to get an idea of what i have been through on this car ill give you before
an after photos of each ordeal...The car was bought without an interior,
most of the EFI parts missing, cut throttle cable, no ic, bad radiator, etc
etc etc. Was a former failed Carb conversion that never ran. but does have
a supposed rebuild. :bigthumb:
BEFORE: -no carpet, seats, working window regs, seat belts, bins or anything at all...
AFTER: all 100% complete
BEFORE: this isnt the worse pic. originally, there was no alt, bad waterpump, most of the electronics where missing. no fan....
AFTER: complete! just need to connect one fuel line underneath the car.
you put a lot of work into that car.. congrats on a job that seems well done, by the pictures. I hope she runs good for ya.
Looks nice! Congrats!
Yeah, you're doing an incredibly good job! :thumbs: I'd like to see West Coast Customs pimp that ride... lol. No offense.
hehe, nice job.
did u use a puller to get the steering wheel out? or just took out the nut at the end of the shaft and pulled out the wheel? (i still havent taken out my steering wheel)
i removed the nut, popped the wheel off and put the nut back on so i didnt lose it. easy as hell for me.
Nice job!!! :mrgreen: :thumbs:
But you know what I think when I look at that large engine bay?
SHE NEEDS A BIGGER ENGINE BABY!!!!
like a 20B-REW! :thumbs:
The cars looking great :thumbs:
Lol, what a typical american car manufacturer response;
"UP THE DISPLACEMENT BABY! Variable valve timing?, what the hell is that? Turbo? How the hell do you know my dog's name?"
No V8 for you, impedance?
if im going bigger...its going to be adding more rotors. :mrgreen:
C'mon Godlaus! Typical American response?
Who's idea was it to make Porsche 911s get increasingly larger engines, so that they aren't running 2 liter flat 6s like they did from '65-70? WHo
s idea has it been to make Civics no longer have 1200 cc engines? (or even up the displacement from the 600 cc engine in the N600 to the Civic's 1200 cc engine in '73?) How come Accords don't have 1500cc engines as the base engine anymore? Why is it the 350Z and not the 240Z anymore? How come Ferrari's base engine isn't a 2 or 3 liter V8 like it used to be? How come BMW's top engine isn't a 2 liter 4 cyl like it used to be? How come the ultra fast, collectable Mercedes 300 SL with a 3 liter 6 cyl grew up into the 6 liter v12 powered SL600?
I'm getting sick and tired of the "joke" that it's an "American" response to make engines bigger. ALL tuners from ALL countries will make engines bigger for better power given the opportunity. ALL of them.
A joke..that's what it's supposed to be.
And the reason i say that, is because america is known for making huge displacement engines. They don't utilise things such as variable vale timing, ATTESSA-ETS, etc. etc. (atleast, to the extent of my knowledge). They up the displacement, which is the easiest way to make power. (well, next to forced induction). The 350 motors of the past before the clean air act came into play were 5.6 liters, and the 454 engines were as around 8 liters.
I guess it's a communication problem, I'm not playing at upping the displacement, but upping it to insane amounts.
Not many Japanese cars are above 4 liters. They use things like turbos, variable valve, electronic controls, etc. etc. instead of upping the displacement. (I believe this is because of tighter emissions laws?). America is known for having huge displacements. Plain and simple.
Caddillac CTS-V = 4.4 liters
Chevrolet C6 Z06 = 7 liters
Chevrolet Base C6 = 6 liters
Chevrolet Camaro SS = 5.7 liters
Dodge Viper SRT-10 = 8 liters
Ford GT = 5.4 liters
Ford Mustang GT/Cobra = 4.6 liters
Pontiac GTO = 6 liters
Saleen S7 = 7 liters
Acura NSX = 3.2 liters
Acura Integra R = 1.8 liters
Honda Civic Si = 2 liters
Honda S2000 = 2.2 liters
Mazda RX-7 = 1.3 liters
Mazda RX-8 = 1.3 liters
Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 = 3 liters
Mitsubish evo 8 = 2 liters
Nissan 350Z = 3.5 liters
Nissan 300ZX = 3 liters
Toyota Supra = 3 liters
BMW M3 = 3.2 liters
BMW M5 = 4.9 liters
BMW M6 = 5 liters
Porsche 911 Carrera = 3.6 liters
Porsche 911 GT3 = 3.6 liters
Porsche 911 Turbo = 3.6 liters
Porsche Boxster S = 3.2 liters
Porsche Carrera GT = 5.8 liters
Volkswagen Golf R32 = 3.2 liters
Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG = 6 liter
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren = 5.4 liters
Mercedes-Benz CLS 55 AMG = 5.4 liters
Ferrari Enzo = 6 liters
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti = 5.7 liters
Ferrari F50 = 4.7 liters
Ferrari F430 = 4.3 liters
Ferrari 360 = 3.5 liters
Lamborghini Diablo GTR = 6 liters
Lamborghini Gallardo = 5 liters
Lamborghini Murcielago = 6.2 liters
Sorry, I'm pretty steadfast on this one.
the problem is that you're too elitist to think that upping the
displacement is a viable way of building engines. And whether we're talking
about Porsche going from 2 liters to 3.6 liters, or Corvettes going from
5.7 to 7 liters, it's the same effect that the engine builders are going
for: increasing the powerband making more power, more useably.
