# Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?!



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

This is the idea that I originally had when I was about to buy my S2000, but when I got it I was actually fairly happy with how it was in stock form. However I was driving the TT 3.2 the other day and someone else in an S2k wanted to play...and being that the TT weighs exactly 700 pounds heavier than my S2k I figured I wasn't going to have much against him.
I was completely wrong!!








Walked away from him each time with ease.
...so now I'm in love with the idea of building a high-revving VR6 to drop into the S2k and having that wicked VR sound come out of the exhaust on that awesome roadster. I took a VR6 headgasket and laid it on top of the F20c, and to my surprise it is roughly less than 1 inch of additional length!!
This would not be a simple task, but working for Ferrea Valvetrain I've made some crafty friends that are more than capable of assisting with this build. Most people look at me like I'm nuts and walk away. The main argument they give is that I'd be taking a superior engine out to replace it with an inferior one. Stock for stock I can agree to that, but I won't be leaving the VR6 stock by any means at all, and my goal would be to get it to rev to 9k RPM like the F20c does, and I know how to keep the internals together. If a 12 valve VR can't keep up with that I'll use a 24 valve instead.
Comments? Suggestions? I'm sure if I mention this in a Honda forum I'll shot on site....but I figure I'd possibly have an interest in this project.








Here's the potential sacrilege-victim!!


































_Modified by KingVR at 2:13 PM 8-23-2007_


----------



## volkswagentuned (Feb 7, 2006)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## bimmen325 (Feb 16, 2003)

let me see, you want to replace a 245hp n/a motor that produces over 120hp per liter for a vr6? i mean to each his own but why?


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (bimmen325)*

I was looking at it more as a "Power:Weight" ratio and not "Powerisplacement" ratio...and more as a sound quality, much higher torque output. With a heavily modded 24v and standalone management I shouldn't have much difficulty getting a hefty chunk more HP and torque where the F20c does not have much more room for improvement.
One thing that I am totally sick of is that damn Civic 4-banger buzz that it makes. Feels like it's about to explode simply to get it to keep up with traffic. The wife keeps asking if that's normal that it's so damn loud and strung out sounding like that.
Another reason is that I really miss having my VR6 in the past, but I do not miss the GTI so much that I would want another one. This way I get to have the fantastic sportscar that I love, with the engine that I love, not to mention the desire to build something wild on my own. So it's a Win/Win/Win for me.


----------



## manfredwerner (Jan 30, 2007)

i say go for it, but don't forget to make an official post. with pix.
back in Latvia they would swap vw engines into most suckiest soviet cars and fly them like sportscars. I mean diversity is good. isn't it?


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (manfredwerner)*

You got it. And I'll make someone happy with the sale of the F20c to swap into an old school Corolla which seems to be becoming more common. I even have dyno sheets of mine making 206whp. I'll be swapping a Ferrea spring kit into it soon as well, which may give it even more value.
I'll be certain to do a build-thread of it for sure. Might be a while as I've got a few other projects to wrap up and sell of to help fund this creation.


----------



## BiSiE (Mar 15, 2005)

*Re: (KingVR)*

that should be a fun car!
the only thing unless you going turbo, go with the 24 valve, it has more potential NA then 12v... it seems that no matter how high you get it to rev it hits a wall around 220-230hp... and at that rate, you might as well keep the lighter s2k motor and do some boltons instead...
on the other hand 24v is heavier


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (BiSiE)*

Point taken...and was heavily considered.
As part of the concept behind Bildon's 12v VR6 thread, I'm considering to build one up the way that I feel would be able to be quite stout, and once I've exhausted all of those options, I can sell that engine and goto the 24v, or boost it....we shall see.


----------



## Grabbit (Apr 27, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

sadly the honda motor would probably make more hp than the VR


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (Grabbit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Grabbit* »_sadly the honda motor would probably make more hp than the VR

Not if my plan comes to fruition!! And definitely not if I do the same for a 24v VR6.
,,,and certainly far more torque than the F20c could ever come close to dreaming of.


----------



## all-starr-me (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

find a 3.2 VR6 from a Toureg, since its already setup longitudinally it should be less work and start out with 250hp. Then add cams and such, that would be a blast. Unless you are going to turbo the 12v its just not worth it.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (all-starr-me)*

That will most likely be the 24v engine that I will source since there are more T-Regs than there are R32 and TT 3.2 engines lying around. However, I already have the 12v to start working with in my possession and the alterations I have planned will not be that expensive, although they will be a major departure from what everyone else has done in the past. When I switch to the 24v setup the bellhousing and engine mounts will be identical. Only the intake and exhaust manifolds will have to be re-arranged.
...the T-Reg engine is no different from any other 3.2L or even 2.8L VR, so it really wouldn't matter. It just happens to sit in a different position.


----------



## all-starr-me (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

yes but it has a longitudinal oil pan, and I suspect some other such things on the intake and exhaust making it an easier fit.


----------



## 97VRT (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (all-starr-me)*

WOW just get a gti and leave the fartcans alone http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Jason_Reuben (Jan 15, 2005)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (dmondubz)*

Well the S2000 is a nice car, dont get me wrong, but for all the HP they are not fast. They just dont have the torque behind all the HP to get the car up and going. I have driven my friends modified one and did not think it was much faster than a stock one. 
I think it would be interesting to say the least. 
On the downside, you would change the overall car alot. The S2000 was not sold to be a strait up fast car, It was a road car, with a got front to rear weight, so putting a VR in would throw the front to rear weight % out the door. 
One other thing, you need to consider with th vr is the motor itself is not much bigger then a 4 cylinder, its the intake and all the accessories that make it a real big motor, make sure you take that into account to make sure there is a enough room.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (all-starr-me)*


_Quote, originally posted by *all-starr-me* »_yes but it has a longitudinal oil pan, and I suspect some other such things on the intake and exhaust making it an easier fit.

I have no intentions of retaining the stock intake manifolds, exhaust system, and there's a good chance that I'll go with a dry-sump oil system as well.

Since the S2k uses an electric power steering rack, I will not need the power steering pump system for this arrangement...although if I did a dry-sump system, I may have to locate the oil scavenge pump on the exhaust-side of the engine to run the shortest amount of lines, etc.


_Modified by KingVR at 9:22 AM 8-24-2007_


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (dmondubz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dmondubz* »_WOW just get a gti and leave the fartcans alone http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
















I'll be pawning off a fartcan...and IMO, making a great sports car even greater and more pleasing to drive.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (Jason_Reuben)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jason_Reuben* »_I think it would be interesting to say the least. 
On the downside, you would change the overall car alot. The S2000 was not sold to be a strait up fast car, It was a road car, with a got front to rear weight, so putting a VR in would throw the front to rear weight % out the door. 
One other thing, you need to consider with th vr is the motor itself is not much bigger then a 4 cylinder, its the intake and all the accessories that make it a real big motor, make sure you take that into account to make sure there is a enough room. 


Anticipating some fitment issues, but just like the F20c is leaning over heavily, the VR will have to do this as well. There's random items that can be relocated, like the battery for example going to the trunk, etc. Someone stuffed a 2JZ-GTE into an s2k with a massive single turbo, so I think I'll be just fine with the VR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5XOiTvMXlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirkGXYdOus


_Modified by KingVR at 9:28 AM 8-24-2007_


----------



## BiSiE (Mar 15, 2005)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

great plan, i forgot that you can swap 24 and 12v on same mounts tranny...
it will do wheeelies for sure


----------



## soundq2 (Aug 27, 2007)

My wife's 2002 S2000 burnt after I changed the oil (Fram gasket went 6 days after I changed it-they denied the claim, so I no longer use them) Anyway I found this because she's getting a new one this weekend and I've got her old one to toy with. I was thinking of a V8 swap but could use your old engine. She's already freaking out because my list of parts is two pages long.


