Fallen2603

Well, I decided to not wait to get the entire K-Member/tubular A-Arm/Coil-over kit, and get the stuff separately. It'll only cost me an extra $125.00-ish, in the long run...

So, I ordered the Spohn Tubular K-Member, only. Should be in my orbit in a couple weeks, at most.

adclass

I think this will be a pretty cool setup when your all done . anything thats outside the box is cool and with the right setup you could pull v-8 hp numbers from an ecotec

Fallen2603

adclass,

That's what I'm hoping. Well, power numbers of a mild- to moderately-built V8. That would be fine.

The K-Member arrived a couple days ago, but, now, I have to find the time to wrench. Updates to follow...hopefully, soon.

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

I'm really curious to see the gas milage for dailly driving, and the end result of power.

Fallen2603

diablizzard,

Won't know for sure until it's done...


Here's the progress that I made over the last couple of days. Dropped the stock K-Member and A-Arms, and bolted in the Spohn tubular K-Member. The K-Member that I ordered came without motor-mount pads, per my specifications. The stock-placement motor-mount pads were too far forward and high to be useful. After a little more puttering tomorrow, I'll start the mounting planning...

88gunmetalgta

iTrader: (1)

Yay progress!!

Curious, why front coilovers? I thought that was kinda a drag only thing on third gens. I thought they limited wheel selection and were in general a PITA to work with.

Fallen2603

88gunmetalgta,

Hmmm...that's the first I've heard about coil-over's being a pain on 3rd-Gen's. I'll look into that more...

The reasons I want to go coil-over's is so I can adjust the ride-height more. I have a feeling that stock shocks and springs would cause the front-end to sit very HIGH.

Rebound and stiffness adjustment would be nice, too.

1ADan

iTrader: (4)

if you want adjustable on these cars, go weight jacks. since our struts and springs are separate by design on these cars, the additional diameter of the coil cuts down on what's available for room behind the wheel. weight jacks would use the stock spring location while allowing for different spring rates and heights.

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

I have front coilovers on my car and I find them very easy to work with, and I can fit 17x9.5" wheels with 275/40 tires on the front; I don't see why I would need any larger wheels. The one issue I've had is there is limited camber adjustability with the spohn coilovers. I think there is another brand that mounts the top of the coilover spring underneath the camber plates so the spring doesn't go all the way through to the top of the camber plates. That would have the benefit of not interfering with camber adjustment.

Fallen2603

I still plan on using coil-over's. I'll be running the same size tires as caffeine, and I'm not looking for extreme amounts of camber.

After a little more puttering, today...



I actually get a little more room using the LNF intake-manifold than the plastic intake-manifold's.





Still plenty of room on the exhaust side for the turbocharger, down-pipe, and other necessities.



This is the closest interference. This steering-arm bushing gets within about 1/4" away from the top of the oil-pan during its full steering arc. Still, enough wiggle-room.



The oil-pan clears the K-Member, just as I predicted, and the bottom of the oil-pan doesn't go much lower than the lowest point of the K-Member. Thankfully, I wasn't planning on lowering the car that much.





Now, as for the actual mounting of the engine, current idea/plan is to modify the mount from a FWD application, weld a piece of tubing to it, and that will span the distance between the frame-rails. Polyurethane bushings will be used.

Unfortunately, there's not much of a better way that would still be secure.

That's it, for now...

Pillsbry10

iTrader: (1)

looks great man.... now clean your engine bay

Fallen2603

Pillsbry10,

Yes, Master! All in good time!

Thinking about sand-blasting it, painting with POR-15, and than putting bed-liner over that.

Probably same procedure for the under-body. Good thing I have a rotisserie...

Pillsbry10

iTrader: (1)

lol i felt i needed to say something negative. does look good though i might have to see that car in person someday

Fallen2603

Pillsbry10,

LOL! It's all good, man. I still have plenty of rough patches to go with this project.

This car will be on the road plenty when it's done...

neilb

Very cool swap! I love unique powerplants in our thirdgens! keep up the good work!

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

I think it is a pretty cool and very practical swap. Now to swap in a junk 4 banger, i would not like, but that is a nice engine.

Awesome-X

Well it looks like you'll have plenty of room to work in the engine bay

Fallen2603

neilb,

Thanks for the support!

ZONES89RS,

I could have started with the good old "Iron Duke", or a Honda 4-cylinder...

Awesome-X,

Yeah, room is not an issue. I can literally stand in the engine bay!

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

you would be surprised what a honda K-series can do. combining V-tec and cam phasing is pretty serious stuff.

Fallen2603

diablizzard,

Apologies, I should clarify: I was referring mainly to the D- and B-series Honda engines. The K-series engines have something the D- and B-series don't...ENOUGH DISPLACEMENT.

