I wonder if this will ever get made in top form?

10.0 liter supercharged V8
1850hp
(supposed performance)
0-60 in 2.3 seconds
1/4 mile in 7.8 at 198mph
top speed 300mph

5/4/2009 11:51:38 PM

thats pretty weak for that amount of hp, no?

5/5/2009 12:04:16 AM

thats a big displacement for a supercar yea?

5/5/2009 12:06:52 AM

Some pretty garbage bodywork. You can see major defects in the picture. The door doesn't line up with either the front or rear of the car. None of the body lines make any sense, there's nothing inspiring about it at all.

You can stick an 1850hp engine on anything and have the same numbers, doesn't mean it's any good.

5/5/2009 12:25:07 AM

^as long as it has some semi-decent aerodynamic qualities.

5/5/2009 12:27:27 AM

^^^^no not really, given traction issues and then aerodynamic forces increasing exponentially with increased velocity.

Neon, its not a working prototype so I don't see the point in bitching about that, lol. Though I agree its a little funny for even a concept car to look like that at an auto show.

5/5/2009 12:34:23 AM

^Ah, you didn't say it was non-functional

But yeah, if you are sending a prototype to an autoshow, it should be PRISTINE. There's absolutely no reason that a mockup prototype should have tolerance problems, mis-matching panels, or blemishes in the bodywork. A prototype is a one-off ideal, it should be visually as close to perfect as you can get.

^^It's the same teardrop mid-engine configuration as every other generic supercar out there. Aerodynamics doesn't really mean anything for the modern super-car. They are all so power happy, they could be shaped like a brick and still put off insane numbers.

5/5/2009 12:45:30 AM

I've often wondered why manufacturers don't grow some balls and put worthy engines in light chassis.

I think the MR2 Spyder would do well with a high output v6 from Toyota. They already have the engine, so why not? You could argue the same w/the S2000, but the best example is the Lotus Elise/Exige. Lotus doesn't manufacture engines, why not get let's say an LS6 from Chevrolet? That'd be a fairly insane package.

I can think of only two reasons; Liability, and testing/design parameters that come with such high power/weight ratios. The latter I think can get prohibitive, and probably beyond what a company such as the one that produced the very low quality "prototype" pictured above could muster.

5/5/2009 1:52:26 AM

If they ever made it, I think it would do [way] better than 2.3 from 0 to 60 mph. The Veyron with 987 hp gets to 60 in 2.46 seconds (and it is damn heavy), and the Hennessey Venom (Viper) with 1,100 hp has done it in 1.9 seconds.

But yeah, that design is bleh.

Their official sites: http://www.vectormotors.com (WX8) and http://www.vectorsupercars.com (extinct models)

5/5/2009 3:34:55 AM

^^I can't speak to other chassis, but I can tell you why the Elise/Exige doesn't.

It's a transverse mount engine. You simple cannot fit a longitudinal V8 in the 111R chassis. Even the new Evora, which is considerably larger, went with a "lesser" powerplant because it was transverse mount.

The "baddest" transverse engine I know of is the V6 twin turbo Ford Duratec used in the Noble M12. And it produces anywhere from 310-550hp based on configuration. And has an overhaul lifespan of 12-20k miles. The Lotus 2ZZ on the other hand has an overhaul lifespan of 150-200k miles.

The other huge reason is frame rigidity. The elise is not a rigid chassis. It's so light that it doesn't need to be. But if you slapped in a monster V8, it would need massive amounts of frame stiffening to keep everything sorted.

The biggest reason though, is there's no market. Contrary to what us garagers may think, the demand for high horsepower coupes is EXTREMELY small. A 4banger that gets 30mpg will sell exponentially more units than a v8 with 4 times the power. It's the same reason the V6 mustang outsells the V8, and base models of every sports car outsell the high end models.

5/5/2009 4:00:10 AM

I remember the weird-ass looking Vectors of the years past. I was always fascinated by their alien shapes and obscene claimed power and performance numbers when I was a teen, but I always knew they sold only a handful of each model, if that.