----------



## Falcor (May 26, 2004)

*Re: (soundq2)*

I like this idea so I say go for it.
Myself I want to build a Cobra replica with a 5 cyl Volvo turbo engine because I love the sound and it will annoy all the V8 enthusiasts all night long...










_Modified by Falcor at 9:04 PM 8-27-2007_


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (soundq2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *soundq2* »_My wife's 2002 S2000 burnt after I changed the oil (Fram gasket went 6 days after I changed it-they denied the claim, so I no longer use them) Anyway I found this because she's getting a new one this weekend and I've got her old one to toy with. I was thinking of a V8 swap but could use your old engine. She's already freaking out because my list of parts is two pages long.

I also considered using the Passat W8 that I have to stuff into this, but THAT may not even be possible at all since it is such a wide engine. Would've been neat since it is a Flat-Plane crankshaft similar to how a Ferrari V8 and F1 engines are configured...and it's based on the VR engine arrangement which is my favorite. If it COULD fit, it would be much more of a challenge than the VR6, which should be tasking enough as a slow-build project goes.
Let's work out a deal. It would be very helpful to have this engine sold before I even yank it out!


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (Falcor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Falcor* »_I like this idea so I day go for it.
Myself I want to build a Cobra replica with a 5 cyl Volvo turbo engine because I love the sound and it will annoy all the V8 enthusiasts all night long...









I thought about building one of those as well and putting the W8 in that to confuse the hell out of the V8 lovers out there.


----------



## theguy1084 (Feb 4, 2007)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Someones not a true dubber...booo http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif to do this would go against everything VW is!!!!!!!


----------



## Falcor (May 26, 2004)

*Re: (theguy1084)*

Bah, who cares, in the end it's all just metal painted in pretty colors.
A local guy here tore out the engine of a BMW Z3 M and put in a 4-cylinder Saab turbo engine engine. Why? because the Saab engine is cheaper to get more hp from than the BMW one.... All the BMW guys hate it and I think it's hilarious...


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (theguy1084)*


_Quote, originally posted by *theguy1084* »_Someones not a true dubber...booo http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif to do this would go against everything VW is!!!!!!! 

Whoa!! Haha...that's the reaction that I expected from the Honda crowd!!








I will admit, I have much respect for the engineering and styling of VW and Audi product, though I will admit that I am not a HARDCORE Dubber...and just as equally not a HARDCORE Honda person either. I am however, a fanatic of the engineering principles behind the VR and W engine designs.
...putting a Honda engine in a VW would be horrifying for a Dubber, but I'm sure my project will be seen that way to the Honda crowd. LOL 
Oh well, to me it's a combination of 2 different engineering perspectives blended together to make the car that I would want to buy if it were produced: Great handling sports car with my favorite engine that provides the best exhaust note, power delivery, and comes with torque as well.

...to each his own! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## shortydub (Oct 13, 2004)

check out http://www.lovefab.com... makes sick turbo kits for the 2000. in the range of 700 HP just an idea for you. would save you a ton of $$ in my opinion


----------



## polov8 (Apr 14, 2004)

*Re: (shortydub)*

Doesn't the Honda engine spin backwards? Thus meaning the VR6 would give the car 6 reverse gears and 1 forward one?


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (shortydub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shortydub* »_check out http://www.lovefab.com... makes sick turbo kits for the 2000. in the range of 700 HP just an idea for you. would save you a ton of $$ in my opinion


No offense to the Love Fab kits...but that would defeat the entire purpose of the project. It would still sound like a 4-banger. It would still have no torque.
I could do the VR swap for MUCH less money invested. Besides, if I were to turbocharge anything, it would be done by myself.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (polov8)*


_Quote, originally posted by *polov8* »_Doesn't the Honda engine spin backwards? Thus meaning the VR6 would give the car 6 reverse gears and 1 forward one?









YES and NO
The Honda engines that have the engine mounted on the driver's side of the car DO rotate CCW, while the S2000's F20c and the K-Series (sits on passenger side) engines rotate CW just like most engines do.
The reason for having a CCW was since they engineered the cars as Right-Hand-Drive vehicles, the weight balance of the heavier engine is better when placed on the _other side_ from the driver. (For when handling aspects are concerned, who's got a passenger?) When the engine is on the driver's side it would give a gearbox 5 reverse gears and 1 forward gear if the box did not have an additional counter-shaft installed which would only add weight, friction, and complexity. The simple solution would be to just rotate the engine in the other direction.


----------



## strykersbane (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Scott....
Not to offend or anything (I personally think that this is a hilariously insulting to the Honda crowd idea!!!







), I'm just curious why in the hell you know so much about honda's engineering with the S2000...
And for all the guys out there who don't think the vr6 is worth it...when was the last time you tried to accelerate and S2000 up a hill???


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (strykersbane)*


_Quote, originally posted by *strykersbane* »_Scott....
Not to offend or anything (I personally think that this is a hilariously insulting to the Honda crowd idea!!!







), I'm just curious why in the hell you know so much about honda's engineering with the S2000...


...because I'm a certified GMAT (General Master Automotive Technician), been working on cars since I started out mopping floors for a local repair shop at age 14...owned a few Hondas and obviously own this S2000. I thoroughly enjoy the S...just needs a VR6!!


----------



## HidRo (Sep 19, 2003)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
No offense to the Love Fab kits...but that would defeat the entire purpose of the project. It would still sound like a 4-banger. *It would still have no torque.*


Big turbo, 700hp, and no torque... What's wrong here?















BTW, if you want a VR6 why don't you go on the V6 (missing the R) from the NSX? That should be easy!


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

Sounds like a orginial idea, as for room I've seen supra and skyline motors in sk2's, and here at Honda R&D (Ohio) there are plans to put the new acura TL motor in as well (this is NOT! for any kind of production just for fun), it fits, but the tranny needs a modified bell housing to make it work.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (HidRo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HidRo* »_
Big turbo, 700hp, and no torque... What's wrong here?















BTW, if you want a VR6 why don't you go on the V6 (missing the R) from the NSX? That should be easy!


Hmmmm, I've got a VR6 long block on an engine stand....or your suggestion of an NSX engine that would be many times more difficult to install and more expensive...not to mention sounds like a Ford Ranger with FlowMaster mufflers when the exhaust is not stock. I'm willing to bet that the NSX engine would have more weight being so much wider in dimension regardless of being an aluminum block.
I'll stick to the VR plan.


----------



## RedDevil (Sep 21, 2001)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

VR swap not into S2000 but miata.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3415929


----------



## bwolfgti (Oct 29, 2002)

Sounds like an awesome idea. I would go with the 3.2l vr6 for sure. I love the sound of the vr over any 4 cylinder car.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (RedDevil)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RedDevil* »_VR swap not into S2000 but miata.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3415929

...I'm all over it!


----------



## ibldem2 (Sep 2, 2005)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

its not gonna work vw only love vw parts


----------



## manfredwerner (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (ibldem2)*

of course it will work


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (manfredwerner)*

Apparently an LS1 will fit in there as well:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/...74878


----------



## L8 APEKS (Feb 2, 2006)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (KingVR)*

Anything is better than the whizzy, anemic S2K lump. I can now officially smoke S2K's in my DD Volvo. lol. Cant wait to see the build VR in it!


----------



## 99 wolfsburg (Aug 13, 2006)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (all-starr-me)*


_Quote, originally posted by *all-starr-me* »_find a 3.2 VR6 from a Toureg, since its already setup longitudinally it should be less work and start out with 250hp. Then add cams and such, that would be a blast. Unless you are going to turbo the 12v its just not worth it.

x2 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VacantSkies88 (Nov 16, 2004)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (99 wolfsburg)*

Interesting to read this thread since I have both an s2k and a vr6


----------



## slow85golf (Sep 17, 2006)

do it to piss of all those hard core honda guys lol...


