Cheapest/Easiest Way to get to ~400 crank HP

[taylorbr]

I'm looking at pulling my engine to repair some leaks and am considering rebuilding it in the process. I curious what the easiest and/or cheapest way is to get around 400 HP at the crank and still be streetable? Is it an N/A build with larger displacement and higher compression or FI either by a turbo or supercharger? Appreciate your inputs, thanks!

[Mensaf]

Supercharger setup will get you there. Jersey Tom is selling his for 5g's I believe. If you're really going to spend money on it, get the block built/prepped properly for it, and make the switch out of the non interference heads.

[Freeman]

OT selling supercharger set up's too as far as I know.. From what I understand, almost all superchargers, especially ones capable of getting you to 400HP, require additional maintenance and upgrades which result in plenty of cash spent.. Like over 7 grand worth...

[intellibomb]

do a search for a brighton impreza with an eg33 swap... he was using it as a track car but he was getting ~400 hp NA....

[Crazy_pilot]

Easy and cheap are kind of relative at that point. It's do-able N/A, but not easily. High compression pistons, serious headwork (port/polish and custom cam/valve setup), exhaust, and engine management to start.

Alternatively you could go with a bolt-on supercharger, although there's only a couple available out there. TomsSVX could probably be convinced to part with his setup, but again not cheap.

Either way I'd say your minimum cost will be $6-$7000. Not trying to discourage you, but it is expensive to get power out of these motors.

[LetItSnow]

do a search for a brighton impreza with an eg33 swap... he was using it as a track car but he was getting ~400 hp NA....
I don't think there's much "streetable" about that setup!

[Crazy_pilot]

^^^:lol:

Here's (http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43680) the most recent thread about that car. It was putting down 292 AWHP (~380 crank HP).

[RallyBob]

^^^:lol:

Here's (http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43680) the most recent thread about that car. It was putting down 292 AWHP (~380 crank HP).

Actually, that's the old thread. It was updated here (http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47176). It's now making 318 whp/276 wtq on a different dyno (which reads about 10% lower than the old one). Regardless of the 'actual' numbers, it is considerably faster now.

[RallyBob]

I don't think there's much "streetable" about that setup!

Surprisingly it is pretty docile, all things considered. The recently increased displacement has actually made it tamer to drive. Don't get me wrong, the lack of inertia would be hell to drive in a full weight SVX on the street in stop and go traffic, but in a lightweight Impreza it pulls right off idle cleanly...although the idle is at about 1100 rpms. But other than the (much) louder exhaust note there's really nothing 'unstreetable' about it in an Impreza chassis. The hard part would be keeping your license.

[LetItSnow]

The exhaust was the first thing that came to mind. :D The rest I can't speak for, but I'll bet you're right.

[svxfiles]

I am curious what the easiest and/or cheapest way is to get around 400 HP at the crank and still be streetable?

Small block Chevy!:rolleyes:



300 HP is much easier.

[taylorbr]

Small block Chevy!:rolleyes:



300 HP is much easier.

:lol:, thanks for that! I was reading about Bob the fabricator's efforts at N/A builds and I know those get to around 400 crank HP. I was just trying to get a feel for the differences in cost and streetability between something like that and a supercharger...

[Sov13t]

Small block Chevy!:rolleyes:



300 HP is much easier.

And sooooooooo much cheaper. :o

__________________
http://www.sov13t.com/userbar.jpg

[lhopp77]

The exhaust was the first thing that came to mind. :D The rest I can't speak for, but I'll bet you're right.

Actually, I think that exhaust sound is very tinny and crappy. I think the stebro type sound is sooooo much better. :p

Lee

[RallyBob]

IMO, the easiest way to get 400 crank hp (or 400 whp for that matter) is to go turbo. A single turbo would be easiest to fit, and something like a GT3076, a 'small' GT35, or a GT3782 (cheaper, non ball bearing) would easily produce the numbers and spool nicely. You could run lower boost to extract the same power if you 'freed up' the engine's breathing a little too. Mild head work and cams would compliment things immensely.

Pay someone to do it and it will always cost you. People don't work for free, nor should they be expected to. But if you're capable of doing all the work yourself you could probably put it together for about $8500 or so.

[Mensaf]

Do a LS2 swap with the tranny from a SS Trailblazer. Would be awesome.

[RallyBob]

Do a LS2 swap with the tranny from a SS Trailblazer. Would be awesome.

Probably a tough fit under an SVX hood I'd imagine? I didn't think a 'V' engine would fit well where a 'boxer' engine was designed to go!

[Mensaf]

Probably a tough fit under an SVX hood I'd imagine? I didn't think a 'V' engine would fit well where a 'boxer' engine was designed to go!

You know what's funny about you? I make a joke and you actually have an answer for it :lol: I followed your build on nasioc a few years back when I was in an Impreza. You guys going to have any action vids other than the dyno anytime soon?

[RallyBob]

You know what's funny about you? I make a joke and you actually have an answer for it :lol:

Sorry....I thought you were serious!:eek: My cousin has a Trailblazer SS, and I have to admit it moves right out for such a porker.

I followed your build on nasioc a few years back when I was in an Impreza. You guys going to have any action vids other than the dyno anytime soon?

I know I've been threatening to videotape the car in action, just never got around to it. Jack has a ton of in-car video, but it's all without sound. For some reason he can never get the sound to work at all...just static.

