When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Almost forgot. Threw it on the scales. 2441 lbs with 1/4 tank as shown in above pics. Reckon we can get it to 2370 dry w/o driver when all the rest of the bits are on. Not super light but it'll do. Decided against the trubo. Too many $ and lower reliability. I think we can hit 175-180whp on E85 with bolt ons. Bit less lbs/hp than Blub, our 86 project but Kaiko should turn and stop a bunch harder to make up for it. That would put it 5-7s under Spec Miata lap records on most tracks I think. Should be fun.
Oh and there's this option if we can't hit 180 with the stock IM..
I know the 2.5 is popular but frankly it doesn't appeal to me. The donor engines are cheap but the swap itself isn't. Bone stock they have a truck kind of power band.
I know the 2.5 is popular but frankly it doesn't appeal to me. The donor engines are cheap but the swap itself isn't. Bone stock they have a truck kind of power band.
You sound like a 1.6 guy talking about how much better it is then the 1.8.
I still love you, and I think you will come around to the 2.5 eventually.
You sound like a 1.6 guy talking about how much better it is then the 1.8.
I still love you, and I think you will come around to the 2.5 eventually.
"The donor engines are cheap but the swap itself isn't. Bone stock they have a truck kind of power band."
Am I wrong?
Not saying the 2.0 is superior. Just not sold on the 2.5 because it ends up costing what a basic street turbo costs. To get the 200whp still requires significant internal mods. So why not just do the internal mods to the 2.0 and save the swap hassle? Nearly the same power for a few thousand less. What am I missing?
"The donor engines are cheap but the swap itself isn't. Bone stock they have a truck kind of power band."Am I wrong? Not saying the 2.0 is superior. Just not sold on the 2.5 because it ends up costing what a basic street turbo costs. To get the 200whp still requires significant internal mods. So why not just do the internal mods to the 2.0 and save the swap hassle? Nearly the same power for a few thousand less. What am I missing?
What exactly do you mean by internal mods E? I've done 200 whp multiple times with just cams and bolt ons in junkyard 2.5 long blocks on 91 octane SAE corrected. It's a simple and cheap formula with no internal mods needed. Plus the powerband is so much fatter, average power is WAY up compared to any 2L build. I do swaps turn key in 200 whp spec for $3500. Much cheaper and less fussy than a turbo setup by the time you make it track reliable.
Also, the only way those ITBs would do anything for you is on an engine with MUCH bigger cams and more compression than stock, 2L and 2.5L. You would be slower around a track with them using any stock camshafts, period. At that point if you are doing cams, why not use the larger displacement as a base - enjoy a cheaper donor engine, more average power everywhere, more peak power and a great powerband peaking around 7k rpm?
Adding the Dynosheet vteckiller linked inline. Curious to hear thoughts on this, I'm trying to get my NC knowledge up to scratch in case I end up with one LOL
What exactly do you mean by internal mods E? I've done 200 whp multiple times with just cams and bolt ons in junkyard 2.5 long blocks on 91 octane SAE corrected. It's a simple and cheap formula with no internal mods needed. Plus the powerband is so much fatter, average power is WAY up compared to any 2L build. I do swaps turn key in 200 whp spec for $3500. Much cheaper and less fussy than a turbo setup by the time you make it track reliable.
Also, the only way those ITBs would do anything for you is on an engine with MUCH bigger cams and more compression than stock, 2L and 2.5L. You would be slower around a track with them using any stock camshafts, period. At that point if you are doing cams, why not use the larger displacement as a base - enjoy a cheaper donor engine, more average power everywhere, more peak power and a great powerband peaking around 7k rpm?
I consider opening an engine, oily bits "internal mods", cams for example. But that's not important.
190whp on the 2.0 is ITB's and E85 on stock cams. 210 or so with cams. No swap needed. Or 175whp on E85 with unopened 2.0, stock IM/cams. I get that the 2.5 ultimately has greater power potential due to the displacement increase. Not rocket science. I also get the actual swap isn't free. Everyone talks about the power potential but it just seems like a lot of $ and time for 20whp. Not to mention the possibly questionable reliability of a stock internal 2.5 at 7500rpm full load use that the NC2 motor will shrug off.
Lay out the dollar per whp for me: 2.0 with vs 2.5 with assuming reflash, I/H/E, unopened engine, E85.
