Friday Evening Question #8: Cars That Disappoint Under the Hood

"JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7" (jayzayeighty) 02/07/2014 at 21:38 • Filed to: friday evening question, feq, brz, frs, gt86, s13

0

56

(REPOST) You step on the gas pedal, and instead of getting the rush of amazing sound and power you were expecting, you get an underwhelming feeling. There have always been great cars that have been let down by their power plants—the MR-S, USDM E36 M3, 240SX, SN95, later C3 Corvettes, and (most recently) the Toyobaru twins have all had somewhat disappointing, while good, engines. Please understand that I'm not saying that the engines these cars came equipped with were inherently bad, but simply let the rest of the car/lineage down a bit. Because of the exciting onset of the AE86's spiritual successor, we have realized that we should embrace a car for how it drives and not how fast it drives. We realize that a car's handling and other attributes are more important than MOAR POWER. But, even if it's not about the engine being fast, it's about the engine being right . The boxer engine in the BR-Z/FR-S/GT86 is often bemoaned because it doesn't have a particularly exciting power delivery or sound and doesn't really make up for it with power. Sure, the aftermarket is perfectly fine (as is the engine); however, most any engine can be awesome with tons of modifications and tweaking and the car really should be available with a performance-oriented unit.

I'm going to use the 240SX as the prime example here. The Toyobaru is what made me think of the topic for this FEQ, but it really is not that bad of a fit by most accounts. The S13 chassis was one of the best of its time, delivering a great driving experience, fantastic handling, and astounding value. Perhaps Nissan took value to a bit of an extreme by only offering the car with a KA24-DE engine designed for use in the Hardbody truck. It was great as an economy truck four—plenty of torque, decent efficiency, and very robust. Despite these good qualities, the sheer number of SR20DET swaps done over here in the states should give you an idea of whether people thought the engine had a place in the car. It just did not quite satisfy people who wanted something up-to-par with the other great qualities of the car. Perhaps the KA24 made the car a better daily driver or workhorse beater or hoonmobile, but a better sports car it did not. Again, I am not saying it was all that big of a letdown, but it truly did have the same effect (although to a greater extent) on people as the boxer in the FR-S has to some. It's a slightly weaker link in the car. People deemed that it deserved an engine swap, and looked for an engine that Nissan to swap in that should have installed in the first place: the SR20. These days, more and more people who appreciate the merits of the FR-S/BR-Z/GT86 (is there an easy way to refer to them other than Toyobaru?) and have money look straight to the aftermarket to improve the performance and sound of the FA20, as well as doing engine swaps. So, this week's Friday Evening Question is:

What good cars deserve engine swaps to become truly great?

Questions of Friday Evenings Past:

#7: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#6: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#5: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#4: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#3: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#2: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

#1: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

crowmolly > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:05

3

Smog era C3's don't need a swap. Intake, cam, headers/exhaust work, and a big boy tune will double the horsepower for under $750. Not kidding.

Pedro Rafael > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:07

8

Disappointing engine? DMC-12

Needs a LS3

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > crowmolly 02/07/2014 at 18:08

0

That's true. I only put them down as an example because their power outputs really weren't up to where a Corvette should have been. They don't need a swap, but they deserve one—tweaking the original 350s is just a more logical and cost effective way of giving the smog-era C3s the power they should have made from the factory.

Brian Silvestro > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:08

3

......for now

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > crowmolly 02/07/2014 at 18:09

0

...And then some in a lot of cases....Add some good aftermarket cylinder heads and things get REALLY fun =)

dogisbadob > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:09

1

Pop open the hood of a Z32 300ZX. That shit is fucking scary, and there's NO ROOM to do anything!

The 4th-gen Camaro is another horror story. Half of the engine is under the windshield! This moronic layout is also shared with most American full-size RWD vans from the early 70s to even now (Chevy Express and Ford E-Series).

Most transverse V6 engines are a nightmare, even on the best car ever made like the 3rd-gen Camry and equivalent ES300.

But perhaps the biggest disappointment is the Toyota Previa—there's NO engine under the hood! Because it's under the driver's seat and no room to mod at all. Too bad we never got the diesel offered in JDM-land.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > Pedro Rafael 02/07/2014 at 18:09

1

This is the car that needs an engine swap!

