Take back the keys!

Nick Serra wrote:Im gonna put like 5 LS1s in my eclipse.

I'd say go for it, but they all wouldn't fit. But you should try for two. 1 up front and one in the trunk. That'd be cute, like that Tiburon from several years back..

Rb25Cory wrote:

v8 woohhhooo!

You can tell that's Austraila, judging by the cars in the backround and the fact it has Holden engine covers on it. The Aussies know what time it is!

EVIL_WS6 wrote:
You can tell that's Austraila, judging by the cars in the backround and the fact it has Holden engine covers on it. The Aussies know what time it is!

Yeah from the looks of it time to go slower than what was previously in there!

Rb25Cory wrote:

EVIL_WS6 wrote:
You can tell that's Austraila, judging by the cars in the backround and the fact it has Holden engine covers on it. The Aussies know what time it is!

Yeah from the looks of it time to go slower than what was previously in there!

Right. Thats why the n/a LS1 made 350hp and the RB26DETT made roughly 320hp, even though it was officially rated at 276hp. Plus the Nissan motor weighs more.. Stupid American engines..

Well, that's a viable bitch, but they kinda kill the AWD factor by doing it.

AWD = insta hook with flypaper grip in the turns

I'd still rock the living piss out of it...rwd is a blast and a half

RSbeast wrote:Well, that's a viable bitch, but they kinda kill the AWD factor by doing it.

AWD = insta hook

Right.. But even with TT's, DOHC's, 4 valves/cyl, an intercooler, awd and "the more efficient tech of an I-6 engine" they still only managed mid-low 13s in the 1/4 mile. Just like a stock n/a single "cam in block" 2 valves/cyl LS1 car with rwd.. So again, explain to me how that's "going slower" and how pushrod engines are a thing of the past. I'm waiting...

EVIL_WS6 wrote:
Right.. But even with TT's, DOHC's, 4 valves/cyl, an intercooler, awd and "the more efficient tech of an I-6 engine" they still only managed mid-low 13s in the 1/4 mile. Just like a stock n/a single "cam in block" 2 valves/cyl LS1 car with rwd.. So again, explain to me how that's "going slower" and how pushrod engines are a thing of the past. I'm waiting...

First you lose the AWD, granted the GT-R is almost fulltime RWD, were it counts (in the corners) its using all 4's. Unless the car is being built for drag and the owner wants the availability of cheaper domestic parts that swap is a downgrade.

GT-R's have gone low mid 12's on BPU setups. That means bolt ons, NO CAMS!

The 26 is a detuned motor from the factory since Japan had to follow the 276bhp HP requirement throughout the 90's that ended early 2000's.

Sure there are people doing different swaps, to each their own.

I personally if I had done my motor swap all over again and known I'd be getting this serious with my motor. I'd have swapped not an RB, or an LS1, or a stupid SR. But most likely it would have been the 2jz. its a close toss up between that and the RB series. But the cost and availability of the 2jz motor are way better than my RB motor since it was a motor made in the U.S.

That wasn't the case and I am where I am, I'm an I6 lover no other way to put it. V'8 power has been beat to death for decades, its old news, 32 valve smaller displacement v-8's are another story, those I like, they are actually trying to more more efficient power w/o just boring it out larger. (typical American modo "if its not working make it bigger!")

EVIL_WS6 wrote:

RSbeast wrote:Well, that's a viable bitch, but they kinda kill the AWD factor by doing it.

AWD = insta hook

Right.. But even with TT's, DOHC's, 4 valves/cyl, an intercooler, awd and "the more efficient tech of an I-6 engine" they still only managed mid-low 13s in the 1/4 mile. Just like a stock n/a single "cam in block" 2 valves/cyl LS1 car with rwd.. So again, explain to me how that's "going slower" and how pushrod engines are a thing of the past. I'm waiting...

What? You're totally changing the subject. I never said anything about things of the past or pushrod vs. ohc efficiency. I'm talking about altering the platform of the car.

Moreso, I'd really like to think your not so stupid to compare apples to oranges. One is a 5.7 the other is what like a 2.6? If that 2.6 was was and ohv 'cam in block' so you put it with the same, it would make less power due to the lack of 4valves per cylinder etc. The LS1 runs the way it does due to displacement and head/intake design. It's not some magical smallblock.