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

very true, they also lack a sizable amount of torque

Fallen2603

diablizzard,

A very fortunate consequence of having 2.0-2.4L of displacement, DOHC, and VTEC.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

I would have not even replied to the thread, LOL.

Fallen2603

ZONES89RS,

What about a Mazda 13B rotary?!

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

If you want it to last only 50K

Thirdgen89GTA

iTrader: (5)

Could be cool as hell.

As for the 50k mark? I only put about 5k miles a year at most on my GTA. Its summer only and even then nice days only. But I'm not afraid of driving it in the rain, if there is an event planned and the weather is iffy I'd still take the GTA out to the event.

*Cept Snow. The Nitto NT05's would be slicks on ice.

Fallen2603

LOL! Apex seals don't appeal to me. Besides, the 13B is actually heavier than an Ecotec.

I have no idea how often I'll drive this car when it's done...

NathanLewis

so whats the horsepower gonna be like? Any estimates? I know you need a good amount to really get a thirdgen moving.

Fallen2603

NathanLewis,

I estimate, with my current combination I have planned, around 350WHP with good spool-up and similar torque numbers.

The amount of power needed to get this combination moving probably won't be as much as you think. A lot of weight is going bye-bye with this swap...

Or, at least that's my estimate.

68Strat

iTrader: (3)

This is awesome! So glad I stumbled across this thread. I have been hush hush about my build, but I am in a process of putting a 2.2l I5 in my car. I'll be watching!

Fallen2603

68Strat,

Welcome to the party!

A 2.2L Inline-5? Do tell more. An Audi engine? Just curious...

NathanLewis

Thats gonna be sick bro. I think you'll have a few laughs when people ask if you have the usual 350 under the hood.

Fallen2603

NathanLewis,

That's one of the side-perks I'm hoping for!

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

How are the mounts coming along?

Atilla the Fun

Got a stock one bolted in yet, while you're trying to assemble an over-boosted one?

Fallen2603

diablizzard,

Unfortunately, not yet. Finances are really tight, right now. No school also means no G.I. Bill payments or pay for being a tutor.

Hopefully, one of my Army buddies will pay me back some money he owes me...SOON.

Atilla the Fun,

The project probably won't progress like that. I have a lot of other stuff to do to the car. She's still basically stripped down, right now.


Oh, and I may have found an economic and practical way of going supercharged instead of turbocharged. In the long run, it could be even cheaper than going turbocharged. But, it's a lot more up in the air if the supercharged combination would hit 350WHP. Have to rethink my method of forced-induction...

Regardless, will order the materials for the mount when the funds are available.

project89

iTrader: (1)

fallen u can get a turbocharger for 118 bucks, look at fasteddis thread for the links

what is the redline on that motor if its low then that turbo may be a lil large but they do have a smaller version for the same price.

since u already have the manifold u just need the turbo and wastegate + plumbing which is also very cheap if u use mild steel mandrel bends

Fallen2603

project89,

Yeah, I could get an eBay turbo, but I'm not a fan of 'em. I've seen some that are good, and I've seen some that suck. If I'm going to buy a turbo, I'll buy one that is GREAT.

The turbocharger I'm looking at is quite similar in size to FastEddi's. A Borg-Warner S256 (Non-ETT) to be precise, and they work beautifully on 2.0L Ecotec's. And, since my motor will end up being 2.3L, would probably spool up even better.

I got the manifold for a great deal, and could probably sell it for what I paid for it.

I just got to do some brain-storming. This part of the build is still a ways in the future. Getting the mount finished and having the bottom-end of motor built come before this.

We'll see...

mike22115

cant wait to see this finished!

Fallen2603

mike22115,

You're not the only one, man. Welcome!

slow305

iTrader: (2)

I did a quick scan but didn't see it mentioned so I apologize in advance if it has been mentioned here before (did a search for Corvette Ecotec, and nothing came up for this link) ...

Anyway, there's somebody doing an Ecotec swap in a C4 Corvette:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/auto...build-log.html

Building the car for autocross, and the car can carry a lighter minimum weight if it uses a four cylinder.

Pat

Fallen2603

slow305,



Now, that's SWEEEET.

I've never heard of it, but thanks for showing me that. One hell of a read!

And people think what I'm doing is BLASPHEMY...

diablizzard

iTrader: (8)

I looked up that turbo, and some of those dsm guys are putting down some serious power on a 2L. I know it's the ETT model, but still 500AWHP is no joke.

ericjon262

loving the build, keep it up!