Dsscats > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:09

4

As much as it pains me to say this, the Porsche 914. It was a fantastic looking, fantastic handling car, but the stock 80hp (or something like that) 4 banger made it just a little disappointing when you put your foot down. Sure, it was great in the twisted, but that's less than 5% of most of our driving?don't get me wrong, I love it to death, but there's a reason why so many have had 350 swaps.

crowmolly > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:12

1

Yeah, you were dead nuts spot on. Lowest of the low. The L48 base 350 was 165hp in 1975.

Cam specs:

Adv dur 260*In/271*Ex

0.050" dur 194*/203*

Cam lift .260"/.273"

Valve lift .390"/.410"

8.5:1 compression. Ouch.

Pedro Rafael > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:13

1

Definitely needs! Imagine how badass it would be with a V8...

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > crowmolly 02/07/2014 at 18:15

0

Those are just shameful figures! I would love to get a smog 'Vette or Cadillac and change a couple of things to make a fantastic, cheap sleeper. Those engines were seriously de-tuned. GM bragged about 190 HP in the EFI 425 '77 De Ville, haha.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > Pedro Rafael 02/07/2014 at 18:17

1

That would be incredible! Although I might go to the wrong year...

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > Pedro Rafael 02/07/2014 at 18:19

1

Or a 20B.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > dogisbadob 02/07/2014 at 18:20

1

I can't remember what part needed to be replaced but I do remember how I had to get to it - removing the intake plenum, etc...

NO.

Pedro Rafael > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura 02/07/2014 at 18:26

0

Nice, but I still prefer a V8.

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:27

2

How 'bout these?

They started to get it right near the end. Especially the leaded gas version other markets got.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > Pedro Rafael 02/07/2014 at 18:28

0

A 1UZ/2UZ with twin-turbo modification would do nicely. /thinking outside of the box

Pedro Rafael > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura 02/07/2014 at 18:31

0

Well, since we're putting Toyota as an option, why not a 2JZ with 1000HP?

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > Pedro Rafael 02/07/2014 at 18:37

0

There are some I6s I don't feel happy with.

GhostZ > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 18:43

4

This is the Ur-Example.

Barely a better HP/Weight ratio than a Miata, in a time when production cars were advertising 400+ HP and straight line performance was the entire market. Thank god they got everything else right though.

GhostZ > crowmolly 02/07/2014 at 18:44

0

Right, block is there, displacement is there, the power is all lost through smog equipment, cost-cutting, bad timing, and outdated technology.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Brian Silvestro 02/07/2014 at 18:50

0

Needs two trim levels - sports suspension R/T model, and a high output motor w/ even sportier suspension SRT model.

Not a bad econobox, but not at all on the level of the STs or even the Civic SI (which is about the same price as a decently equipped dart).

Brian Silvestro > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/07/2014 at 18:53

1

That's what I want to see. It's a great chassis with a ton of potential.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Brian Silvestro 02/07/2014 at 19:08

0

I don't know if the chassis is that amazing. I remain skeptical about how much work Chrysler/dodge did in sorting out the italian chassis before selling it. I'm going to be pretty active in SCCA this summer so I'll use that as a barometer. If I see lots of them out there, I'll say it has potential that the factory is ignoring. If I see none, I'll assume the reason is it's rubbish compared to the competition.

But a better suspension option would at least give it a chance to claw back some performance cred after the caliber shot all of that to hell. An SRT is reaching a bit high until the dart is a proven sales success but it too could redeem the model a bit.

Brian Silvestro > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/07/2014 at 19:10

0

I agree. I do want to see how it really does. An SRT would be nice to see no matter what because fuck it, why not?

operator2222 > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 19:23

2

Fiero.. I had an 88' GT, the car was fast but everything else on the road ate me for breakfast

 TT > dogisbadob 02/07/2014 at 19:32

1

I have to agree with you on the 4 Gen F Body (Camaro/Firebird). The F Body fanatics that are in the know drop the engine to get to the #7 and #8 spark plug.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > GhostZ 02/07/2014 at 20:53

2

While I love me an L24, the 240/260s were not very powerful. They were pretty much a 911 competitor, though—a job at which the excelled and at a fraction of the price.

