Engine Swap! Suggestions, Advice and Experience PLEASE!

Aside from ruining... you run the risk of changing gearboxes as often as you change the oil. Nissan transmissions aren't as robust as their engines are, sadly.

The stock Silvia output (200-250) should be more than enough, until you start modifying the 240Z suspension and brakes.

a company called PPG makes gearsets/gearbox upgrades that make the nissan boxes pretty stout.... also adapter plates exist for most nissan blocks to swap to supra 5 speed, or even GM transmissions (because the engines are used in drag racing, adapters to swap to TH400 or C6 autos are around....)

But yeah....even 250hp at the hoops in a 240z would be pretty wild...the car weighs 3/5ths of sweet **** all.... you could probably rig a sail, power it by wind, and still outrun a P5 on the quartermile....
 
Hey, my FSDE can outdrag... errh... a... uhmm... ah... forget it...

I might be needing gearbox reinforcement myself... and soon... going between 2nd and 3rd is pretty iffy already. :o
 
Haha oh yeah I would never be doing that conversion, there really isn't a need for me, I was just amazed at what that engine can do. Going to 250 or 300 hp from the Mazda's 130 would be a rocket ride, might even make my dad's 2003 C230K feel slow (though right now I absolutely love that thing for it's ability to suddenly be 30m ahead as soon as I touch the gas pedal).
 
My dad has also mentioned something about the chassis having a tendency to fold in, so i'm guessing that 1MW wouldn't do good things for that.
 
Haha oh yeah I would never be doing that conversion, there really isn't a need for me, I was just amazed at what that engine can do. Going to 250 or 300 hp from the Mazda's 130 would be a rocket ride, might even make my dad's 2003 C230K feel slow (though right now I absolutely love that thing for it's ability to suddenly be 30m ahead as soon as I touch the gas pedal).

Power to weight is where its at... you'll have a bullet, for half the work on the engine, which makes things cheap.

Bolt on's on a SR20 will be more than enough to have truckloads of fun
just be sure to restore the interior to mint condition so you have something to be proud of to go with the smile on your face when you hit the loud pedal.
 
Yeah I definitely plan on restoring the interior, 70s style too, I want this car to look like it used to.
 
240z with 300hp and drag radials=11.9quarter......mazdaspeed protege with 295whp=13.5........no i will admit, a klze with have more power and grunt on the top end for you too. its not just horsepower that gets you across, torque is more important in my opinion. your call and how unique you want to be and how much time you have. both swaps will cost you about the same when everything is finished. but ultimately yourchoice. I know i still like being able to haul multiple peices of arse in my car. but then again, a 240z could haul one FINE piece. never had a ten, but ive had five 2's.......
 
slom that's horse sh!t. if torque was everything and more important, why are trucks as slow as all hell? diesels as slow as all hell? "work" is what is important. ie, torque over time, or HP. and you compare a rwd with drag radials to a fwd with street rubber? geez. my car does 13.9's (potential, never gone better than 14.0's because i back off to win races rather than cutting numbers) and i only have some 200whp or so. good working gearbox and i'd have the potential for mid 13's as my current set up stands.
 
in addition to that, tighten up your lug nuts with a torque wrench...you'll soon see that you can apply a tremendous amount of ***torque*** to the wheels...but you're not going to move your car with that!!!
 
slom that's horse sh!t. if torque was everything and more important, why are trucks as slow as all hell? diesels as slow as all hell? "work" is what is important. ie, torque over time, or HP. and you compare a rwd with drag radials to a fwd with street rubber? geez. my car does 13.9's (potential, never gone better than 14.0's because i back off to win races rather than cutting numbers) and i only have some 200whp or so. good working gearbox and i'd have the potential for mid 13's as my current set up stands.

I've seen some pretty fast diesels before, even a stock TDI Jetta isn't all that slow all things considered. Besides look up some of the diesel trucks drag racing on youtube or wherever some of them really ******* fast.
 
I've seen some pretty fast diesels before, even a stock TDI Jetta isn't all that slow all things considered. Besides look up some of the diesel trucks drag racing on youtube or wherever some of them really ******* fast.

Drag-racing diesel trucks? Those guys have over 800 hp and nearly 2000 ft-lbs of torque. If you can't go fast with that much power, there's something wrong with your car... :D

It's never about torque or maximum horsepower... it's the average horsepower you make under the curve.

It doesn't matter if I make 200 whp at 7000 rpm... if i can't make good horsepower from 4000 (the lowest rpm at which shifts on the Protege take you) then that peak power is useless.

A modern turbodiesel is good not because of the maximum torque... but because the powerband, from 2000 rpm to 4500 rpm, is so fat.

