LocostUSA.com

If you end up going the SHO route, I have an adapter plate and maybe a clutch/flywheel that Kennedy Engineering made up for me a while back that might be of use to you. Mid 90's SHO to inverted Porsche transaxle, never been used and currently collecting dust...

_________________
Cheers, Tom

My Car9 build: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14613
"It's the construction of the car-the sheer lunacy and joy of making diverse parts come together and work as one-that counts."
Ultima Spyder, Northstar 4.0, Porsche G50/52

It hasn't been advertised much but you can now buy a 2.3 Ecoboost crate engine! Now it's not very locost at all, but it's nice to see it offered. As more and more people total mustangs (we all know a large number of them get totaled leaving cars and coffee) the engines will become easier and easier to get. Don't forget the MCK uses the 2.3 engine and the Explorer will us this engine as well.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-23T

I would suggest getting a used totaled drive train from a mustang and then buying the standalone from Specialist Components in Norfolk. (if I had that kinda of money)
http://twinkam.co.uk/epages/191f6b26-60bf-483c-b021-755a0c9099c1.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/191f6b26-60bf-483c-b021-755a0c9099c1/Products/SC356

Hope this helps

why would you want that when you can have a 2l focus st motor with this sweet thing on it:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6017-20T

edit: yeah, thats nowhere near locost territory, but a 2l ecoboost with the chip on it is really powerfull and has north of 350 lb.ft at 3000 rpm. that control pack is designed to swap that motor in anything but a focus, so it applies to locost interests. plus well rumors say you can bolt it up to a NC transmission. looks promising!

I was interested in the release of the 2.3 ecoboost and its ECU control pack because it appears to be a lot of power in a small package.

However, I see that the 2.3 engine weight is not yet announced. I would guess that it will be a little heaver than the 2.0 ecoboost. The weight of a naked 2.0 ecoboost is a hefty 300lbs (no front assy drive, alternator, starter, etc). That's only about 50lbs lighter than a GM LS3 or LSA which produce much more power in a simple naturally aspirated package.

That is true, and RWD transmissions are bolt-on affair instead of a frankenstein type deal

but the control pack is very interesting in the sense that it allows to delete multiple sensors. it is designed to remove to a certain degree, the reliance on chassis sensors for the proper function of the ECU, making it more like a "standalone" of sorts, with factory warranty.

Also 300 pounds including manifolds and turbo is not the worst. still lighter than subaru powertrains

It's interesting, but no practical for the moment

Not been comparing, but yeah, the GM people have been working on their crate eco-whatevers. I had a thread on that some time ago. Specifically, I was looking at the GM LTG Generation III 4-cyl turbo 2.0L Ecotec engine. From my research these cars use that engine (no doubt some good ole boy has better info):

2013 - present Malibu (259 hp 13-15, 205 hp 2016ff)
2014 - present Regal
2013 - Present ATS (bumped to 295 hp in 2015)
2016 - Cadillac CT6
2016 - Camaro

You can indeed get out your wallet and order one of those via crate, along with a trans and clutch and electrical bits, somewhere north of $14,500 street price for everything (Jegs). A used motor would cut that down to $9,000 or less. Using a trans out of a Solstice/Sky would probably drop it to $7,000 or so for the package. Megasquirt and some sort of junkyard drive by wire gas pedal would probably drop it down to $4000 or so.

OF course, if my math is correct (and I'm a liberal arts grad), we're basically spending as much money as a LS setup?

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.

But with an LS you still have to keep paying over & over again as you drive the car.

#1 the mass is greater in lots of areas than just the motor since you have a heavier trans, diff, axles, stiffening of chassis + MASSIVELY HEAVIER AND MORE EXPENSIVE TIRES THAT WON'T LAST VERY LONG.

_________________
mobilito ergo sum
I drive therefore I am

I can explain it to you,
but I can't understand it for you.

I will play devil's advocate here;

A thing to consider with any ammount of tuning those turbo 4bangers put out 300 WHP/WTQ, putting your diff and axles at risk if you don't have a beefed up setup, plus rubber goes just as easy when on the throttle, and i believe the components would be more stressed out when launching, since power isn't as linear as a V8 (torque tends to spike as turbo achieves full boost, it's not uncommon to pickup 150-200 WTQ in the span of 1000-1500 RPM).

Those turbo 4bangers are also quite heavy, with the extra piping, intercoolers, turbos... those all add up. the only real substancial weight savings are the transmission, since the t56 is so heavy. In the packaging department an LS is rather compact, and weights around 400 pounds dry with accessories and flywheel, wich isn't very far off the 4bangers (300 pounds dry no accessories no flywheel AFAIK).

And we aren't even getting into the complicated setups you have to go through to fool the ECU to run in any kind of rod/locost, the required ducting to keep the intercooler cool, and all that fun stuff.

Id say it's more down to personnal preference and availability, since both have pros and cons. Neighter belong in a locost though, since they eat the whole budget to begin with!

So I wonder, what kind of motor would produce, say, 100 hp, and be small enough so that it would've fit into the original Seven (the Book is larger than the original by a good bit, 3" wider as I recall?)?

I mean, in an era when they're getting more HP and reliability out of bigger motors, is anything out there really small and producing pretty good HP for its size, all in a package that we can call remotely Locost and without electronics that add weeks (or more!) to the build? Out of a motorcycle or snowmobile or chain saw or something perhaps?

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.