GhostZ > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 20:57

2

Completely agreed.

I still wonder what would have happened if Nissan had raised the price a little higher and sacrificed some reliability to develop a DOHC head for the L engine, bumping power closer to 170-180HP... but then they wouldn't have been able to sell the car in Japan anyway due to regulations.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > GhostZ 02/07/2014 at 21:06

0

The closest they came was the 432, twincam 160HP in Japan. Too bad they never came over here. Even in JP and the surrounding region they have astronomical values. At least S30s are relatively cheap over here! If they'd outpaced the 'Vette and out-handled the 911, they would be really out of the average person's price range.

Nibby > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 21:39

1

ur mom lolz

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 21:43

1

ZN6 = 86,FR-S,BRZ

BlazinAce - Doctor of Internal Combustion > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 21:51

1

This:

It looks just like a muscle car should but, in an era where most american automakers were advertising 6 second 0-60 times, the Opala's 12 second dash was far from muscle car material. And it was still one of the quickest brazilian cars of its time

Z_Stig > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 21:52

1

The US spec E36 M3 didn't disappoint. 0-60 was maybe a tenth or two slower, it offered better low end torque, and since the US E36 was lighter, still felt pretty quick for it's day.

The Euro spec had a huge advantage when the speeds headed for triple digits, but all in all, the S52B32 was far from a disappointment.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > Z_Stig 02/07/2014 at 21:54

0

The car itself was fantastic, and the engine was great. However, people still view the engine as a letdown due to its less performance-oriented nature. Better to DD, but not as satisfactory as other M3s to wring out by most accounts. The Euro one, on the other hand, has more of an M3 feel in regard to the engine.

Manuél Ferrari > Brian Silvestro 02/07/2014 at 21:58

3

Very good pick.

I just thought of something that will make you scream sacrilege and at first you will never want to talk to me again. But after you think about it more I think you'll stop being offended and agree.

I think the E34 M5's engine disappointed

Reason: the E34 was heavier than the E28 and needed a bigger power bump to be considered the best M5 of all time over the E39 M5.

Proof: BMW themselves realized this in 1991 and increased the displacement to 3.8L for the 2nd half of 1991 and beyond.

BUT: as often happened in the US in the 70s, 80s and 90s we got screwed and didn't get the bigger engine because environment or something like that. BMW should have found a way to make the bigger engine compliant with US emissions laws. They shouldn't have screwed us like they did with the E36 M3. If CA emissions were too tough to meet then they should have at least imported the larger engine car to all other states. I know it's more expensive to retain the old engine for CA and give other states the new engine but BMW shouldn't only focus on profits when it comes to M cars. M cars are their halo cars. M cars are our reward for lining their pockets with profit by purchasing their more run of the mill cars.

It was wrong to withhold the larger engine that would have pushed HP from about 311 to about 335-340 and torque from 266 lb-ft to 300 lb-ft. It was wrong to withhold the new engine that had 80% of its total torque available from just 1800 rpm. It was wrong to withhold the 6MT E34 M5 that could do 0-60 in 5.7 sec instead of 6.4 sec. It was wrong to withhold this final evolution of the M-built big inline 6 before moving on to the V8.

Oh BMW how disappoint I am for the US not getting the ultimate versions of the E36 M3 and E34 M5. Maybe the majority of opponauts wouldn't rate the E46 M3 over the E36 M3 and the E39 M5 over the E34 M5 if we had got the real deals.

Brian Silvestro > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:02

1

I actually agree with you. The 3.8 was said to be a much better engine, a great upgrade for the car. The entire mindset of M division fans would be much different had we gotten those glorious engines.

Manuél Ferrari > Brian Silvestro 02/07/2014 at 22:07

0

We gotta make friends with some German opponauts that have M cars.

Then we can go to Germany one day and drive the ultimate E34 and E36 cars on the autobahn and see what we were missing. And we'll get to eat bratwurst and drink German beers.

Z_Stig > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/07/2014 at 22:08

1

I think people were disappointed only for the fact we didn't get the Euro engine. The engine in the US spec car also loves to be wrung out.

