Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok I was thinking a 3.3 litre flat six out of an Subaru SVX.Yeah once you stop laughing give me your opinions please.I know it makes good torque and HP and is light compared to almost any engine and has a very low CG.Maybe you guys have more to add to this in the pros and cons so fill me in please.
 

·
IH/Rover Moderator
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
rob said:
I know it makes good torque and HP.
Yea you have to wind the piss out of it to find it!

Specifications
· Horizontally opposed 6-cylinder engine

· 4 cam, 24 valve

· 96.9mm x 75mm (3.815" x 2.95")

· 230 HP @ 5400

· 228 lbs/ft @ 4400

· 10:1 compression ratio
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Re: Re: pros and cons on this different engine choice!!!

Old Scout said:


Yea you have to wind the piss out of it to find it!

Specifications
· Horizontally opposed 6-cylinder engine

· 4 cam, 24 valve

· 96.9mm x 75mm (3.815" x 2.95")

· 230 HP @ 5400

· 228 lbs/ft @ 4400

· 10:1 compression ratio
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
come on bob you know better than that! it could have a flat torque curve just that it peaks 10lbft above the curve at 4400.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Thanks for the input.I'd ditch all the electronics and go LPG and as for the torque the flat six does make awesome low end torque.It has way more bottom end than a lot of v-8's.I guess it is just a VW engine with water inside it and seeing as I'm a tech I wouldn't say it's exotic.Just throw away the skin and you have a basic engine design from the thirties.Does anybody know of a person who has used a boxer style engine in their rig?I was thinking with the right lube system and LPG you could run upside down all day.Not that I want to.I was also thinking mid mount with a front passenger compartment on Mog axles(kick myself all the time for selling my 404 2 years ago)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
I really don't understand the whole lightweight engine thing, somebody care to enlighten me? I think a penalty of a couple hundred pounds is well worth the payoff of torque when you need it, not when the engine gets there.
Low-cg of a flat motor, I get that one, but the rest doesn't make any sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Slagburn said:
I really don't understand the whole lightweight engine thing, somebody care to enlighten me? Low-cg of a flat motor, I get that one, but the rest doesn't make any sense.
If you want overall lightness every pound counts.For every 100 pounds you keep off there will be 10lbs less req on extra strength items.Overll if you can keep a rig below or near 2500 pounds it's very nice to play with.Then you won't need as much torque to get you through stuff.Anybody can build a tank I just can't move one by myself.I have wheeled large rigs and small and by far the smaller and lighter rigs are less costly and break less frequently.I admit the mog diffs would be overkill but gearing,lockers,portals just are too much to give up.Besides that they keep the cg low.
 

·
IH/Rover Moderator
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
Re: Re: Re: pros and cons on this different engine choice!!!

9V said:


come on bob you know better than that! it could have a flat torque curve just that it peaks 10lbft above the curve at 4400.
Sorry Adam with out variable valve timing you will never get 3.3L with a flat torque. I have a ton of wheel time in the other flat six cars made by Dr Ferdinand, but perhaps Subaru engineers out did the boys from Stuttgart :rolleyes::flipoff2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
rob said:
If you want overall lightness every pound counts.For every 100 pounds you keep off there will be 10lbs less req on extra strength items.Overll if you can keep a rig below or near 2500 pounds it's very nice to play with.Then you won't need as much torque to get you through stuff.Anybody can build a tank I just can't move one by myself.I have wheeled large rigs and small and by far the smaller and lighter rigs are less costly and break less frequently.I admit the mog diffs would be overkill but gearing,lockers,portals just are too much to give up.Besides that they keep the cg low.
There is a certain element of truth to that, but I look at it differently- if you're competing then you'll already have beefy axles, Atlas, all that good stuff. Most crawlers like a little more weight on the nose. So for the low cost of a couple hundred pounds you can generate wheelspeed for Supercrawl style climbs.
Case in point- my 401 vs a 4.3 Vortec is only 145 pounds extra.
Yes, the extra torque may end up breaking more parts, but you don't have to push that right pedal all the way down.

OK, you can have your thread back now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Slagburn said:


There is a certain element of truth to that, but I look at it differently- if you're competing then you'll already have beefy axles, Atlas, all that good stuff. Most crawlers like a little more weight on the nose. So for the low cost of a couple hundred pounds you can generate wheelspeed for Supercrawl style climbs.
Case in point- my 401 vs a 4.3 Vortec is only 145 pounds extra.
Yes, the extra torque may end up breaking more parts, but you don't have to push that right pedal all the way down.