And it's used to insult engine that you think are "too big" as though somehow overstressing some tiny little engine, making it more complex and more expensive, is somehow a better (or more elegant) engineering solution to getting a job done. It's merely a different way to do it, and that's IT.
It's a retarded joke that wore out it's welcome a decade ago.
Elitist. Wow, never been called that before. But, let's face it, American
cars aim to do the same thing that japanese, italian, and German cars aim
to do. Go fast, no matter how they can make their car do that. American's
tendancy is to create insanely large displacement motors, while overseas
aim for smaller engines with revs (rotary), or the implementation of more
advanced systems. The same joke is made toward japanese cars, that they are
tiny little things that are a metaphor for something else.
The point still stands though, american cars aim for large displacement, others don't. I guess I did originally think that technology implemented is better than displacement,as you can implement that technology in larger displacement motors, but what the hell. Whatever gets the job done, right?
Correct - it's DIFFERENT.
You're allowed to have your preferences, but they are both totally reasonable ways to improve car performance. Not engine performance, car performance. The engine is just there to drive the car, so regardless of what engine is in it, if the hunk of metal is fast, agile etc, then the engineering is good.
I must say that all companies from all countries up displacement, but
America is the country from which many of the ultra large displacement
vehicles are coming from. The Porsche boost of 2 liters to 3.6 liters isnt
as large a difference as a 5.7 to 7 liters. Granted thats a 1.6 liter boost
in the Porsche to 1.3 in the Corvette, but the fact is that a 3.6 liter is
no where near as large as a 7 liter engine. Americans go for fierce power
(and use this to an increadibly useful degree) but other countries go for
larger engines and lighter cars. It is as simple as that, so really both of
you are right. :thumbs:
They use different methods to get the job done.
I guess with GM and Ford sales flagging and the junk bond status of their shares, with Toyota set to become the dominant worldwide leader there will be a tendancy away from the "no replacement for displacement" mentality. It might even force fuel companies to provide the US domestic market with something better than tar as the base petrol/deisel fuels.
Question, why do big liter engines waste more fuel than a smaller one going at the same speed and RPM?
to that i say my TII will use more fuel than most v8s. about half the
mileage of a LS1.....
that and may i say, forum terrorists HIJACKED MY THREAD! bastards :laughing:
bigger cylinders = more fuel each cycle.
How about F=ma ?
... or V=IR for the sparkologists.
or FU2=FuN*2 for the whiners and those who ask questions when they are supposed to do it in the threads they were given for their own questions in the first place.....
The difference is one is using the joke about Americans being the ones to
up displacement as a means of insulting that method of making power.
And it doesn't take into account simple regional differences like $5 gallon fuel or regulations TAXING larger displacement engines that have ZERO to do with better engineering.
EVERY engine builder worldwide will go with upping the displacement to make better, more useable power if they are allowed to. Even companies that can use modern tech to get the same power from smaller engines are using larger engines than ever before. So the "joke" is tired and unfunny.
Really? Then why is even TOYOTA getting ever larger engines in their production vehicles?
ur right, and a damn good job they are doing at it if i may say so. in
fact, they have larger engines (excluding the scions which still have
pretty small engines) and they still manage to get even better fuel mileage
true, its thanks to the technology, but its completely legal and permitted (and good for our wallets).
personally, i have no problem with toyota making larger engines, even if the changes are not that drastic. as long as they keep their reputation climbing the way they have been doing so for so many years, im fine with it.
Did I, or did I not precursor my comment with the word "guess"? Did I say
anything about your authoritive post... well no I wouldn't because I didn't
read it and still haven't.
Simple truth is on average Toyota production engines are very efficient. If consumer wants are for large tanks like Landcruisers or ugly POS sedans like Avalon then obviously there comes a limit to an engines reliability before displacement increase is needed. On the other hand their hybrid car is currently in such high demand in the US because of the fuel price bite, that your good citizens are paying more for a scarce secondhand unit rather than wait the 6 months until the next shipment of new left hand drive ones arrive...where is the displacement increase with these cars.
Reading the reasons for GM and Ford's present problems, it appears they made the wrong decision in making fuel thirsty vehicles instead of lower displacement fuel efficient ones and now have a problem shifting stock. I guess what I read was wrong?