Brian Silvestro > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:09

0

We should also make fun of German people, you know because we're fat stupid Americans. Wait, I know a guy with an M3! You! It would be cool to take the factory delivery.

Manuél Ferrari > Brian Silvestro 02/07/2014 at 22:14

0

Yes my car will be what we use for the trade. We go there and drive their cars. They come here and drive my car on CA's awesome 65 MPH max freeways. Or we can go to PCH in the summer where it's stop and go with a max of 18 MPH. That's fun, right?

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:14

1

I agree because I own the car's fatherland rival - the Audi 200 20v Turbo Quattro. AKA an S-Zero. They went head to head in 1991. But I think the E34 was on cruise control because Audi was on the brink of death and Mercedes was not showing the fight in the larger sedans they initially showed with the 190E cosworth in the compact sedan arena. Plus there was a brief recession in the late 80s/early 90s that basically freed up BMW to be a bit lazy, quite honestly, with the E34. And yet I can't help but think that was the right move. When Audi fought back with a new S4/S6 in the mid 90s they did so using a slightly updated 20v Turbo 5 from the 200. That engine design was 15 years old by that point. And again, Mercedes was not playing their games. So BMW kept on keeping on and followed up with the Glorious E39 M5 Master Car.

Oh well, the past is the past and all we have is hindsight. I would love to have a back to back go in my 200 once I fix it up and an M5 from the same year. I know what will happen (M5 quicker when dry, 200 quicker when wet/snowy/dirty) but I still want to do it :)

Brian Silvestro > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:15

1

18MPH! That's a little too fast for me, thank you.

Manuél Ferrari > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/07/2014 at 22:22

0

Your car sounds awesome! How much fixing work do you need to do?

Gawd I wish Mercedes had continued what they had done with the 190 E Cosworth. That would have been so nice. They could have had AMG provide the engine and kept the manual gearbox.

DeltawingGothamDeserves > Dsscats 02/07/2014 at 22:24

2

Hey, they upgraded it to 100 later lol. You are right though, this needed a little more.. oomph .

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:25

1

Well it's an old german uber-sedan from the 80s that's turbocharged with AWD and over 250k miles on the odometer so.......lots. To get it back on the road I need to finish the engine refurbishing but then I really need to replace the front brakes and the suspension too. Oh and I need to find out why my dashboard lights don't work. And why my heated seats stopped working......But it only cost me 1200 when I bought it so it's worth the effort.

Manuél Ferrari > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/07/2014 at 22:26

0

definitely worth the effort, especially at that purchase price

can't wait to see a full build thread post once you're done. it's so awesome to see the progression of a restoration

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Manuél Ferrari 02/07/2014 at 22:36

1

Lol, here's one update from a while back. It wasn't going well

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Manuél Ferrari > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/08/2014 at 02:42

0

It will all get done eventually!

Very cool project

Harrison Voorhees > V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! 02/08/2014 at 12:14

0

For 87 the engine wasn't too bad at all. It's just as fast as the same era 300zx. But boy would I love a V8 under the hood of mine.

Axial > crowmolly 02/08/2014 at 14:31

0

1982 needs a carb. There's nothing wrong with the Crossfire, except that its computer will hold back the mods in a big way. If you really take the time to read and learn and source the parts, you can mod a Crossfire up past 300 HP, but it's far easier to just carb the motor and then do the usual.

Maxaxle > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 02/14/2014 at 00:02

0

This isn't a prime example IMO.

Maxaxle > Pedro Rafael 02/14/2014 at 00:04

0

Everyone seems to miss the point; the original engine was going to be a six-cylinder boxer engine, possibly with laser ignition system and possibly using coal gas.

http://jalopnik.com/deloreans-next…

Maxaxle > BlazinAce - Doctor of Internal Combustion 02/14/2014 at 00:05

0

>Brazilian
>expecting it to compete with U.S.-made cars not released in the U.S. market

Maxaxle > Nibby 02/14/2014 at 00:05

0

mature person sigh

Nibby > Maxaxle 02/14/2014 at 00:09

1

Sorry. Sometimes the 12 year old in me comes out to play.

We can't always act our age...