OK, you can have your thread back now.
As for more weight up front I'm about the same weight as the engine and I can move around:D .Correct me if I'm wrong but the winner of the Goodyear series rig weighed how much and used what for an engine?:p (2600# and 1.8 4 banger)Don't get me wrong Mike and Lance are a great team but seems to me weight is a big factor in competition.Many times it was fat bastards weight that made the difference of a roll or a backup.He is at least 10% of the weight of the machine and leverage is a large factor.(now if mike would just drop a pound or two Lance's job would be easier:D )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,060 Posts
IMO,
if you are looking for a light boxer engine, you are better off with the flat-4 turbo from Subaru (a lot of cheap engines are circulating around the recylers, plus some JDM stuff).
The problem with the SVX drivetrain, as some have mentioned, is it is fairly exotic, not too easy to find parts (for cheap nonetheless), and they do not like modifications at all (i.e. turbo'ing this engine is a bad move). Certainly need to consider this engine is not cammed for an off-road application.

Maybe going with the newer flat-6 found in the Legacy Outback might be better suited to your needs, but overall, do you want function or a novelty?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Have you run the numbers as far as weight? How much lighter will it be and how much lower is the CG?

In the end you will have something unique, but is it worth the headache?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
I owned a SVX once upon a time. Also a 911...

Sube engine is a great engine, but as others here have observed, a bit of a PITA for an off-road app.

Slowzuki has mounted a Sube 1.8 in Sam. Not sure if he ever got it out of "development".

If you have your heart set on a Sube engine (I'd take the Sube engine over an ass-ended Nazi slot car's any day) you might want to look at the EJ25. Not as strong as the EG33 on paper but pretty good low end for its displacement. Lots of GC8 ricer Impreza guys pulling/dumping the EJ25 for the EJ20 (turbo). There is a shop somewhere in the lower mainland that does this swap (if memory serves). Could be a source of cheap/available spares.

These Sube engines are reliable, reason the homebuilt/ultralight aircraft guys use them (and Suzuki stuff). So is the p-car stuff but who has the $$ or tolerance for BS?

HTH

[email protected]
 

·
For Kayla
Joined
·
25,333 Posts
and 12 hours to change the fuggin coil packs on that thing...

actually, while I've pondered this idea before, I really don't think it would be a good idea. Mainly I say this because of the way that the plugs and coil packs are. They are one unit if I believe, and they are going to be mounted low. If you cross water, I'd venture to guess they could easily get wet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks for the input guys.I was thinking actually of using the 2.7 originally but the 3.3 kind of intriged me.I only want to use the engine and as far as working on engines I'm used to really crappy accessability.In a buggy it will be designed for function and practicallity.Keep the input coming.The 2.5 litre had crossed my mind as well and it definatly is easier to get I just wanted the extra torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
rob said:
Thanks for the input guys.I was thinking actually of using the 2.7 originally but the 3.3 kind of intriged me.I only want to use the engine and as far as working on engines I'm used to really crappy accessability.In a buggy it will be designed for function and practicallity.Keep the input coming.The 2.5 litre had crossed my mind as well and it definatly is easier to get I just wanted the extra torque.
The ER27 is also a good engine but it is really starting to get rare now. There is some parts interchange with the EA18 - same rods and I think rings. Pistons themselves are different - compression on the ER27 is ~9.5:1 while the EA18 is ~7.9:1 (turbo).

ER27 also tends to have issues with the hydraulic lash adjusters not getting enough oil pressure (pump rebuild). I've owned 3 XT-6s over the years so I know way too much about these cars. If you've got an old XT-6 kicking around - check out the electronic steering and/or air suspension - might be useful in a buggy build?

[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
If your going for a lightweight engine, why not a Mazda rotory? The older ones come carbed, newer ones EFI, can make tons of power, sure you gotta rev 'em up to get there, but isn't that what gears are for? And if it's in a light rig anyways, torque isn't as big a deal.
 

·
For Kayla
Joined
·
25,333 Posts
Russ Hogan uses 350 hp mazda rotaries. His Green Hornet had a mazda rotary and mog portals (he competes in ERoCC) and his newest one will use another mazda rotary. It's less moving parts than a standard engine too...

As far as the flat engines go, they are a lot better balanced than a standard inline or V-engine too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
JParuBob said:

As far as the flat engines go, they are a lot better balanced than a standard inline or V-engine too.
Haha, are you serious? The in-line six is the definition of a balanced motor.
The Suburu motor is a good idea. Those flat sixes pull well down low. Check out this Suburu powered buggy.

http://www.gwc-schweiz.ch/norg0213.jpg

http://www.gwc-schweiz.ch/picasy01.jpg

If you are looking for a lightweight motor with technology, I suggest checking out the 2003 Toyota 4Runner 4.0 DOHC V6 all aluminum with VVT-i. While VVT-i is not the best variable valve timing system, it will work well enough for off-road use. Stock they are rated at 245hp
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top