----------



## strykersbane (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: (KingVR)*

good answer king.
I was beginning to wonder about your dubdevotedness...haha
keep posting if this ever goes down!


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (strykersbane)*


_Quote, originally posted by *strykersbane* »_good answer king.
I was beginning to wonder about your dubdevotedness...haha
keep posting if this ever goes down!

Which answer?


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*

maybe i'm just lazy, but isn't there a supercharger kit available for the s2000? v6 torque...


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_maybe i'm just lazy, but isn't there a supercharger kit available for the s2000? v6 torque...









The vortech charger still doesn't produce very much torque, we just took one off my buddies s2k last night. Jackson racing is currently still producing one.
All honesty the vortech charger out of the box at 7psi still doesn't gave the s2k enough power for my likings


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (GTijoejoe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GTijoejoe* »_
The vortech charger still doesn't produce very much torque, we just took one off my buddies s2k last night. Jackson racing is currently still producing one.
All honesty the vortech charger out of the box at 7psi still doesn't gave the s2k enough power for my likings

their old roots designs were supposed to hit pretty hard. added a good 40whp and 30 or 40'lbs to a b18c1. A 300 flyhp s2000 with 200flytorque would be nice. lagfree boost... we'll see how the new rotrex chargers work.
I just can't fathom why someone would do a chop swap on a perfectly good s2000 for just a 2.8vr6. built up or not, make it somthing worth the effort. (nothing against the 2.8







)


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_
I just can't fathom why someone would do a chop swap on a perfectly good s2000 for just a 2.8vr6. built up or not, make it somthing worth the effort. (nothing against the 2.8







) 

There's different definitions of _built up_.
There's the one that everyone usually thinks of: 
_"I've got pistons, rods...ported head and some cams, perhaps big valves"_
...and then there's my definition:
"Spins to 10k RPM, piston design on the rear bank are different from the front. Smaller crank bearing journals with a de-stroked grind. Head ported and setup by a guy who does NASCAR heads." ...and things of that nature.

I agree about using a stock VR6 or one with the common definition of _"built"_ as it would be frowned upon by even myself. But this is not the case.


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*

link up some 'built up' vr6 builds for us, i'm interested in these 10krpm motors. I'd like to see some dynos, and i want to hear the idle on it


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_link up some 'built up' vr6 builds for us, i'm interested in these 10krpm motors. I'd like to see some dynos, and i want to hear the idle on it









It doesn't exist....yet. This project may take a while since I'd like to have that engine setup complete and proven before I go through all that work.


----------



## Racer16 (Aug 22, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*

There is a company out of miami that swap in the j2z toyota supra engine into s2000's. about $15k for the swap and labor. i belive its a single turbo setup.wit hthe straight 6.could be fun also.


----------



## Grabbit (Apr 27, 2001)

*Re: (Racer16)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Racer16* »_There is a company out of miami that swap in the j2z toyota supra engine into s2000's. about $15k for the swap and labor. i belive its a single turbo setup.wit hthe straight 6.could be fun also.

_Quote, originally posted by *Racer16* »_There is a company out of miami that swap in the j2z toyota supra engine into s2000's. about $15k for the swap and labor. i belive its a single turbo setup.wit hthe straight 6.could be fun also.

that would own a turbo vr.


----------



## GoKart_16v (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: (Grabbit)*

Too much torque...a better engine for the S2000 would be a 1.8T. Or turbo the F22


----------



## 88Jetta350 (May 4, 2007)

*Re: (KingVR)*

kinda on the same subject, the Euro-spec Mitsubishi Eclipse has the engine mounted on the opposite side of the car than the US version. Never new why, but this was just my useless fact for the day,


----------



## manfredwerner (Jan 30, 2007)

swapping or what ?


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

24v turbo


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*

build stock engine, jackson racing charger


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_build stock engine, jackson racing charger

Jackson Racing charger on _built_ stock engine....? What engine? JR does not make a charger for the F20c...and definitely not the VR.
Look, I just got back from 2 weeks of vacation driving 4500 miles from Fort Lauderdale, FL to NY City...Ithaca, NY...Pittsburgh, PA....Nashville, TN...Gatlinburg, TN...Alcoa, TN...Nantahala, NC...through Tail of the Dragon about 4 times, Cherohola Skyway, then Blue Ridge Pkwy, then back home. The S is running fantastic. 
IF I do this engine swap, it's gunna be the way that I want to do it....and that entails: NO 4-CYLINDER of any type. That is a major reason for doing this, which is to eliminate the fart can noises that ALL four cylinder engines make.
The other major reason is to have an S2000 that does not have the engine BUZZ feel and lack of torque that a four cylinder engine will have. 
The VR6 is a very smooth engine by nature, has a great exhaust note, etc.
Ignoring the above and simply installing a turbocharger will simply net me: _an engine that has no additional torque where I want it, and then will shear the tires loose in an uncontrollable manner_
...this is not what I am looking for


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
Jackson Racing charger on _built_ stock engine....? What engine? JR does not make a charger for the F20c...and definitely not the VR.


its coming its coming..
http://jacksonracing.com/production.htm

_Quote »_
Projects Currently Under Construction 
Superchargers: 

2000-07 Honda S2000, 2.0L/ 2.2L

there's got to be some forged internals available for this engine. And rebuild for 2.2l specs for extra grunt in lieu of the lowered compression, and to keep a friendlier 8krpm redline. that would be my choice over a 10rpm vr swap, even if i had to wait.


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_The VR6 is a very smooth engine by nature, has a great exhaust note, etc.


yes, maybe a stock one, but what do you think a heavily modified 10krpm vr will act like...or sound.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_
yes, maybe a stock one, but what do you think a heavily modified 10krpm vr will act like...or sound. 


Even better, and smoother, than any 4 cylinder doing the same.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

Ok then a NA 24v...


----------



## daver (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_

Even better, and smoother, than any 4 cylinder doing the same.

well, prove me wrong, but i have a hard time believing that a great sounding, naturally low reving engine like a vr6, will sound anything like a 'vr6' after its been completely transformed into a 10krpm monster. I'm envisioning an idle that sounds like a tractor with marbles in the engine.
here's a nasty sounding one
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K5j...earch=
regardless, you like what you like, and thats that. But i was listening to a stock s2000 run down the strip the other week and i remember thinking that it was the best sounding car there that night (before this thread). I even started considering wanting one at that point, just because of the amazing sound...maybe it was the 2.2l







. Really nice metallic orangy colour, ran 14.2s on a slow track night. and not a hint of farting... is your exhaust stock?.


_Modified by daver at 8:53 AM 9-30-2007_


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (daver)*


_Quote, originally posted by *daver* »_
well, prove me wrong, but i have a hard time believing that a great sounding, naturally low reving engine like a vr6, will sound anything like a 'vr6' after its been completely transformed into a 10krpm monster. I'm envisioning an idle that sounds like a tractor with marbles in the engine.
here's a nasty sounding one
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K5j...earch=
regardless, you like what you like, and thats that. But i was listening to a stock s2000 run down the strip the other week and i remember thinking that it was the best sounding car there that night (before this thread). I even started considering wanting one at that point, just because of the amazing sound...maybe it was the 2.2l







. Really nice metallic orangy colour, ran 14.2s on a slow track night. and not a hint of farting... is your exhaust stock?.


hehe...last time I heard a nasty sounding VR6 like that, the cam were installed incorrectly and was untra-slow. I'm enjoying the way the car runs right now, so it may be some time till I get to this. Perhaps a brisk drive in the TT 3.2 will bring back the spirit!!
Yes, the exhaust is stock for now, an I have heard a few nice sounding S's while I was at the annual Wake The Dragon S2000 event last week. It's not just the sound, but that 4 cylinder buzz that vibrates throughout the chassis...always bothered me.


----------



## BIGNICKSGTIS420 (Apr 16, 2006)

*Re: (KingVR)*

I would love to see this happen, imagine the looks on peoples faces at h20


----------



## ErosNJ (Oct 21, 2002)

Hey if you have time and money to spend why not...
Everything is possible..