Fallen2603

diablizzard,

Yup, those turbo's are loved by the DSM, Nissan SR20, the Cobalt, and some of the Honda crowds on engines about 2.0L of displacement.

ericjon262,

More coming up...someday. LOL!

Fallen2603

Looks like someone had a similar idea to what's been rattling around in my head...



"As you see above my 2.4l VVT Ecotec I have a M90 Supercharger adapted to GM's tricky water to air intercooled inlet manifold making the need of a front mount intercooler obsolete. A few other things where needed like lower compression from 10.4:1 down to 8.5:1 and H beam rods ect to give me an expected 350BHP."

http://daewootech.com/forum/viewtopi...=13465&start=0

Making 350BHP with 8.5:1 CR, stock LSJ heat-exchanger, and stock top-end ain't bad. That's almost 300WHP.

Hmmm...P&P'ed cylinder-head with 1mm over-sized valves, ditch the stock LSJ heat-exchanger for an air-to-air intercooler set-up, and a 9.5:1 CR...could make 350WHP.

KrisW

iTrader: (5)

I think in the LONG run you'll be happier if you go turbo. It seems to me there is a lot more "tuneability" if you can call it that. I know that's not a word, hahahahha.

I just mean, when I look at my choice of engines, the Buick V6 (and derivatives) the turbo stuff seems to be much more flexible to changing this or that, and the later supercharged stuff seemed to be more rigid in its tuning characteristics. Especially valve train wise. The stuff I have read makes a big deal out of optimizing valve trains on supercharged engines due to not being able to vary the boost as much. Turbos have such a wide range of boost that can be run you have a lot more range to work inside of. Basically you can just plug in your wide band O2 sensor, and adjust your fuel to the given boost you have your turbo set for (within your turbo's parameters, of course.) The cam really only needs to be set for low overlap to optimize the boost building. When you get enough air flow, the cam starts to become irrelevant. I've seen the old Turbo Buick engines get those heavy tank cars into the low 12's with a stock 87 camshaft. The supercharged 3800 cars always need a cam and rocker change because they just can't get the boost.

Either way, I can't wait to see how it turns out.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Yep, I prefer turbo...
If I was to use a supercharger it would not be a roots style at all, due to the heat they tend to generate. I would use a centrifugal style, being a more efficient compressor and heating the compressed air less than a roots style.

That being said, I do love how a roots style blower sticks through the hood on old muscle cars, and such.

Jeffs82TA

iTrader: (1)

This is really a cool build, I used to have a 84 4 banger camaro and loved the fuel economy of it just hated the performance. Would be cool having a 4 banger f-body with around 200-250hp. I have a 97 3.8 camaro now while not the fastest car by a long shot it gives near the economy of a 4 banger 3rd gen and the power of early v-8 third gen. Too bad chevy never supercharged the 3.8 or grand nationalized it.

Fallen2603

Yeah, this is what happens when I don't have money. I have way to much time to think and my imagination goes off in a million different directions simultaneously.

I do know this: I'd be happy with the results either way. Supercharged or turbocharged, the car will be fun as hell.

After looking at the compressor map for the 5th Generation M90 supercharger, which is what came in the last two years of the Thunderbird Super Coupe, it COULD flow the amount of air I would need. However, that would be spinning the supercharger pretty fast, therefore increasing the parasitic loss. Also, these superchargers make a lot of heat. Heat and pressure would be big hurdles, even with an air-to-air intercooler in the system, to making 350WHP. While cheap, not the best idea.

I have sent a few inquiries for information about the Harrop HTV1320 supercharger, though. These are a Twin Vortices Series supercharger, and their efficiency...WOW. Peak efficiencies in the low 70% range. Not as efficient as a good turbocharger, true, but still very impressive. Also, this supercharger would easily make my power goal, especially with the air-to-air intercooler system. Many others have used this supercharger in their Cobalts, and have impressive results. Only problem, EXPENSIVE. However, if you were to calculate the cost of a QUALITY turbo, wastegate, and BOV, it might be as expensive as a used HTV1320 supercharger that I could modify to work in this application. But, then, I'd have to have a custom long-tube header made, eventually. That'll be a bit, a BIG BIT, more expensive than a custom downpipe for the turbocharged set-up.

For now, I'm stuck which way to go, right in the middle. But, I've gone back and forth on other things before, too. I guess I've gotten used to a supercharged powerband driving my Cobalt SS Supercharged around all the time. However, I do still remember the fun I had driving my Army buddy's 350WHP turbocharged KA24 Nissan 240SX around the backroads on Bragg. It's a tough call. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages.

Ugh...I need money, so I don't have so much damn time to think...and rethink...and rethink...and rethink...etc.

Anyways, sorry for the rambling. No updates...YET.