Pushrod technology IS old tech. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but the principle is old. That's not to say DOHC or others havent been around or differnt exotic valvetrain setups....but it's the oldest. I think it would be interesting to see the difference in runner velocities in the LS1 vs. an DOHC setup....I think you'd change your tune a little as smaller valves tend to flow faster (though volume can obviosuly be a limit at a point) but you get the same volume as one large valve with a faster rate.

Obviously there is added weight yada yada, but it is also a cast IRON block, well apt to taking boost to extreme levels, UNLIKE the aluminum LS1 block.

It's apples to oranges, and spouting a 1/4 mile time off 2 totally different STOCK cars just sounds retarded.

Well said ^^^ .

RSbeast wrote:Yadda, yadda, yadda....

I wasn't even talking to you. I was just making my own point against what all of the "points" import car enthusiasts make. Thanks.

Dude you quoted me..

Rb25Cory wrote:Yeah from the looks of it time to go slower than what was previously in there!

Actually it was more towards this particular argument. You just added fuel to the fire. Also, who knows what all is done to the engine of that car. If someone were willing to go through the time and hassle of doing all of the fab work to get the LS1 to fit into an R33, chances are, it's probably not stock. Unlike imports and mod motor Mustangs, that engine doesn't need a turbo (or 2) to be fast, believe it or not.

But since we're still going on and on about OHC vs. OHV, my point was for being such "old tech" as the OHV design is, it's obviously not a very bad design considering it's more than holding its own against everything Japan can throw at it. But what a lot of people don't realize is that the reason(s) why the Skyline GT-R never made it to ours shores to begin with (until now) was the fact that the RB26DETT couldn't meet federal emission standards and the Skyline itself couldn't pass Federal crash safety standards either. Nissan could've easily fixed these issues, but they weren't willing to invest tons of money just to sell a handful more of them at a premium in The States. Plus they didn't want to steal sales away from its own 300ZXTT here either.

Rb25Cory wrote:GT-R's have gone low mid 12's on BPU setups. That means bolt ons, NO CAMS!

So have LS1's. The right cam will get you into the 11s in an LS1. Hell, there are cam only (with bolt ons and a converter) cars in the 10s.

Rb25Cory wrote:The 26 is a detuned motor from the factory since Japan had to follow the 276bhp HP requirement throughout the 90's that ended early 2000's.

From everything I've read/heard, it actually wasn't detuned. It was just underrated because of that reason..

i love my dinosaur pushrod motor lol

EVIL_WS6 wrote:

Rb25Cory wrote:Yeah from the looks of it time to go slower than what was previously in there!

Actually it was more towards this particular argument. You just added fuel to the fire. Also, who knows what all is done to the engine of that car. If someone were willing to go through the time and hassle of doing all of the fab work to get the LS1 to fit into an R33, chances are, it's probably not stock. Unlike imports and mod motor Mustangs, that engine doesn't need a turbo (or 2) to be fast, believe it or not.

But since we're still going on and on about OHC vs. OHV, my point was for being such "old tech" as the OHV design is, it's obviously not a very bad design considering it's more than holding its own against everything Japan can throw at it. But what a lot of people don't realize is that the reason(s) why the Skyline GT-R never made it to ours shores to begin with (until now) was the fact that the RB26DETT couldn't meet federal emission standards and the Skyline itself couldn't pass Federal crash safety standards either. Nissan could've easily fixed these issues, but they weren't willing to invest tons of money just to sell a handful more of them at a premium in The States. Plus they didn't want to steal sales away from its own 300ZXTT here either.

Your actually wrong about the emissions part, stock Skylines do pass cali emissions, many of people have done it. Japans standards to U.S. standards are entirely different.

One of the main reasons the GT-R along with the EVO, STI never came to the states until of recently was because there was no market for these cars. They wouldn't have sold in the states.

At the time foreign cars were still relatively new to the U.S. themselves let along a high performance version of these. So they kept the market where they would sell over seas to more open minding people.

As I said previously, the made the car slower with the ls1 who ever said I was saying straight line? They got rid of the one thing that makes a GT-R a GT-R, the AWD!

Just because import cars arn't dumping 6-8.4 liters of displacement into cars with only 16 valves doesn't mean they cant make power.

Nissan never produced a Skyline GT-R to comply with the United States FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).

...booya

SVT THIS wrote:Nissan never produced a Skyline GT-R to comply with the United States FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).

...booya

Not sure if you read anything I said above...

Your car is red.