----------



## ricardo (Feb 19, 1999)

*Re: (ErosNJ)*

do you really want to spin the engine to 9K??? its not a honda you know








it will really be one of a kind and I wish you luck http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## vr6-inside (Oct 11, 2006)

That would be a cool swap! Even a 3.2 with all the normal N/A mods would be sweet


----------



## Killzone2142 (Oct 7, 2005)

i dont think i saw this mentioned (i only scaned the thread) but why a vr why not a S54, the e46 m3 motor. you would be getting just alittle bit more hp, more torque than both vr and f20, and it will still sound like great. (shrugs) but a 3.2 vr would still be great over that f20 in terms of torque


----------



## Weak VR (Jun 26, 2006)

*Re: (Killzone2142)*

have you ever pulled the F20C out of an S2k? You cant, you have to remove the oil pan and valve cover. and even then its a pita.
If you did this, it will require removing the brace that is front of the engine. I think the VR6 is a lil longer than the F20C


----------



## JUS_GT_EYEZ (Nov 12, 2001)

*Re: (Racer16)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Racer16* »_There is a company out of miami that swap in the j2z toyota supra engine into s2000's. 


that was the first think i thought of when i saw this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirkGXYdOus


----------



## NIKONMAN (Jan 5, 2008)

Hey the heart of the car is the drivetrain.I'd love to see the anticipating looks on ppl's faces as this guy teasingly opens the hood ever so slowly to ultimatly reveal the heart of this asian auto is a born again VW monster.But 10k is a lot I use to set out to achieve that goal but it is an expensive one.I say hell yeah put the right heart in that car and enjoy it!!!


----------



## DHill (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (NIKONMAN)*

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT


----------



## ACschnitzer23 (Nov 3, 2004)

*Re: (DHill)*

put the s2000 motor in a mk2, that would be something awesome, and it would haul since it weighs much less than any vr6 mk2 swap and makes a lot more hp


----------



## Rys-Rado (Mar 28, 2004)

this is stupid


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (Rys-Rado)*

There are so many better motors for this than a VR6 that are already fitted for an RWD setup.
I mean honestly, you can have a full SR20 swap for ~2 grand, and that will get you 500+ whp with bolt ons. Stick the shifter in the hole, weld some mounts, get a driveshaft made, splice some wires. Done. It will be lighter, higher revving, and a LOT more reliable. 
The idea is cool, but to go through all that trouble - the VR6 just doesn't make sense at all. The car could be so much cooler than what you want to make it. Hell, an RB25 swap can be had for under 3 grand if all you're after is that 6 cylinder growl.


----------



## DJP944 (Oct 21, 2005)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_There are so many better motors for this than a VR6 that are already fitted for an RWD setup.
I mean honestly, you can have a full SR20 swap for ~2 grand, and that will get you 500+ whp with bolt ons. Stick the shifter in the hole, weld some mounts, get a driveshaft made, splice some wires. Done. It will be lighter, higher revving, and a LOT more reliable. 
The idea is cool, but to go through all that trouble - the VR6 just doesn't make sense at all. The car could be so much cooler than what you want to make it. Hell, an RB25 swap can be had for under 3 grand if all you're after is that 6 cylinder growl.


what fun is a Japanese engine in a Japanese car...???
i like the idea of a german powerplant in the s2k....just imagine when this guy opens his hood at the local honda meet!!!















i say do it- hpa bi turbod r32 drivetrain


----------



## LISTO14 (Dec 20, 2007)

*Re: (DJP944)*

LS1!


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

ls1 is a joke, id say the only real down side to putting a vr in the s2k would have to be weight dist..... the s2k is an amazingly fun car to drive and throw into corners, i think the weight of the vr would upset the handling of the car, but aside from that, sounds like somthing id stop you on the street for , just to get a ride in lol


----------



## inopias (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

watched! best of luck man, i have wanted a 10k rpm 12valve for sometime now.


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4RingsRuleALL* »_ls1 is a joke


LSx would be a much better match for the car than a VR6 would be.


----------



## durteeclean (Apr 20, 2005)

*Re:*

do the 3.6 motor


----------



## VR6'D (Oct 5, 2005)

The VR really got a hold of you..GL with the build


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_

LSx would be a much better match for the car than a VR6 would be. 
 Ya, your totally right!!!! A big FAT heavy wide V8 with 50 year old valve design would be so much better then a engine thats already designed to fit in a 4cyl engine bay... i dont know y i even said anything, this guy knows everything!! let him do the swap








best of luck with the vr build up, are you really looking at building a 3.6?


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

crate weight of an ls1 is 390 lbs
crate weight of a 12v vr6 is 385 lbs
do whatever swap you want into your car it will be sweet regardless. 



_Modified by chrisbmx68 at 12:27 PM 2-9-2008_


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

p.s. an ls2 makes more hp and torque per liter than a vr6 wonder what that says about the valve/head design of the vr hermmmm


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4RingsRuleALL* »_ Ya, your totally right!!!! A big FAT heavy wide V8 with 50 year old valve design would be so much better then a engine thats already designed to fit in a 4cyl engine bay... i dont know y i even said anything, this guy knows everything!! let him do the swap








best of luck with the vr build up, are you really looking at building a 3.6?










First off, the LSx is all aluminum. I can guarantee you it is much lighter than any VR6 you can put in there. Who gives a **** how old the design is? It is a MUCH more efficient engine than the VR will ever hope to be. When's the last time your 500hp VR got 30 MPG? Oh that's right. Never.
The VR is a horribly designed engine. The only way to get power from it is to add forced induction or keep upping the displacement, ala VW. Tell me what sense it would make to go from an F20, already making over 100hp/liter, to a big, heavy, inefficient VR making 64hp/liter on a high estimate?
You will ruin the balance of the car (which is what makes the car what it is anyway), take a hit in power, make it harder to work on, parts more expensive, and have to adapt a trans to it. Sure you will get a better sounding engine, but it still doesn't compare to a cammed small block.
Sounds like the fail to me.
http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*

I said originally it would mess up the weight balance of the car, i dont think a vr is a great idea anyhow, but this guy wants a vr. My arguement was that a v8 will not fit a easily inbeween those narrow ass fenders, a Vr would be a easier fit. I know the vr head dsign sucks, im well aware, i also know that you need twice the engine to get the same power out of OHV config. The LS gen motors are NOT that impressive and would make for a car with very odd weight balance, because of the space its spread out over, when u spout off engine weight, whats that include? All acces? bare block? the physics of a v8 ina s2000 make less sense then that of a vr in it. In the end, Honda made a good engine for that car, a turbo would be a better idea the na vr in my honest opinion.


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (KingVR)*

no vr6 would ever be able to rev 9k.


----------



## inopias (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*

uuh ohhh....


