's not forget the torque. There is no way to cam your way into the torque that a turbocharger would give you. Did he at least bore and stroke to 2L, or did he further put himself behind the 8 ball by keeping it at 1.8L?

I built a 2L 8V NA engine that made probably 160HP. It was a conventional counterflow head that was professionally ported and had a custom ground camshaft (300/284, .490/.460) with a header and an exhaust system that was optimized to the best of my ability without building my own header, which was beyond my ability at that time. It probably would have made more power if it weren't breathing through a KE Jetronic metering plate. But the sacrifice of drivability was real. It idled OK enough, but it was logy at tip-in off idle and wasn't much fun until about 4KRPM--all for 150-160HP. Of course, less cam would have been required on a 16V engine, but I wanted the (inverse) prestige of sticking with the 8V engine.

Fast forward a few years from that engine, and I was building 8V turbo engines for customers. These were mostly mild engines that made more power and torque than that wild NA engine on stock camshafts with just 10PSI of boost--one even with a purely stock engine except for the upgrade to head studs and a MLS head gasket. That lumpy 300 degree street engine was fun in its own way, but it wasn't as fast, made too much noise, and got 17MPG in combined driving.

It was still 1.8, made 205 wheel at 9300 and 160 torques somewhere. The biggest thing with staying NA in the cramped X bay is you don't have to try to fit everything associated with a turbo somewhere. Not alot of expense was spared in the build.

 

[Longitudinal]

So, to your point, you're most likely correct that my "no cuts" desire probably runs into the reality of "must have cuts".

Most likely, this is the case. And it's difficult to know exactly how any engine will fit until you're trying to fit it into the engine bay. In my world, that is the point of no return. At that point, it's going to fit by hook or by crook.

I like the integrated ATW idea as an idea to make the intake tract less complicated. But it also make the IM large in one direction or another.

 

[Longitudinal]

It was still 1.8, made 205 wheel at 9300 and 160 torques somewhere. The biggest thing with staying NA in the cramped X bay is you don't have to try to fit everything associated with a turbo somewhere. Not alot of expense was spared in the build.

If you want 205HP out of a NA 20V 1.8, sparing expense is not an option.

Certainly if the build is to be no-cut or, let's say "minimally invasive," then turbocharging becomes difficult. And all of the natively 200HP NA options also involve cutting.

@Santa Barbarian, have you looked seriously at a 2ZZ? It is a compact engine. It falls a bit short of your desired power, but I have driven a 2ZZ swapped third gen (hairdresser's) MR2. That MR2 is heavier than an X, and I can say that the 2ZZ moved it spiritedly. It might be worth considering if you are willing to compromise on the power a bit. I just replaced the 1ZZ in our Matrix. It uses the same block. I wish I had taken measurements.