However, I didn't know the history of Vector was so twisted and just plain weird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_Motors


BTW, according to http://www.vectormotors.com/wx8-specs.html , their will be 4 WX8 models, and the given projected acceleration specs just don't make any sense.

Quote :

"VECTOR WX8 SMALL BLOCK 7.8 Liter Race Proven V8, made in the USA. 1250 hp (Supercharged) 0-60 mph in 2.7 seconds 750 hp (Normally Aspirated) 0-60 mph in 2.7 seconds Quarter mile in 8.0 to10.0 seconds @ 150 to 170 mph 260-275 + mph top speed (Bonneville gearing)"

Quote :

"VECTOR WX8 BIG BLOCK 10.0 liter 610 cdi Big Block 1,850+ hp (Twin Turbocharged) 1,450 hp (Twin Supercharged quad-rotor motor) 0-60 in 2.3 to 3.5seconds Quarter mile times 7.8 to 8.0 seconds @ 178 to 195 mph 300 mph projected top speed (Bonneville gearing)"

750 hp and 1,250 hp, both 2.7 seconds, and 1,450 hp in 3.5 seconds?

OK.

I wish they would make more supercars like the McLaren F1 and the Enzo Ferrari, light and nimble, not heavy and 1,000+ hp. Actually, McLaren's new supercar is under development and going to come out in a year or so! Check google for spy pics.

5/5/2009 7:18:31 AM

Quote :

"10.0 liter supercharged V8 1850hp"

Holy shite balls, is that even possible to get that much power from a V8, even supercharged?
I'd like to see the dyno, I beg to differ.

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 7:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2009 7:20:57 AM

Quote :

"Holy shite balls, is that even possible to get that much power from a V8, even supercharged? "

holy shit balls, what's the output of a top-fuel V8, at 500ci, ummm 8000hp? Inline 4's in excess of 1000hp and I-6's past 1500 have i seen. this is the future

5/5/2009 7:48:57 AM

geez, we're all gonna die

[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2009 10:19:12 AM

lol...I found a Vector poster from the 80's in my parents' house. I can't remember if I rolled it up and stuck it in a blueprint tube or if I balled it up and threw it away though.

5/5/2009 10:27:57 AM

You can mount an engine any which way you please, an engine is not "transverse mount" by design. Lots of examples exist of the same engine being used in different applications. Easy example, the boxster uses the same engine architecture as a 911. Boxster -> transversely mounted in the middle, 911 ->rear and longitudinally.

Now if you're saying engine length is an issue, LSx is shorter than many inline 4 motors. My comment was not about a particular case of the Lotus Z car not having engine Y, it was a philosophical "why don't they".

To top it off, I've personally driven a "longitudinal" V6 in a Toyota Spyder, done by one person. I also know of an Exige w/an LS1. I'll stop there. It fits or can easily be made to fit, manufacturers don't do it, and I think that's too bad.

5/5/2009 4:39:43 PM

vector's website looks like it was made by a 12 year old which is funny considering i thought the w8 was the coolest car ever when i was in elementary school.

5/5/2009 5:21:32 PM

Quote :

"You could argue the same w/the S2000"

The problem with the s2000 is that when released it was as fast or faster then all its competition (boxster , z4, 350z, rx8). In a straight line no less with 145ftlbs of torque . Honda can not afford to spend r&d money on a car that only sells 8,000 a year. Hell they sold the same car for 9 years, lol.

Lotus on the other hand.....I'll let noen write an excuse list for.



[Edited on May 5, 2009 at 7:16 PM. Reason : . so so so sad]

5/5/2009 7:15:34 PM

Anyone ever have experience with the Supra's TT I-6 engine in an S2K? I've seen pictures. Lord knows that must be a beast.

5/5/2009 8:33:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPBQuWhrgSE


Interesting thread...
http://www.2jzswap.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2437

5/5/2009 9:06:38 PM

Quote :

"You can mount an engine any which way you please, an engine is not "transverse mount" by design. Lots of examples exist of the same engine being used in different applications... Now if you're saying engine length is an issue, LSx is shorter than many inline 4 motors... To top it off, I've personally driven a "longitudinal" V6 in a Toyota Spyder, done by one person. I also know of an Exige w/an LS1. I'll stop there. It fits or can easily be made to fit, manufacturers don't do it, and I think that's too bad."