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_no vr6 would ever be able to rev 9k.
 never say never


----------



## inopias (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

he is going for 10k










_Modified by inopias at 4:50 PM 2-21-2008_


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

what do you plan to accomplish by revving a vr6 to 10k? it isn't a honda the head isn't capable of flowing enough air to make decent power at 10k
you might be able to keep the motor together but itl be making about 90hp and 90tq at that rpm regardless of the cam you use


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (chrisbmx68)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisbmx68* »_what do you plan to accomplish by revving a vr6 to 10k? it isn't a honda the head isn't capable of flowing enough air to make decent power at 10k
you might be able to keep the motor together but itl be making about 90hp and 90tq at that rpm regardless of the cam you use 

 sadly, hes right about the head design, it does suck..thats what you get when you try to use a head thats not much bigger then a 4banger to run 6pots...its just too cramped in there....now if someone re-engineered the head....oh wait thats more expensive then turboing the honda engine...just turbo it dude...a vr s2k would be cool but its kinda pointless


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

the car would be retardedly nose heavy with any other engine besides the engine that it was designed to have. sure it would sound cool, and it would be something that nobody ever tried before, but its just not practical. if i were you and money is not an issue in this build i would order a brand new spoon crate engine from Japan that is capable of makeing 300+ whp at over 11k rpm and close to 250 ft/lbs and tune your car for time attack competitions. that would be a way more pleasant car to own and drive. if you put in a vr6 or ls1 the only result you with end up with is a slow, nose heavy, understearing pig.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_the car would be retardedly nose heavy with any other engine besides the engine that it was designed to have. sure it would sound cool, and it would be something that nobody ever tried before, but its just not practical. if i were you and money is not an issue in this build i would order a brand new spoon crate engine from Japan that is capable of makeing 300+ whp at over 11k rpm and close to 250 ft/lbs and tune your car for time attack competitions. that would be a way more pleasant car to own and drive. if you put in a vr6 or ls1 the only result you with end up with is a slow, nose heavy, understearing pig.

 exactly what i said before...Honda put the right engine in from the factory, build on it...weight balance is very important in that car, you wouldn't want to upset that!


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_
The VR is a horribly designed engine. 

i wouldnt go that far as say that it is a horrible design. you have to think about VW's intent for this motor when they built it. they wanted to have V6 HP and torque in a 4 cyl. engine bay and thats exactly what they did. they didnt care that people wouldnt be able to get much more HP and torque out of a N/A configuration over stock. in my opinion the VR6 is a great torquey motor that is perfect for a light unibody FWD car. it wasnt engineered to be a race engine like the F20C is. a vr6 in a S2000 is a stupid idea, it needs a race engine.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_
i wouldnt go that far as say that it is a horrible design. you have to think about VW's intent for this motor when they built it. they wanted to have V6 HP and torque in a 4 cyl. engine bay and thats exactly what they did. they didnt care that people wouldnt be able to get much more HP and torque out of a N/A configuration over stock. in my opinion the VR6 is a great torquey motor that is perfect for a light unibody FWD car. it wasnt engineered to be a race engine like the F20C is. a vr6 in a S2000 is a stupid idea, it needs a race engine.
 the fact it was designed to fit where a 4cyl bay, is its greatest strength and weakness, make your f20 faster..the motor and car were designed for each other


----------



## fightthisfeeling (Apr 28, 2006)

call me dim witted but every other month the cover of the super street has some rediculously high powered 4 bangin s2000. I will update the exact one im talking about but they had one pushing 500 ish hp. Just seems like it would be cheaper and im guessing with some volume going through the exhaust it would sound nice too. Buy like a borla or magnaflow or something chalmers.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

Open DP, proper exhaust FTL


----------



## vr6-inside (Oct 11, 2006)

In classic tex style... no one is sticking to the task he is talking about. He already stated he did not want a crazy hp S2000 with a 4 banger in it. He wants to try something that no one has done with a VR6. 
Two http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif for the responses


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (vr6-inside)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6-inside* »_In classic tex style... no one is sticking to the task he is talking about. He already stated he did not want a crazy hp S2000 with a 4 banger in it. He wants to try something that no one has done with a VR6. 
Two http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif for the responses









There's a reason nobody has done it. You are going from an efficient, rev happy 100hp/liter motor to an engine that is heavy, and is a proven dog off-boost. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_
There's a reason nobody has done it. You are going from an efficient, rev happy 100hp/liter motor to an engine that is heavy, and is a proven dog off-boost. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

a proven dog off boost are you kidding me! you should share that with the 12v forum, people will love you.



_Modified by JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI at 9:57 PM 2-20-2008_


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_
a proven dog off boost are you kidding me! you should share that with the 12v forum, people will love you.
_Modified by JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI at 9:57 PM 2-20-2008_

they are poorly designed heads...without wasting huge dollars you dont get more 220hp out of a N/A 2.8 12v, the vr is not God...learn that


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

yea poorly designed head, but by no means is it a dog in an N/A configuration, im not saying it is a god.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*

ok, but think about how pointless it is to put a vr in a s2k....Being dif for the sake of being dif=lame
thats like holding a shot of vodka in your mouth..then spitting it back out...wtf was the point? because everyone else swallowed thiers?


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

did you read my last posts, i said that the owner should just stick with the F20C
my idea of a vr6 in a s2000
the car would be retardedly nose heavy with any other engine besides the engine that it was designed to have. sure it would sound cool, and it would be something that nobody ever tried before, but its just not practical. if i were you and money is not an issue in this build i would order a brand new spoon crate engine from Japan that is capable of makeing 300+ whp at over 11k rpm and close to 250 ft/lbs and tune your car for time attack competitions. that would be a way more pleasant car to own and drive. if you put in a vr6 or ls1 the only result you with end up with is a slow, nose heavy, understearing pig.
my idea of the VR in general is that it is not a dog N/A in a light, FWD, VW, but it would be in a S2000.




_Modified by JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI at 10:27 PM 2-20-2008_


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*

no, ive been working too many long days, if u say stick with the f20cbdj67 or w/e the **** hondas engine codes are are..then http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## .:R32DBP (May 21, 2006)

*Re: Honda S2000......with a built VR6 swapped in?!?! (RedDevil)*

Wow this is also a great project comparing to the vr6 miata project going on. I don't know how you guys could do it but keep it up. I can't wait to see the final product. Good luck with the project.


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_
a proven dog off boost are you kidding me! you should share that with the 12v forum, people will love you.
_Modified by JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI at 9:57 PM 2-20-2008_


I built a 12v and put it in my Mk2 that I had for over a year. I know what the motor is and is not capable of, and I'm pretty sure everyone in that forum will agree with my statement.
You have a motor that has dyno'd over 1000hp on boost, but struggles to break 230hp N/A, and that's with some ridiculously high compression ratio and 104 octane gas, and not even hitting 12's at the track. Compare that to say, a (God forbid) Honda, you've got hatches running around that are driven 365 days of the year on the street hitting in the 11's. The VR6 is designed to fit in a small package, and it does that well. What it does not do well, however, is make power when not being force fed. You cannot argue that, as it is proven over and over again.


----------



## fightthisfeeling (Apr 28, 2006)

dude if you want to go too ******* fast with your vr6 buy yourself a dirt cheap old bug off the net, get a kennydeng adapter and bolt that beotch to the stock trans axle. The guys in here told me a 71 super with a stock vr6 will be somewhere in the 13's? and at least then, your not cutting into your nice car. Idk i dont mean to put your idea down, but your going to end up paying a crap load since vr6 into s2k isn't a popular swap yet rofl; What "budget" exactly do you have? If you have to have your s2k modified, how about the v8 out of the ridgeline, i'm sure that'd spit off some torque right.










_Modified by fightthisfeeling at 8:38 PM 2-21-2008_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_
and not even hitting 12's at the track. .

If a 230whp VR6 can't run 12's the problem isn't the motor.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
If a 230whp VR6 can't run 12's the problem isn't the motor.
 ****ty driver and rubber


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re:*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisbmx68* »_p.s. an ls2 makes more hp and torque per liter than a vr6 wonder what that says about the valve/head design of the vr hermmmm

LS2 makes 66hp per liter and the VR6 makes 61hp per liter... Soo... in 2005, Chevrolet finally surpasses a 13 year old German design with inherently bad airflow and that makes the push rod and rocker valve train superior?


