AWDBall20

iTrader: (3)

Gotcha sorry to seem pissy, back to the topic haha.Just thought it would be cool to see more topics like this one.

Acree

iTrader: (29)

No prob man. I'm not here to put any other members down, and I COMPLETELY agree with you. I would love to see more hardcore NA posts on these boards. If I had enough money, I would just say screw the vq and drop a ls7 in the Z. That would be my dream car. The beauty and handling of the 350z, along with the ungodly hp of a Z06.

-Acree

kevinbonds

Thats funny that you say that. I was looking at a jegs catalog, and saw the LS7 crate motor for sale. $12999.99. These motors are all hand made. It actually really got me thinking. How in the world is it possible to hand make what some have called one of the best GM motors ever. Which includes many racing derived parts for such a low price, when a tt kit costs like 7-9000Kfor the Z. Maybe I am crazy but that seems like a pretty good price for that motor. Now im not saying that it would not cost an arm and a leg to get it to fit. I am simply just speaking about what you are getting for the money.

plumpzz

iTrader: (10)

I bet in a few years, someone will make a LS drop in kit, just mounts for the engine, tranny mounts, ECU tune and gauges and sell it like they do for the old fairladys, RX7s and Silvias. It'll happen, that Motor is a freakin beast. My friend has an LS1 TA and he says that he can boost to 15PSI on the stock block -.-

97supratt

iTrader: (61)

Well the whole point of a Z is heritage and pride. By dropping a LS7 yes you do have lots more potential and power but then again you lose somewhat of a history.

I mean, anyone can build a big V8 and drop it into lets say a miata, but its the guys that take a 1.6 turbo and make more power compared to a engine three times as big.

97supratt

iTrader: (61)

Honestly a LS7 in a 3rd gen RX7 would be inSANE...

track04

iTrader: (3)

another thing to consider

what is the gas mileage of the 3.6L porche

i can guarantee its not 24mpg like our cars.

most people paying 30,000 for a car would not tolerate 13mpg, or whatever the porche gets

97supratt

iTrader: (61)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19386.shtml

AWDBall20

iTrader: (3)

There needs to be more cam options for this car..hint hint...that way if guys want power they dont need to go to a LS1...which probably has 100's of cam choices.

track04

iTrader: (3)

i guess the difference isnt that big, but what i was trying to say is that fuel economy is less of a concern to a higher end car like the porche than our daily driven Z;s

cams, higher compression, etc would reduce our fule economy

Quamen

iTrader: (14)

I would love to see a set of 13.5:1 comp. pistons in a VQ with 110 octane. I could see hitting 350whp fairly easy if you were willing to sacrafice for the cost of race gas.

Exta_Z

What about individual throttle bodies?...like the M3's?...wouldn't that add a bit more power throughout the rev range?

Quamen

iTrader: (14)

ITB's are a huge expense because they can be difficult to tune and control properly. If you were to use drive-by-wire with two motors, each with a through chaft that controls three cylinders on each side, it could be tuned easier. The main problem I have heard is with mechanical setups it can be difficult to get them to open at the same pace as each other. It all depends on how it is done though.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

ITB's are over rated for the cost. ITB's by themselves only increase throttle response, not power. The increase in power comes from decreasing the intake runner length, which is why high rpm cars like M3's and S2000's benefit from them so much. But it is not neccessary to have ITB's to have shorter runner length to improve hp. The very porsche engine that started this thread features just one TB, but combined with a variable length intake manifold that diverts air to to short runners at high rpm can similuate the same gains most people assume to come with ITB's.
Something to remember, is that everyone thinks NA engines are more reliable or under less stress. That is incorrect. Boosting your engine will put a lot less stress on the engine than the same NA hp would create. Putting light boost in the engine to make 400 crank hp will keep the revs down and provide a broader torque curve. Revving the same engine to 8400rpm to make 400 crank hp will place over twice as much stress on the engine and introduce more fatigue to the crank and con rods, which means they will wear out faster. I am all in favor of high revs over boost for my own personal reasons, but if anyhting is developed to do this or build the engine for this, the misconception that it is easier on the engine than simply boosting to the same power level needs to reversed. All else being the same, proper tuning and such, a NA is under more stress than a boosted engine making the same hp. All the more reason Porsche's 3.6L example is such an amazing one.
Will