You can stick a rocket engine on an El Camino. Just because you CAN do something mechanically doesn't make it feasible for mass production, cost, or availability. And many engines are absolutely longitudinal or transerse mount by design. Cadillac's Northstar line is a great example, as are the Corvette LT and LS motors.

That Exige with the LS1 was lengthened (you are probably thinking of the Elise GT1 chassis') and is mounted longitudinally. I've never seen a transverse mounted LS/LT engine that wasn't paired with an automatic transmission, simply due to a lack of space.

Again, this is a problem of dollars and cents, not engineering possibility. Lotus uses everything it possibly can off-the-shelf from current manufactured parts. There simply isn't enough demand for them to invest in custom fabrication of major drivetrain components.

Quote :

"Honda can not afford to spend r&d money on a car that only sells 8,000 a year."

Lotus sells less than 5,000 cars a year, worldwide. And only about 1,500 in the US.

5/6/2009 2:21:19 AM

Which is exactly why they ,lotus, don't produce their own drivetrain. What was your point?

Are you saying Honda should buy a v6 from another company to place in a car where its shock towers physically prohibit it? Honda should buy an inline 6 from....volvo or bmw? Please advise.

5/6/2009 8:03:18 AM

Quote :

"Lotus sells less than 5,000 cars a year, worldwide. And only about 1,500 in the US."

And that's one of the reasons they charge so much. You don't see Honda trying to sell a hopped up S2000 for $60k.

Quinn, if Honda threw in BMW's TT I-6 I think I'd jizz in my pants.

5/6/2009 11:25:10 AM

Look at all the room;


That's a 6+ liter 550hp LS2 in an e36, a chassis that never came from the factory w/anything larger than a 3.2, and in most markets had 1.6 and 1.8 liter 4cyl engines for the majority of the run, yet it fits with lots of room to spare. Crap they even swap them in RX7s, in place of the factory rotary. Clearly it's a compact engine... People have put them in Miatas, 944s, you name it. I love this motor/architecture, but that's not the point.

My question was never "why isn't a particular engine in a particular car". The idea is, there are lots of efficient, light, and cheap yet very high output engines available. They should be more common in tiny/light sports cars, they're not.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : look at the room!]

5/6/2009 4:06:55 PM

^ I totally agree.

"When it comes to performance, there's no substitute for cubic inches. And the quickest-though often not the easiest-solution is to shoehorn the biggest engine you've got into the smallest car..." -Ian Adcock

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2009 5:08:31 PM

as a random aside.

after riding in ahmet's c5 i completely understand why people swap LSx engines into everything...

5/6/2009 5:54:38 PM

goddamn all those cars are ugly.

5/6/2009 7:05:39 PM

Quote :

"That's a 6+ liter 550hp LS2 in an e36, a chassis that never came from the factory w/anything larger than a 3.2"

It's a longitudinal engine replacing another longitudinal engine, in a front/rear drivetrain. Not hard. I've seen many swaps, and done one myself. I understand the practical ease of doing it.

Quote :

"They should be more common in tiny/light sports cars, they're not."

You fail to see the difference between a garage project, and a production vehicle. These projects don't have to deal with emissions differences (which is probably the biggest reason we don't see larger displacement engines in mass-production foreign market cars), safety standards, reliability, stability, or anything else. Again, you can put a rocket on an el Camino and make it fit, that doesn't make it a smart or feasible thing to do commercially.

Quote :

"And that's one of the reasons they charge so much. You don't see Honda trying to sell a hopped up S2000 for $60k. "

You don't see Honda (or anyone else) selling a bonded aluminum chassis. Steel is insanely cheaper, but has an insane capital cost for tooling. Honda/Yota/GM can afford this because they own the factories, so tooling isn't a major cost. Lotus didn't have the money for it, so they used a material they could produce with the capital they had (aluminum).