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: Re: (16VJohn)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## chrisbmx68 (Aug 14, 2003)

*Re: Re: (16VJohn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *16VJohn* »_
LS2 makes 66hp per liter and the VR6 makes 61hp per liter... Soo... in 2005, Chevrolet finally surpasses a 13 year old German design with inherently bad airflow and that makes the push rod and rocker valve train superior?









no it shows how terrible the valvetrain is on the vr







, and I was making a point about someone saying swapping in an lsx would suck more compared to the vr. They would suck about the same but at least you could go fast with the v8


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: Re: (chrisbmx68)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisbmx68* »_
no it shows how terrible the valvetrain is on the vr







, and I was making a point about someone saying swapping in an lsx would suck more compared to the vr. They would suck about the same but at least you could go fast with the v8
 ya and grow a mullet


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: Re: (chrisbmx68)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisbmx68* »_
no it shows how terrible the valvetrain is on the vr







, and I was making a point about someone saying swapping in an lsx would suck more compared to the vr. They would suck about the same but at least you could go fast with the v8

Fast? You mean, fast in a straight line and nothing else? I guess that's the American way. Despite what you think the pushrod valve train it is VERY old and obsolete. And the point I was trying to make with my last post is an old 12V VR6 is nearly as efficient as Chevy's newest stuff... I think that alone shows how much better the OHC system is.
It's all relative though... everything will be obsolete some day. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## fightthisfeeling (Apr 28, 2006)

and v8 are powerful and all but come time to hit the Gas pump, and you'll wish that you only had the 2.8L. With just a kn, my vr6 jetta would keep up with intake exhaust mild chip gt mustangs and I still get upwards of 26 mpg city. Lets see american muscle pull that out of there stupid asses. (pardon the language)


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (fightthisfeeling)*

BYAH!


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*

Subscribed


----------



## TDIVentoDave (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: (newcreation)*

Interesting...
Being a fan of both the VR and the f20c, they each have their own entirely different characteristics.
Would it be original? Yes...
Would it be fun? More than likely...
Can a 12v VR6 spin to 9k+? Very difficult to obtain.
Why does the f20c spin so high? Short stroke, high cfm flowing head, large cam profile, high compression, superior combustion chamber design, rocker arm valvetrain.
Why doesn't the VR spin so high? Large stroke, poorly flowing head, mid compression, inferior combustion chamber design, hydro lifters, IM design.
What would have to happen for the VR to rev to 9k+? Shorter stroke, a head that flows 300+ cfm (12v one doesn't exist yet, probably not even in 24v form,) solid lifters, high compression, more efficient combustion chamber design, hi lift/high duration cams properly degreed, SRI or ITBs, big tube header, lightened and balanced internals, and proper engine management.
Say for example that somebody actually built this mythical beast... What would happen to the smooth running, high torque VR6 that we have all come to know and love? If you said that it would behave more like the Honda motor, you would probably be right. In order for the VR head to flow high enough to support high revs, it would lose velocity at lower RPMs killing TQ. Shorter stroke would also decrease TQ. It would probably still be smoother than the Honda motor mostly due to more rotating mass of the heavier crank and 6 rods & pistons.
It is too bad that an f30c doesn't exist. A straight 6 with that technology would be pretty amazing.
If it were me, I would build a k24/k20 that puts down 305whp/220wtq all motor.
You could easliy obtain 250whp out of the f20c with bolt-ons and a Toda or skunk2 head package.
But, if you have everything. I say do it. I would love to see what happens!


_Modified by TDIVentoDave at 12:13 AM 2-26-2008_


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (TDIVentoDave)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TDIVentoDave* »_ a head that flows 300+ cfm (12v one doesn't exist yet, probably not even in 24v form,) 
_Modified by TDIVentoDave at 12:13 AM 2-26-2008_
 omg, vr6s really do suck lol i can get a lawnmower to flow better then that







someone needs to machine a completely dif head. completely redesign it and make it from a billit chunk...then maybe we could actually see the flow that motor needs so badly....


----------



## SVTDanny (Aug 8, 2005)

*Re: (fightthisfeeling)*


_Quote, originally posted by *16VJohn* »_
Fast? You mean, fast in a straight line and nothing else? I guess that's the American way. Despite what you think the pushrod valve train it is VERY old and obsolete. And the point I was trying to make with my last post is an old 12V VR6 is nearly as efficient as Chevy's newest stuff... I think that alone shows how much better the OHC system is.
It's all relative though... everything will be obsolete some day. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

The LSx motors weigh the same as the VR. This was determined earlier in the thread.

_Quote, originally posted by *fightthisfeeling* »_and v8 are powerful and all but come time to hit the Gas pump, and you'll wish that you only had the 2.8L. With just a kn, my vr6 jetta would keep up with intake exhaust mild chip gt mustangs and I still get upwards of 26 mpg city. Lets see american muscle pull that out of there stupid asses. (pardon the language)


The LSx motors get about 30mpg highway and high 20's city.
No need to hate on a "big heavy American V8" just because of what it is stereotyped as. The LSx series is a remarkable motor, the power that they are making, while still retaining bulletproof reliability and decent gas mileage is pretty amazing.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*

the ls motors are serious corked up. Headers, chip & exhaust with a good intake is worth 50 whp. Ive seen vettes with ls2 supercharged, sound stock, idle stock, look stock belt out 500whp. Thats with a stock bottom end, not sure about the heads. 
IIRC, the original ls1 motors came with 15* heads, which basically means thats a flat angle hitting the intake valves. Don't forget that big hp= bad mpg....the guy who dyno'd the 500 whp vette has a street driven 73 Challenger that make 1000 crank hp on pump gas and gets 15 mpg, and destroys anything that tries to race it. Here is the link to that challenger....
The guys website..... http://www.sd-concepts.com/ 
halfway down the page are the videos to his cars.


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_
The LSx motors weigh the same as the VR. This was determined earlier in the thread.
The LSx motors get about 30mpg highway and high 20's city.
No need to hate on a "big heavy American V8" just because of what it is stereotyped as. The LSx series is a remarkable motor, the power that they are making, while still retaining bulletproof reliability and decent gas mileage is pretty amazing.

I never said he should do EITHER the VR or the LS engine in the S2000... I think it's a dumb idea.
Remarkable? How? Remarkable that the Americans can cram 8 pistons, 6.0 liters throw in a twist of high compression into a block made of tin foil and call it high performance? CONGRATULATIONS! WELCOME TO 1975! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
All things considered I think the VR6 is still WAY more advanced than anything GM has today. And what REALLY gets me is that you are STILL comparing Chevy's FLAGSHIP to Volkswagen's sport compact!!!!! Damn you are an idiot. An idiot that LOVES to exaggerate:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...shtml
And I am willing to bet that is if it's driven nicely most of the time. Anyway... about your SUPERIOR valve train, GM said the ONLY reason they still use pushrod/rocker arms is to retain the hood line... with OHC, they'd have to redesign the chassis. Another thing... Forget about variable valve timing with your "SUPERIOR" design... can't do that with a single cam. That's half the reason the s2000 makes so much horsepowers.


_Modified by 16VJohn at 4:09 PM 2-28-2008_


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: (16VJohn)*

30 mpg is a bit of an exaggeration...but i dont think that the epa quoted the 37 mpg that i usually get in my ABA.


----------



## fightthisfeeling (Apr 28, 2006)

http://www.pfabrications.com/home
from january o7 modified, using a stroked 2.2(2.3) and some top end mods, made 616 whp and did it looking damn classy in that lightning blue color. They also had a n/a s2k in the same issue of Modified with a dry carbon wide body kit run the fastest recorded n/a lap at japans Tsukuba Circut.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djsheijkdfj* »_
The LSx motors get about 30mpg highway and high 20's city.

 you do know that number is only possible bc of chevy putting a uselessly tall 6th gear in the vette so that it can plop the revs all the way down when your on the highway. Oh and thats also what you get when you throw 400hp into a fiberglass body wrapped around a alumin chassis. 30MPG is under PERFECT conditions in a PERFECT world...at the end of the day you could manage the same power output and better mpg with a motor half the size with a small turbo strapped to it. LSx is a dead motor, dead tech, dead.


