Thank you for gracing us with your knowledge.

BTW, you are aware that there are supercharged LS 944's about?
...for starters...

And since you're so knowledgeable about LS engines i'm certain you know that a 150 shot of nitrous on the bone stock engine is fairly common. Which leaves the question, at which track are you "one of the few" going over 120mph? Get off your high horse, and get out of this thread. It's clear you have nothing to contribute.

 

I'll leave when I'm ready thanks...since my build was mentioned in the OP I feel I have every right to defend it.

So you are stating yourself that it takes nitrous to run what I'm running I'll end there because that is actually true. A 150 shot runs very close to 120 usually, not always over.


Since most LS swaps don't have nitrous my point is made.

In regards to a SC swap, that would be fun... I'm still not worried though.

Btw I'm not on any high horse, I don't jump I threads stating the 944 engine is the end all be all, far from it. It has many weaknesses that I've addressed. I'm just stating the ate alternatives to doing a swap... Which is what the OP was asking....

Anyway, have a good day boys and my offer stands...

 

Nobody adds nitrous to a LS-swapped 944 because nobody is dumb enough to think a 944 is a drag racing machine. The transaxles in these cars suck and they're getting rarer by the day, and making these cars stick with real power requires negating everything the factory did to make them a fun car to drive (as seen by your avatar, where your car appears to be ready to go offroading).

Your entire argument is that you can beat an LS-swap at your elevation, and nobody cares about your elevation, so your point is moot. Call me when your "daily driver with 10k miles" rolls over 200k and then we'll talk. I'll just keep changing my oil until then.

 

OK, no problem.

 

Ok, fair enough........ but how often do I get to defend the V8 guys??

 

I think to be fair, more of the V8 guys come into i4 threads than vica versa. We know the main protagonists of course. I tend to think a lot of people compare some old oily leaking i4 motor to a brand new crate V8 when summing up the choice in their heads. Not sure why 300-400bhp isn’t easily obtained with a well maintained i4 and to pay Sid his due, he has worked on these motors eliminating some of the perceived frailties at what I would describe as a budget solution. Remember that some of us have many many thousands of dollars invested into high end i4 motors. I am sure it would cost quite a bit less to put together a 600bhp turbo’d V8 but this might open up it’s own can of worms. My personal taste is to persist with the i4 but I can easily understand why people would look to do the conversion in the U.S. where everything is cheap.

Btw…if Sid is happy to throw down the ¼ mile challenge to uphold the i4 against those big bad boyz in with their V8’s I’m sure there are plenty of guys happy to throw out the challenge on the circuit. Tony G’s car would be the fastest 948 that we’ve seen on the track so far and his new build will be stonkingly quick (have to throw Bruce and Jims race 948's into the mix too) but Tony’s is going to be a fair way from an original car. Guess it’s going to be like calling the Nemo Project a Mitsubishi Evo. (Google it)

 

for years in planning my SC project i figured if i blew up the porsche motor i would go with a V8, believing it to be a stout solution

sid's new motor changes that for me...if the block/crank survive the carnage, i'm pretty sure ill go down the 2.9L route...

 

I'll bring it down to some air at some point. However, I can easily control how much power and abuse the engine takes by turning down the boost controller. 11's?...lol pretty easy actually...

Here's what I've learned through this discussion..Some of it through your own words and links

A) LS car owners will talk like there car is WAY more powerful than an I4 but will backpedal when confronted

B) An LS car will require a 150 shot of nitrous to keep up with my lowly 4 cylinder (own words)

C) their posterboy with a supercharged LS runs high 12's at low elevation see: OWN link description ...

Uploaded by MB911 on Jun 14, 2008

Two long time pals face off in their cars of choice for a test & tune drag day at Cordova dragway on a hot (90 degree) afternoon in June. The Dart sucker punches the LS1 944 with a fat launch (1.7 sixty foot time) and then holds the Porsche off for a few gears. Then the 944 comes up on boost and works on the Dodge at the finish. High 12 second pass was recorded on this run

D) they will resort to insults as to the looks of a car when they cannot back up their smack talk

E) they think that just because I drag my car that I cannot turn corners... Ever here of bolting a swaybar back up? A big one at that..

F) They will not back up their smack talk, even when they are offered to not even have to travel....

Well there you go, that is my take on these particular LS posters.....

Lots of talk and no action...But hey. I still like their cars

 

Nope. Not even close. Already proved that.
And unless your considering <3500rpm part of the powerband, the LS had less average torque:

https://rennlist.com/forums/6465654-post89.html

 

LOL - too bad. I used his LS-swap as an example years before you said I couldn't

Regardless - it shows exactly how every every LS swap is presented on this forum, "swap in an LSx and with nothing besides a cam/headers/tune/ect, it will make awesome power"...

Regardless #2 - it also disproves your ridiculous statement of the LS having some monster torque advantage. I will, however, give you that below ~3400rpm, the LS has the torque advantage (against my stock long-block 2.5L).

 

Yes, the V8 has gobs of torque in the sub 2500rpm range as compared to a turbo i4...but when are you anywhere near those low rpms on the track? Where your V8 is flattening out it's hp and tq curve, my i4 is building power past yours in the usable part of the rev range for the track. Also to be fair in the comparisons I think you have to do the forced induction multiplying formula in which a 2.5L-3.1L turbo i4 would be equivalent to a less than 5.3L n/a V8. I have nothing against the V8 swaps, I just don't actually like the linearity vs the shove. Not sure about the grief thrown at Tony G, but at least he's out there doing it and documenting his builds and races. I'll leave that to you guys to sort out.

 

Rob, with all due respect. You are way off the mark on regards to me having an easier time at this elevation. Ask anyone who has tried to make power up here how much more of a toll it takes on you equipment. Everything has to work harder.

I'll do just fine at low elevation. I'm not worried about that.

Anyway, this is just a pissing contest and pointless now so I'll leave it alone.

 

The problem with the V8 swap is the factory transaxle gearing ratios. Even the 951 box in 1st gear still spins out too quickly, but cannot be safely started in
2nd gear. The NA trans starting in second gear is great gear wise, but it's gear strength and inevitable destruction under the V8 torque always keeps you from wanting to go ***** out. I'm installing a p1sc this winter and then I'll see what breaks next.

 

I have seen exactly 4 v8 swapped 944's. Two were beautifully executed and likely cost well north of $25K (One owner said his was) The other two were backyard butcher jobs, that likely cost well under $10k. Wire harness cut and left hanging, zip ties, sloppy welds, no a/c or power steering, both were carbed with capped or blocked off hoses and unused fittings. The two beautiful cars were well loved by their owners...the other two, were being sold due to (insert excuse here)
A V8 like anyother swap, requires planning, time and money. Skimp on any one of those, and you end up with a poor swap that will likely disapoint you....I have purchased many basket cases like this due to owners getting in over their heads.

As for performance...Speed costs. How fast do you want to go?

 

fwiw, my LS1 948 (built by the previous owner) has great AC, power steering, and is smooth as silk. Our last trip up to Monterey and back got 24-25 mpg.