My engine is like this:

rpm - whp
4000 - 92.1
4500 - 107.2
5000 - 128
5500 - 138
6000 - 144.3
6500 - 151.5

A turbodiesel goes like this: (Focus TDCi... and this isn't even tuned... just a drop-in filter)

rpm - whp
2000 - 103.3
2500 - 122.9
3000 - 138.5
3500 - 141.6
4000 - 134.9
4500 - 124

So it doesn't hit the same heights a gasser does... but average hp over the range is 127 whp. Mine is just 126. That means that it'd be close through the gears, given the same curb weight and transmission. What sucks is that with chip tuning and basic IHE, the TDCI makes over 160 whp. Before the cams, my car was just slightly faster than the stock TDCi except from a roll... against a tuned one, I didn't have a chance in hell.

That's the benefit not of being diesel... but of being turbocharged. A turbocharged gas engine will produce a similarly fat powerband higher up in the rev range. And a tall rev range matters in drag racing, as it means you need less shifts and can have more flexible gear ratios for going down the track. Like twilightprotege says, a similarly tuned petrol engine will be better... a 2.0 turbodiesel can be boosted to 200+ bhp reliably... a 2.0 gasoline turbo can be boosted to 300 reliably (400 if they're already turbo-mills like the 4G63 or SR20) and 600-700 hp with forged internals and proper tuning.

In the end, it's not simply torque you want. 100,000 foot pounds of torque at 0 rpm still equals 0 hp. What you want is a good spread of torque across the entire rev range... and that is what makes horsepower important. Average horsepower is a description of how your torque is distributed. If it's all at the low end (ala dieselers), you have poor top-end speed, if it's all at the high end (ala Hondah), you have poor acceleration. Having an optimum balance is what equates to good racetrack performance. ;)
 
niky: you neglect the benefit of gearing in your analysis...
the "torque multiplication effect of gearing" - thats why you accelerate faster in 1st than 2nd and so forth.

Gearing is also what makes engine speed critical to acceleration - the longer you can hold a given gear, without the multiplied torque dropping below the road torque of the next gear, the higher your average acceleration will be..

I've seen plenty of honda's accelerate aweful fast...and not too many diesel powered cars with truck loads more "low end" out accelerating them... the honda achieves a greater level of acceleration once it is in motion because its power is baised to the top end.

And the talk about torque being more important than horsepower or visa versa is plain stupid - people speak of them as though they are 2 different things...when in fact they are both related to each other - more horsepower at a given engine speed equates to more torque at the same engine speed..you cannot increase one without increasing the other.
 
slom that's horse sh!t. if torque was everything and more important, why are trucks as slow as all hell? diesels as slow as all hell? "work" is what is important. ie, torque over time, or HP. and you compare a rwd with drag radials to a fwd with street rubber? geez. my car does 13.9's (potential, never gone better than 14.0's because i back off to win races rather than cutting numbers) and i only have some 200whp or so. good working gearbox and i'd have the potential for mid 13's as my current set up stands.

Torque and horsepower are dependent upon one another. Mechanical work is defined as force times displacement (distance) on a vehicle wheel (rotational system) Work becomes torque times angular displacement. In addition, mechanical power is defined as force times velocity and hence force times angular velocity. As a result power is the time derivative of work meaning power (hp) is the rate in which work (torque) is changing. Thanks to Sir Isaac Newton we get F = m * a, which means both (horse)power and acceleration are torque dependent. This would mean (horse)power is rate at which your acceleration is changing (”jump”) and not acceleration.

For example, take your mountain bike to a steep hill, once you reach the top (a flat spot) put it in first or second gear and head down the hill pedaling hard but constant. What you will find is that at first you feel that you are contributing to the acceleration of the bike with your feet/legs. Once you reach a certain speed (based on gearing), however, it is almost like you are in neutral and not contributing at all. This is because you cannot provide the foot speed (angular velocity) to maintain the torque you have applied all along (horsepower).

The way to think of it is your engine’s torque accelerates your car to a given speed but at that speed the engine’s power is a measure of its ability to keep on applying the torque. My experience has proven to myself that equal torque and hp numbers seem to be the best and most enjoyable to drive. Probably no surprise that the p5 is 130 hp/139ft-lb and msp is 170hp/160 ft-lb.

Oh and twilight usually a diesel pickup weighs 5000lb+ and has a higher torque to compensate for the increased mass and potential payload. A quick search on the internet showed that in 2007 the Ford F-150 Harley-Davidson V8 Supercharged had a 0-60mph time of 5.4sec and the 2007 V12 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti posted a 0-60mph of 5.8sec. Now the F-150 weighs 5000lbs and has 11.1 lbs/hp while the Scaglietti weighs 3942lbs and has 7.3lbs/hp. So Twilight, if the Ferrari weighs 1058lbs less and has 90hp more it must be torque not horsepower (Go USA!). Always remember without data you are just another fool with an opinion and you might want to check your work equation. Specs can be found at http://www.performancecarnews.com/Cars-0-60.asp?Process=ShowTable

Aside, I’ve looked into the KLZE and was wondering if anyone knows whether or not you need new driveshafts or if the difference in engine width is small enough to where they could be cut down?
 