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

thats true man, ha you cant teach an old dog new tricks. being that you cant get good gas mileage out of the almost 60 year old pushrod V8 design. see what happens if you throw the LSx into a heavy 2500 pickup, watch how signifigantly that 30 highway milage will drop.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

F20 ftw


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4RingsRuleALL* »_F20 ftw

Anything but GM technology FTW, more like.


----------



## vwpiloto (Nov 27, 2006)

*Re: (16VJohn)*

The S2K is really in its element only on the track (road courses, not dragstrips). It's not a car you'd want to fling around on streets and off/on-ramps (nor should you do that with any car for that matter). Any engine mod should, IMO, be in tune with that thought. Dropping a VR6 will be more of a personal shoehorning achievement as opposed to making the car better in terms of track performance. So long as you're doing it for the "personal achievemet" aspect, then by all means. If, however, you're seeking to up the performance, look into a turbo or sc-ing it.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (vwpiloto)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vwpiloto* »_The S2K is really in its element only on the track (road courses, not dragstrips). It's not a car you'd want to fling around on streets and off/on-ramps (nor should you do that with any car for that matter). Any engine mod should, IMO, be in tune with that thought. Dropping a VR6 will be more of a personal shoehorning achievement as opposed to making the car better in terms of track performance. So long as you're doing it for the "personal achievemet" aspect, then by all means. If, however, you're seeking to up the performance, look into a turbo or sc-ing it. 
 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## DHill (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*


----------



## vdubzuk (Dec 9, 2007)

*Re: (DHill)*

16vjohn u are truly a dumb ass I understand your hate of the classic"v8" but the ls motors have in recent times made more power for less money in a smaller package with the same weight as any production engine on this earth I suggest you learn how engines actualy work b4 you post vtec/vvtli/ztec...ect. are for emisions only go talk to toda or any other premier tuner before you respond so you can learn for yourself how stupid you realy are
ps pirate rocks!!


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (DHill)*

























heres the pics that you requested.
the debate goes on- engine philosophy 101
what design is superior?- the 16 year old VR6, the 24 year old v-tech design, or the bowtie's 60 year old pushrod lump.
more importantly- should any other engine be swapped into the S2k


_Modified by JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI at 9:41 PM 3-4-2008_


----------



## allmotorvr11 (Sep 23, 2006)

*Re: (djsheijkdfj)*

i got news for this entire topic, you only need 205 whp to go 12.49 in a street class n/a VR..(pinto).... carefully read this list the times are All Motor VR's. now as far as hondas go... there is a reason VR's have to way hundreds of pounds more than a honda to even compete in their class. 
VR6 Naturally Aspirated Top 1/4 Mile List 
*
11.35 @ 120.78mph - Bernd Arndt - 1993 Corrado - 3.1L 24v VR6 - Race Car - 1800 lbs. w/o Driver *
11.54 @ 116.57mph - Bernd Arndt - 1979 Rabbit - 3.1L VR6 - Race Car - 1750 lbs. w/o Driver * 
\11.68 @ 113.07mph - Anthony Dowd - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Race Car - 1980 lbs. *
12.00 @ 112.64mph - Chris Palumbo - 1995 GTI - 3.2L R32 - Street Car - 2480 lbs. * 
12.49 @ 108.82mph - Joe Pinto - 1996 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - 2230 lbs. *
12.73 @ 107.32mph - Anthony Dowd - 1995 Jetta - 2.8L VR6 - Street/Race Car - 2250 lbs. * 
12.83 @ 103.65mph - Bill Warburton, Jr. - 1995 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2346 lbs. *
12.99 @ 103.XXmph - Miguel Vinuela - 1988 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *
13.04 @ 101.XXmph - Chris Palumbo - 1990 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2230 lbs. *
13.07 @ 102.77mph - R.J. Parker - 1996 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2360 lbs. *
13.14 @ 106.04mph - Paul Kiernan - 1995 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2414 lbs. *
13.17 @ 100.XXmph - Miguel Vinuela - 1992 Jetta - 3.1L VR6 - Street Car - *
13.22 @ 101.79mph - Paul Kiernan - 1992 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - 2525lbs. *
13.25 @ 101.XXmph - Bernd Arndt - 1992 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - * 
13.35 @ 100.79mph - Chris Alamorian - 1991 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2500 lbs. *
28. 13.39 @ 100.91mph - Darren Palughi - 1991 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2420 lbs. *
29. 13.40 @ 101.1Xmph - Greg Guy - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Race Car - *
30. 13.40 @ 100.XXmph - Manny Damplias - 1988 Jetta - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *
32. 13.55 @ 101.61mph - Marc Cantor - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *

the bottom line is if the guy wants the vr let him have it, a 12 second honda is crap unless its gotta VR getting you there, and if you are so against the VR maybe you should stay out of VW forums.


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (allmotorvr11)*


_Quote, originally posted by *allmotorvr11* »_i got news for this entire topic, you only need 205 whp to go 12.49 in a street class n/a VR..(pinto).... carefully read this list the times are All Motor VR's. now as far as hondas go... there is a reason VR's have to way hundreds of pounds more than a honda to even compete in their class. 
VR6 Naturally Aspirated Top 1/4 Mile List 
*
11.35 @ 120.78mph - Bernd Arndt - 1993 Corrado - 3.1L 24v VR6 - Race Car - 1800 lbs. w/o Driver *
11.54 @ 116.57mph - Bernd Arndt - 1979 Rabbit - 3.1L VR6 - Race Car - 1750 lbs. w/o Driver * 
\11.68 @ 113.07mph - Anthony Dowd - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Race Car - 1980 lbs. *
12.00 @ 112.64mph - Chris Palumbo - 1995 GTI - 3.2L R32 - Street Car - 2480 lbs. * 
12.49 @ 108.82mph - Joe Pinto - 1996 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - 2230 lbs. *
12.73 @ 107.32mph - Anthony Dowd - 1995 Jetta - 2.8L VR6 - Street/Race Car - 2250 lbs. * 
12.83 @ 103.65mph - Bill Warburton, Jr. - 1995 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2346 lbs. *
12.99 @ 103.XXmph - Miguel Vinuela - 1988 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *
13.04 @ 101.XXmph - Chris Palumbo - 1990 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2230 lbs. *
13.07 @ 102.77mph - R.J. Parker - 1996 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2360 lbs. *
13.14 @ 106.04mph - Paul Kiernan - 1995 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2414 lbs. *
13.17 @ 100.XXmph - Miguel Vinuela - 1992 Jetta - 3.1L VR6 - Street Car - *
13.22 @ 101.79mph - Paul Kiernan - 1992 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - 2525lbs. *
13.25 @ 101.XXmph - Bernd Arndt - 1992 GTI - 2.9L VR6 - Street Car - * 
13.35 @ 100.79mph - Chris Alamorian - 1991 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2500 lbs. *
28. 13.39 @ 100.91mph - Darren Palughi - 1991 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - 2420 lbs. *
29. 13.40 @ 101.1Xmph - Greg Guy - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Race Car - *
30. 13.40 @ 100.XXmph - Manny Damplias - 1988 Jetta - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *
32. 13.55 @ 101.61mph - Marc Cantor - 1998 GTI - 2.8L VR6 - Street Car - *

the bottom line is if the guy wants the vr let him have it, a 12 second honda is crap unless its gotta VR getting you there, and if you are so against the VR maybe you should stay out of VW forums.

its not that we are against the vr, we just think its kinda pointless to spend that much money to get that little power...plus, he isnt building a drag car, it wont weigh 1800lbs and those times are prob on drag radials... we know you can make a vr fast n/a and they sound amazing and are cool as hell. 
Its just kind of stupid to put a heavier, less sophisticated motor in a car that wasnt desinged for it, just to be dif.... and not everyone in the forums has to be all about vrs...they arnt THAT great....i refuse to own one just for the simple fact that for the cost of a vr, i can make a 16v just as fast and put it in a much lighter car with no extra work. Its all about power to weight we all know that....but yes at the end of the day, its his car, his wallet and his busted/bloddy knuckles....