I would love to see these dynos. My understanding is that the MZR is not super det limited with stock pistons. I know your normal gas is **** in Cali so maybe e85 provides you some benefit but it's definitely not adding much if any power over good 93 elsewhere. I have never seen dynos that support the numbers you are giving in this thread for the associated mods. I am planning on keeping my 2.0 myself and will be putting cams, PPE LTH, and something for the intake side (have not decided on ITBs or plenum). I'm only expecting to be able to get 190-195 genuine whp out of it on 93.
Edit: a 1/4 mile timeslip to support any moon dyno results would also be appreciated.
I consider opening an engine, oily bits "internal mods", cams for example. But that's not important.
190whp on the 2.0 is ITB's and E85 on stock cams. 210 or so with cams. No swap needed. Or 175whp on E85 with unopened 2.0, stock IM/cams.
Not even close. Stock cam 2L with any intake manifold will struggle to make more than 160-165 whp on any fuel. The ITB would do nothing but hurt you on a stock engine, period. I've tuned and tested nearly every combination of engine parts for NCs in existence. The stock cams are incredibly small for the head flow and the most I have ever made or seen on stock cams in a 2L is 168 whp with unicorn bolt ons on a STD correction and race gas.
I get that the 2.5 ultimately has greater power potential due to the displacement increase. Not rocket science. I also get the actual swap isn't free. Everyone talks about the power potential but it just seems like a lot of $ and time for 20whp. Not to mention the possibly questionable reliability of a stock internal 2.5 at 7500rpm full load use that the NC2 motor will shrug off.
Slap an esslinger oil pan on and limit revs to 7300 and you would have no difference in reliability over a 2L MZR of any vintage. BTW you will need that oil pan on a 2L as well with your proposed chassis specs and tire size if you want it to live a life measured in more than a few track hours.
Lay out the dollar per whp for me: 2.0 with vs 2.5 with assuming reflash, I/H/E, unopened engine, E85.
Stock cams per your request (which is silly with the gain/$ cams deliver):
2.0L - 160 whp/130 wtq - roughly $3000 in parts for full exhaust, intake pipe and tune for E85
2.5L - 180 whp/180 wtq - roughly $5500 in parts and labor assuming you dropped the car off with me (for argument purposes only) and asked for a turn key swap, E85
Here's the thing, add cams and you are in a different ballpark entirely:
2.5L with cams - 200whp/190wtq - roughly $6500 turn key on 91 octane. +5/5 at the wheels on E85
And for the fun of it:
2L with ITB and stock cams - 165whp/135 wtq - about $6k including the bolt ons you mentioned above (you might be able to stretch to 170, MIGHT). Not a good value.
If you are able to install a BP in one of your other cars, you can install a converted and cammed 2.5L, it drops in like stock. I am sure one of the vendors who specialize in 2.5L NCs or myself would be happy to send you a pallet with a ready to install cammed 2.5L for considerably less than the stated amount above as well if you are concerned with cost that would more than meet your expectations and save you the ~12 hours of install labor cost.
Last edited by vteckiller2000; 02-10-2022 at 03:23 PM.
For further data, this is the highest output 2L I have ever seen and it was max effort, cams, highly tuned header, E85 with an intake manifold that would perform similarly to the ITBs:
E85 will do nothing on an otherwise stock 2.0.
You should see no gain over 93 octane which is where MBT is reached.
Tested live on a dyno where I tuned my base versatuner maps for my customers (I am on their Pro program so if anyone needs some help with maps etc on a NC, reach out).
And I would only swap to a 2.5 if your 2.0 breaks.
E85 will make 5% just from the additional hydrocarbons, regardless of MBT.
It's more like 1-2% if you're referring to a stoich mixture of E85 vs a stoich mixture of 93. You're talking like 2-4hp maybe. Besides, the above posted Dyno of a 2.0l with e85 tells a different story. You absolutely need cams to make it to 190whp.
E85 will make 5% just from the additional hydrocarbons, regardless of MBT.
On my 182 whp NC street car which was at MBT on pump 91 I measured a 2-5 whp delta in power with E85 with various runs.
I'm not trying to poop in your Cheerios, just level set your expectations with what the data has shown possible with your proposed combos over the last few years.
Last edited by vteckiller2000; 02-10-2022 at 08:23 PM.
1-2% from E85 does not match my experience on the dyno and tuning stuff myself. Not just Miatas. Keep in mind CA is 91 so we don't always reach MBT on any production car. But that's academic at this point. Still not sold on the 2.5. Agree that it's a great option for most and still recommend it often. Just might not be what I personally want. Thanks for the input in any case.
02-09-2022 | 09:53 PM
0