I've read articles from Lotus engineers saying that if startup tooling costs weren't a concern, the Elise would have been steel, the same weight, and half the price at the dealership.

5/6/2009 9:27:17 PM

^

That was good info. It's all starting to make sense .


I thought you worked on swapping something into a 2002 bmw. Which is an AWESOME car .

5/6/2009 9:51:51 PM

http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/information/technical/index.html

Has some really good technical articles about the Lotus VVA that the Elise pioneered, and how the process works, the problems of low production independent vehicles, and how Lotus engineering has worked around it all.

And here's some pics of the 2002 with the Subaru 2.5L H4 mounted and ready to roll. I was putting together the wiring harness when I moved and had to give it all away






Damn thing fit amazingly, even managed to get clearance for a front-mounted radiator. Everything lined up within about 1/2" of the original BMW drivetrain, we just had to make some very slight adjustments to the shock tower mounts and control arm mounts to get everything lined back up. I also had a ridiculously good engineer helping me with design and fabrication.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2009 11:04:33 PM

One engine from a longitudinal application not fitting one chassis that orients the engine transversely does not mean that engines are themselves longitudinal or transverse.

Nissan had used the same V6s in both transverse and longitudinal mountings in the 80s and 90s, available with manual transmissions. They're doing it today with the VQ series motors. GM has done it, and is currently doing it. Toyota has done it abundantly as well. Volvo uses an inline 6 mounted transversely(!) available with a 6 speed manual transmission. Production engines, meeting emissions requirements, cars that have been crash tested... It can, and has been done, in large scale production, in the aftermarket, and by privateers.

One correction from earlier though, the Boxster engine is NOT transversely mounted so that's not an applicable example.

5/6/2009 11:11:51 PM

You might want to talk to some engineers about that. An engine CAN be designed for both applications. Motors like the LT/LS series were DESIGNED for a longitudinal, front-rear drivetrain, as are the other associated pieces of their drivetrains.

All the engines you mentioned are transverse FWD, longitudinal RWD platforms. None are commercially viable for a transverse mid-mount, RWD, because there is no off-the-shelf transmission or transaxle to flip the orientation.

Again, I'm not arguing possibilities, I'm talking about commercial feasibility. Engines are designed for the platforms they go into. The motor mounting is one of the core elements of a platform.

5/6/2009 11:22:22 PM

So that we're clear, one final time, I'm not asking why doesn't a particular car have another particular engine. I just want much, much more power available in small/light cars. I'm not convinced that it's an engineering or safety issue. I think of the BMW Z3 M. This chassis came out originally with a 1.8 liter engine making well 140hp. With rather minor modifications, same chassis received the M3 motor making 220hp for the U.S. market. Eventually it got the e46 M3 motor making almost 330hp, and the latter two chassis' were virtually identical, down to the spring rates/brakes, sway bars, etc. I don't think it's a big issue to drop an engine in mass production into another car (provided that it fits) from a safety stand point. BMW felt it was worth it to drop the S54 into the M coupe, when only 600 examples would be made.

Your earlier post makes it seem like you may not aware of the fact that if an engine is emissions legal in any car (not truck), then it will be emissions legal in any other car of the same model year. Emissions requirements are tied to vehicle type (light duty truck, passenger car, etc.), and model year only, thus emissions are a non issue for a manufacturer shopping around for an engine in production, to go into a chassis of the same model year.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason : holy spelling mistakes batman]

5/6/2009 11:31:40 PM

I think we're getting into splitting hairs. You have valid points, I'll leave it at that.

I just want more power, I don't care where it comes from.

5/6/2009 11:33:59 PM

^correct me if I'm wrong (since I haven't driven it) but I heard the Z3 M Roadster was a beast and a half to drive, and oversteered like a biatch with the old trailing arm suspension

Noen, good tidbit about the Lotus chassis. Thanks!

5/6/2009 11:36:19 PM

YES! That's why it's such a good car, we need more of this! I'm not at all interested in any Z3 other than the late M versions. Likewise, I'd love an S2k with a real engine...