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: (vdubzuk)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vdubzuk* »_I suggest you learn how engines actualy work b4 you post vtec/vvtli/ztec...ect. are for emisions only

HAHAHAHA!!! You are seriously ****ting me, right? I'm trying to figure out if your post a joke or if you are really serious. *I* need to learn how engines work? Man, that's sig material there.







It has already been discussed that the ls engines make only a few hp more per liter than the original 12V VR6, but for those mentally challenged, here's an easy to read chart of the HP per liter.

The old 12V VR6: 61.4hp/liter
The 2.8L 24V VR6: 72.9hp/liter
The 3.2L 24V VR6 (R32) 75.0hp/liter
The LS1 Engine 61.4hp/liter (same as OLD 12V)
The LS2 Engine 66.7hp/liter
The LS3 Engine 69.4hp/liter
The LS4 Engine 51.2hp/liter
The LS6 Engine 71.1hp/liter
The LS7 Engine 71.4hp/liter
Also, let's throw in a little a few other Foreign cars in the mix:
2008 Toyota Camry V6 76.6hp/liter
2008 Nissan Maxima V6 72.6hp/liter
2008 Honda Accord V6 76.6hp/liter
All the cars on here (except the 16 year old 12V VR6) make more power per liter than all the LS engines... Explain how that makes the LS engines superior? 
PUSHRODS FOR LIFE!!!!
-----------------------
Edit: Apparently Chrysler figured out how to do VVT with a pushrod design in the 2007 Viper, therefore I retract my previous statement about pushrods and VVT... although this design only changed intake/exhaust TIMING, not lift or duration like VTEC, VVTL-i, VVL or MIVEC.. etc. 



_Modified by 16VJohn at 8:55 AM 3-6-2008_


----------



## TDIVentoDave (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: (16VJohn)*

you forgot the:
f20c 120hp/liter
b18c5 111hp/liter
b16a 100hp/liter
b18a or b (non-vtec) 77.78hp/liter
And as far as I know ONLY the vtec system has dual camshaft profiles. All other variable-whatever systems are only for timing, NOT for lift and duration.


----------



## 16VJohn (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: (TDIVentoDave)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TDIVentoDave* »_you forgot the:
f20c 120hp/liter
b18c5 111hp/liter
b16a 100hp/liter
b18a or b (non-vtec) 77.78hp/liter
And as far as I know ONLY the vtec system has dual camshaft profiles. All other variable-whatever systems are only for timing, NOT for lift and duration.

What about torque per liter?







Just kidding... another argument another day. Those honda engines are amazing though! I have to wonder what a V8 6.0L Honda VTEC engine would be like... 1,000hp? Honda should do something ridiculous like that for a concept car.


----------



## TDIVentoDave (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: (16VJohn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *16VJohn* »_
What about torque per liter?







Just kidding... another argument another day. Those honda engines are amazing though! I have to wonder what a V8 6.0L Honda VTEC engine would be like... 1,000hp? Honda should do something ridiculous like that for a concept car.

Haha... You got me there! 
And honda does make a high output V8, but it is for F1... That would be awesome if they came out with a supercar to compete with european exotics and american muscle.


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (16VJohn)*


_Quote, originally posted by *16VJohn* »_
What about torque per liter?







Just kidding... another argument another day. Those honda engines are amazing though! I have to wonder what a V8 6.0L Honda VTEC engine would be like... 1,000hp? Honda should do something ridiculous like that for a concept car.

ha if honda made a 6.0l v8 or v10 unit with F20C 120hp/liter technology it would put out 720 HP, and around 460 ft/lb torque. and they should put it in a supercar to compete with the corvette and viper.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*

Can I have the F20c to put into my MK3? It's only fair.


----------



## fightthisfeeling (Apr 28, 2006)

i hate to be a hypocrite but f20 in vw sounds really fun to drive with all those rpm's and quote: "Haha... You got me there!
And honda does make a high output V8, but it is for F1... That would be awesome if they came out with a supercar to compete with european exotics and american muscle." The Acura nsx (honda nsx jdm spec; aka japanese version) has vtech and that **** is a pretty dope exotic although not a really high output displacement engine as compared to american engine displacement specs.



_Modified by fightthisfeeling at 2:11 PM 3-10-2008_


----------



## TDIVentoDave (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: (fightthisfeeling)*

Yes, but just like the s2k the NSX shows it's true colors in the corners not the straights. Both cars do the quarter high 13s low 14s in stock trim. We need something that does 11s to compete with supercars today...
But I do like the idea of the 720hp 6.0L 


_Modified by TDIVentoDave at 3:47 PM 3-10-2008_


----------



## DHill (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (TDIVentoDave)*

All of the engines have their strong points. 
The VR is punchy and has a great sound, all in a really innovative block design. Especially in 3rd when you are soaring from an on-ramp onto the freeway. I am partial to the 12v because I own one, and despite the fact that my car is not that cool, FWD, and kind of neglected, I can't bring myself to sell it because of that VR6 fun factor. It's just a heavy lump, though - it should be aluminum, and available in RWD cars.
The S2000 engine is an engineering marvel. I have a few SAE papers on it from when it was developed - it was totally groundbreaking. And who can't love the sound of the second stage of V-TEC kick in on a Honda motor? waaaaaaahhhhhhWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! It's a beautiful thing. I just wish it had more torque - but it came from a motorcycle engine design. I'd suggest they scale it up, but it's already been scaled up from something much smaller! 
And the LS-series pushrod V8 is not antiquated... it's Darwinian - survival of the fittest. The Ford Flathead is old and antiquated, but still a beautiful thing. The GM small block pushrod design lasts because it works really well, with design roots connecting back to the 1950's. But the modern LS is an evolution of that design. Torquey, deep sound, allows for all kinds of compression, bore, and stroke configurations, works equally well carb'd or fuel injected, sleeved aluminum or cast iron blocks, stout enough for boost, beefy enough without it, cheap or expensive, suitable for supercar or rental car service without complaint, all maintaining the same bore spacing. It's the closest thing to a modular engine configuration available today and will likely exist as long as the internal combustion engine exists. All car lovers have something to learn from the evolution of the 350 - all engines should aspire for such diversification. GM goes back to it because it lets them... they can modify it for any duty they want.
All of these engines have their pros and cons, and all have their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Wish it was a DE (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Can I have the F20c to put into my MK3? It's only fair.









that would be sometime id like to see, an f20c in a mk3 would rip


----------



## DubGray1.8T (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: (JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JazzBlue98DEVR6GTI* »_
that would be sometime id like to see, an f20c in a mk3 would rip
 More like in an MK1


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (DubGray1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DubGray1.8T* »_ More like in an MK1








 there ya go...oh wait, some one already destroyed a mk1 with a vtec motor, check pvw lol


----------



## MK3NORTH (Jul 14, 2004)

*Re: (TDIVentoDave)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TDIVentoDave* »_ That would be awesome if they came out with a supercar to compete with european exotics and american muscle.

It doesn't take much to compete with american muscle IMO. Throwing together some scaffolding and dropping in a huge engine is not exactly the pinnacle of automotive engineering.
To the OP... why not a 2JZ-GTE?
http://forums.evolutionm.net/s...29342


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

dude! put a 1.7 carbed rabbit motor in it!!!! man that thing would RIP or maybe R.I.P.


----------



## veedubb7 (Apr 20, 2002)

*Re: (4RingsRuleALL)*

updates?


----------



## MKIII and Sons (May 4, 2004)

*Re: (veedubb7)*

hard to update a pipedream.


----------



## triple5soul (Nov 30, 2006)

*Re: (16VJohn)*

check out toyotas VVTL-i(variable valve timing AND lift) system in some of the Celica GT-S's and the Corolla XRS's (also the new mivec systems almost work in the same way

strangely enough their cars hit a "lift" just like vtec and rev out high


----------