Off the top of my head, i can think of the ford 1l Ecoboost, the GM 1.4T Ecotec as far as "modern engines" go. there is also the 1.6 Naturally aspired from the fiesta, but i have no idea how those mate to RWD applications

The same engine that's in my Formula Ford. A Ford "Kent" 1600cc pushrod motor. They came in Pinto and Fiesta back in the 1970's. They are silly small by modern standards, 14.5" bottom of block to top of valve cover with a 6" wide head. On this motor the history of modern engine development was founded. First the Lotus Twin cam head was put on, then the Cosworth Belt Drive head. Upon those was born the Cosworth DFV... All in the space of just a few years in the sixties...

If you have access to these pieces, it makes for a very nice package and the history is incredible...

Some of the original GM V6 pushrod ( 2800? 60 degree banks ) would fit, I think.

I think mmraie and rumbles are correct above. The turbo motors are expensive, heavy and have enough torque to require the same drivelines or heavier than their V8 counterparts. The focus on these is low end power and torque, so this is not surprising.

What we want for our cars is different than what OEMs want now. For mileage you would like an engine that only ever turns less than 2000 RPM and just boosts for it's power. Why? Engineers compare engines based on the pressure a compressor would have to supply to the engine to make the same amount of power. You might have an engine that produces a peak of 150 BMEP, Brake Mean Effective Pressure. In town though and at speed limits maybe it produces 30 BMEP. If it's a V8 and loafing, what is the BMEP during the intake cycle when there is manifold vacuum? Perhaps it would be -10 BMEP. To make the 30 BMEP, it actually must produce 40 BMEP. The turbo might be at 0 boost, which is actually +10 PSI compared to the vacuum in the V8.

Pushrod V8's in the 200-300 HP range are good choices for us. A Ford 302 ( originally 221 ) are very small, mine is something like 21"-22" from bottom of oil pan to top of intake manifold. It has an aftermarket pan and manifold, but not expensive parts, just standard stuff. Aluminum heads and flywheel are not expensive for these motors and the whole thing is way less expensive than these turbo crate engines. You could even get an aluminum block and still be cheaper than the modern stuff. The sales volume on those parts is huge...

Other than that the smaller 4 cylinder engines like Miata and Focus make sense... For most people automotive parts work best.

_________________
Marcus Barrow - Car9 an open design community supported sports car for home builders!
SketchUp collection for LocostUSA: "Dream it, Build it, Drive it!"
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.

Welcome to my world. The 2.8 / 3.1 / 3.4 motors are unloved. My plan is to use the RWD 3.4 engine out of a Camaro, which I bought out of scrap for $250 or something. Bolts up to a T5 transmission, and the Camaro version of that trans puts the shift lever pretty much where you'd want it to be.

The worst downside is that, as near as I can tell, you're gonna either run the OEM fuel injection (which isn't nearly as diabolical as the new stuff?) or go the route of buying the aftermarket intake/carb combo. The other enhancement possibility is to have the cast iron heads ported, etc. to match the aftermarket combo, and from what I hear, that works very well. If you have a 2.8, the 3.1 crank is a bolt-in (the 3.4 is a slightly different block).

After I get it running, I have FWD 3500 heads/intake that, according to those who have done this, might bump up the HP to over 200. Obviously once you get into the FWD realm there is even less performance aftermarket stuff than for the cast iron heads.

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.

I think you're in a good place. A little quick thinking with round numbers and it seems your car will pretty easy go 150 MPH. Probably more than you need...

And your motor will be solid and reliable. Maybe the ECU I'm working on will be ready for you...

_________________
Marcus Barrow - Car9 an open design community supported sports car for home builders!
SketchUp collection for LocostUSA: "Dream it, Build it, Drive it!"
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.

Considering that this was the project where I tried to learn to weld, yeah, 150 should be sufficient.

This motor has torque. My rear axle is a 3.42 as I figured that I didn't need the low-end torque of a 4.10 with this motor.

Many locosts have a useless first gear as I read the stories? So I might even go higher (lower number) rear axle depending on what I experience when I get it running (if I'm always starting out in second gear, etc).

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.

I too think the 2.0 L Ford Ecoboost would be an excellent choice for the Locost or kit build and should be seriously considered. The engine as used in the 2012 and newer Focus ST is rated at 252 HP and 270 Ft lb. would be a good candidate for our cars.
I have checked my local salvage yards and it is not difficult to purchase complete engine with turbo under 60 K miles for $1,500. To me this makes it a very economical option for the kit. To this price you would also need to purchase and transplant the Focus ECU( always easier typed than done) or possible use aftermarket for off road use. Also you will need the fly by wire throttle pedal and harness. I am rather certain this engine can be paired directly to the Miata 1.8L transmission and drivetrain, readily available, or thus can be an upgrade to an existing 1.8L Miata based car. One issue that will need to be worked out is these engines use a pedal fly by wire system. The throttle and pedal box will need to be designed or modified to accept Ford throttle pedal. Ford racing does sell such a pedal or you can probably adapt the Ford Focus pedal. The Ford pedal is a pendulum style pedal. This torque level is at the maximum what most of the Miata Turbo group owners say the Miata Trans can handle. Another option would be to mate this engine up to a Tremec T5 using a special cast adapter. Also the Tremec is a readily available , inexpensive and light weight and very strong option, actually not much more than the Miata box. I actually have had MNR mock this combo up, 2.0 L ecoboost and Tremec T5 for fitment and jig and do offer this as an available option for purchase for the VortX. FYI I did check the 2.3L and as I recall the 2.0L and 2.3 share the same block and bolt pattern. So all above comments should be similar for the 2.3 but mostly likely more torque than the Miata box could handle for long life. T5 would be better option.
But I have not any personal experience with the 2.3L ecoboost.

Tom
fastcraft.biz