Last edited:
Torque and horsepower are dependent upon one another. Mechanical work is defined as force times displacement (distance) on a vehicle wheel (rotational system) Work becomes torque times angular displacement. In addition, mechanical power is defined as force times velocity and hence force times angular velocity. As a result power is the time derivative of work meaning power (hp) is the rate in which work (torque) is changing. Thanks to Sir Isaac Newton we get F = m * a, which means both (horse)power and acceleration are torque dependent. This would mean (horse)power is rate at which your acceleration is changing (”jump”) and not acceleration.

For example, take your mountain bike to a steep hill, once you reach the top (a flat spot) put it in first or second gear and head down the hill pedaling hard but constant. What you will find is that at first you feel that you are contributing to the acceleration of the bike with your feet/legs. Once you reach a certain speed (based on gearing), however, it is almost like you are in neutral and not contributing at all. This is because you cannot provide the foot speed (angular velocity) to maintain the torque you have applied all along (horsepower).

The way to think of it is your engine’s torque accelerates your car to a given speed but at that speed the engine’s power is a measure of its ability to keep on applying the torque. My experience has proven to myself that equal torque and hp numbers seem to be the best and most enjoyable to drive. Probably no surprise that the p5 is 130 hp/139ft-lb and msp is 170hp/160 ft-lb.

Oh and twilight usually a diesel pickup weighs 5000lb+ and has a higher torque to compensate for the increased mass and potential payload. A quick search on the internet showed that in 2007 the Ford F-150 Harley-Davidson V8 Supercharged had a 0-60mph time of 5.4sec and the 2007 V12 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti posted a 0-60mph of 5.8sec. Now the F-150 weighs 5000lbs and has 11.1 lbs/hp while the Scaglietti weighs 3942lbs and has 7.3lbs/hp. So Twilight, if the Ferrari weighs 1058lbs less and has 90hp more it must be torque not horsepower (Go USA!). Always remember without data you are just another fool with an opinion and you might want to check your work equation. Specs can be found at http://www.performancecarnews.com/Fastest-Cars-0-60.asp?Process=ShowTable

Aside, I’ve looked into the KLZE and was wondering if anyone knows whether or not you need new driveshafts or if the difference in engine width is small enough to where they could be cut down?

Woah... 15 posts and you're calling out one of the most respected voices on this forum.

go read this : http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4084273&postcount=108

Your argument regarding F-150 vs the Scaglietti is utterly wrong - you neglect to take into account gearing. Gearing is another critical element in acceleration. I'm willing to bet that that F-150 and Scaglietti gearing is quite different. Perhaps more important still, is the area under (power)curve, and how the gear ratios are selected to best take advantage of it. You cannot just take the engine torque number, and the 0-60 times, and claim that engine torque is making one car faster than the other.

KLZE - apparently stock axles, with MX3 intermediate shaft... apparently.
 
niky: you neglect the benefit of gearing in your analysis...
the "torque multiplication effect of gearing" - thats why you accelerate faster in 1st than 2nd and so forth.

Gearing is also what makes engine speed critical to acceleration - the longer you can hold a given gear, without the multiplied torque dropping below the road torque of the next gear, the higher your average acceleration will be..

I've seen plenty of honda's accelerate aweful fast...and not too many diesel powered cars with truck loads more "low end" out accelerating them... the honda achieves a greater level of acceleration once it is in motion because its power is baised to the top end.

And the talk about torque being more important than horsepower or visa versa is plain stupid - people speak of them as though they are 2 different things...when in fact they are both related to each other - more horsepower at a given engine speed equates to more torque at the same engine speed..you cannot increase one without increasing the other.

That's why I quoted the difference as being in-gear... and to note... modern diesels are usually six speed where their gasoline counterparts are five speed... because they don't have enough rpms to take advantage each gear. I agree, though... whoever can stretch out a gear further should have an advantage, given roughly equal average power numbers.

And yup... an F150 versus Scaglietti just isn't fair... turbocharged versus non-turbocharged... if you take two non-turbocharged engines, and one has more torque and the other has more horsepower, then it'd be a much different story... plus 0-60 times for such high-powered cars are full of so many "fudge" factors... tire grip... gearing (again)... mechanical traction... launch control... wheel hop... LSD/non-LSD... etcetera ad nauseum, that using them for comparison or as an indicator for actual power-to-the-ground is sketchy, at best... hence all the internet-based argument over the Nissan GT-R's 0-60 times, which people contend are "impossible" for such a large and heavy car.
 
Go for a 2.3L Miller v6! 210 lbft of torque available at 3500rpm and 30 mpg (if you can keep from flooring it at every opportunity (cabpatch)
 
Back