5/6/2009 11:40:07 PM

BTW, I hope this isn't all coming across the wrong way. I think both the S2k and the Elise/Exige are excellent cars, and I'm glad they were manufactured. I wouldn't mind owning either for some time. I just think both would be much, much more fun with a lot more power. Instead, lots of power go to cars like the Corvette, which are not that much fun to drive... other than the power!

5/6/2009 11:43:30 PM

Nah, I agree. I think Quinn and I both want FI in the future, lol.

5/6/2009 11:50:10 PM

Yeah I don't see why a simple supercharger isn't the correct route. The engine has forged rods and pistons stock, has the best mass manufactured head in the entire industry, and has been proven to take 350whp with boost for a long long time.

I don't think you really need the displacement. I dont know if I will ever put boost on my s2000. It's been such a long project with my civic and the things you have to do to the poor car.....i would rather buy an "ahmet special" my2000 100k+ miles to do FI on.

5/7/2009 8:06:57 AM

How do you not understand what Ahmet is trying to say Noen? (I feel like you are misunderstanding him and on an entirely different wavelength, not saying that waht you are saying is wrong...)

It's not about the source of the power, simply just the fact that there should be a high hp light weight production car... Yeah they have the 800hp aerial atom, but that's not practicle to say the least. I would personally love to see something about that size of a z4 coupe with the lightness of a 1st gen miata putting down 500ft-lbs from a monster v8 STANDARD. It seems that only "big" cars get the "big Hp."

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2009 9:15:24 AM

True, I mean as far as big horsepower the smallest thing out there is really the Corvette. I find it bothersome that even a new 911 is longer than a C6

5/7/2009 9:23:43 AM

^^I completely understand his points. Hell I agree with his desire entirely. I'm pointing out that the reason is financial, not mechanical. Making big power costs money, both in engineering and in warranty. Lingenfelter and Callaway are a great example of the real cost of adding power on the LS platform.

I would like nothing more than to see a 2000lb mid engine car with a 6/8 cyl engine putting out massive torque, for under 50k. Ain't gonna happen, because there's no demand for it.

and Ahmet I dont want to come across the wrong way either, this thread has really made me go do a lot of research and been really insightful!!

[Edited on May 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ahmet]

5/7/2009 4:14:25 PM

I understand what he is saying. He is saying it to engineers. It's not like our minds work well with wishs. I wish santa claus was real.

5/7/2009 6:26:40 PM

you take that back!!!!!!!!!

5/8/2009 10:24:09 AM

there's one thing you (Ahmet and Noen) are missing when it comes to transverse mount motors. torque steer. any fwd car I've driven with a decent amount of power was only good from a roll because 1, traction (duh) but 2, any time you shift down low the car yanks the wheel out of your hand. I can only see this problem scaling with something like an LS1. things might be different transverse mounting in the back, the only car I drove like that was gronke's mr2 and that had like 80rwhp

5/9/2009 7:42:24 AM

dont hate on the Mr. 2

5/19/2009 10:54:18 AM

^^not an issue once you move a fwd drivetrain to the back to make it mid-rwd, since you'd presumably be immobilizing the steering by replacing the tie rod with another control arm... or were you just speaking from the perspective of 'why can't I have an Ls1 mini cooper?'

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 7:25 AM. Reason : whoops, ^^, not ^]

5/20/2009 7:24:53 AM

btw, I finally drove an MR2 spyder 3 days ago. fucking fantastic. That car felt like it really could handle a TON more power without getting scary. Anyone who can rattle off some links to popular swaps/turbos/superchargers for that car, it would be appreciated.

5/20/2009 7:30:14 AM

ls7

5/22/2009 11:26:59 AM

Torque steer is caused by different driveshaft to axle centerline angle difference between the driven wheels. This is not an issue on a RWD vehicle.

MR2 --> If I remember correctly, Jared has a national auto-x winning MR2 spyder with a 3.x liter Toyota Tundra V6 in it. I drove the car a while back. It seemed alright, but not as much fun as say an Exige.

5/23/2009 1:50:49 AM