[STeeL25T]

I'm still not clear on what to do here... Let say I'm going for 400 crank hp, got a built bottom end and a good single turbo... What needs to be done to the head? Will getting Delta to do the 8 mm lift (i think I read 247* duration?) intake cam be all I need for this level or am I going to have to go to solid lifters?

[svxistentialist]

IMO, the easiest way to get 400 crank hp (or 400 whp for that matter) is to go turbo. A single turbo would be easiest to fit, and something like a GT3076, a 'small' GT35, or a GT3782 (cheaper, non ball bearing) would easily produce the numbers and spool nicely. You could run lower boost to extract the same power if you 'freed up' the engine's breathing a little too. Mild head work and cams would compliment things immensely.

Pay someone to do it and it will always cost you. People don't work for free, nor should they be expected to. But if you're capable of doing all the work yourself you could probably put it together for about $8500 or so.

Bob, even though I have a supercharger on one of mine, and I'm a fan of them because of the low down torque, I'm 100% in agreement with what you say here.

FWIW in the UK on the 2.5 Sti engine for Time Attack cars they have big success with the Garrett GT35R which is a ball bearing model.

To me looking simplistically at it, this model should work very well on the 3.3's larger displacement and being twin scroll will spool up quickly for the low down punch, but still yield big numbers higher up if numbers is your thang.

If I was doing it though, even for a road car, I would rebuild the engine and semi close the deck using big liners. No point going to this expense and having it blow up.

Joe

[Myxalplyx]

Turbocharge that baby for 17psi. or

Intake/Exhaust/Header and a 150hp shot of nitrous. or

5psi of turbo boost and a 100hp shot or...................

[taylorbr]

To define my goals further - I would like to get the peak torque around 2700 to 3000 rpm and have the car still be emissions legal. I've chosen 3000 rpm so that I get good acceleration off the line AND great efficiency on the freeway (since the engine should be most efficient at peak torque).

I've been reading up on engine related topics all night and this is what I have so far, please correct me if I am wrong and keep in mind this only applies to a N/A build. I am simply posting it here to try to retain some of what I have learned and to get feedback on whether that applies in this case:

1. From Bob's threads, it seems like larger lift would be great
2. A narrow lobe separation angle should get more torque, but worse idle and a narrower powerband
3. I'm not sure about intake duration, probably just long enough to fill the cylinders at peak torque rpm
4. Exhaust duration should probably be longer
5. Some advance in the cam should give better low end torque and improve the idle
6. I would want a long smaller intake for more ram pressure (good for low rpm), but less re-fill ability (bad for high rpm)
7. Equal length headers that are as long as possible before convergence

[STeeL25T]

I'm still not clear on what to do here... Let say I'm going for 400 crank hp, got a built bottom end and a good single turbo... What needs to be done to the head? Will getting Delta to do the 8 mm lift (i think I read 247* duration?) intake cam be all I need for this level or am I going to have to go to solid lifters?

Any help here would be great.

[RallyBob]

To define my goals further - I would like to get the peak torque around 2700 to 3000 rpm and have the car still be emissions legal. I've chosen 3000 rpm so that I get good acceleration off the line AND great efficiency on the freeway (since the engine should be most efficient at peak torque).

That's a tall order. I think that in order to get the power improvement you desire and have the torque peak at that low an rpm, you're looking at either forced induction or variable induction technology. In general a higher hp number and lower rpm torque occurance don't go hand-in-hand.

1. From Bob's threads, it seems like larger lift would be great

Yes, but not *very* achievable with hydraulic lifters and stock valve lengths. Some improvement can certainly be had, but it's not optimal for the head's flow potential.

2. A narrow lobe separation angle should get more torque, but worse idle and a narrower powerband

And emissions levels will generally increase, at least at idle and low rpms.

Larger displacement certainly didn't hurt Jack's EG33 (or 'EG35.34' if you want), the engine saw nearly equal gains across the board in HP and torque. Compression helps both HP and torque of course, but may increase NOX emission levels.

Modest headwork and cam improvements while retaining the stock valvetrain can *probably* gain you 30-35 whp. I'm just extrapolating from the results we saw on Jack's engine. Add the larger displacement shortblock, more compression, standalone management (Hydra), and some nice headers with single exhaust (I prefer a single to duals for torque), and you can quite possibly see 250-265 whp, with a very streetable torque curve. Of course technically none of this is emissions legal....

[taylorbr]

Modest headwork and cam improvements while retaining the stock valvetrain can *probably* gain you 30-35 whp. I'm just extrapolating from the results we saw on Jack's engine. Add the larger displacement shortblock, more compression, standalone management (Hydra), and some nice headers with single exhaust (I prefer a single to duals for torque), and you can quite possibly see 250-265 whp, with a very streetable torque curve. Of course technically none of this is emissions legal....

Seems legal enough if I can pass the sniffer test...how much higher compression could you go before having to pull timing? It seems like 10:1 to 11:1 is about the highest on pump fuel.

I agree I may have to rethink my HP desires since I would like to keep the torque at low rpm which will cut my higher rpm ability.

[taylorbr]

I'm now thinking of stroker options instead of an overbore, it seems like you get more bang for the buck that way...

[RallyBob]

...how much higher compression could you go before having to pull timing? It seems like 10:1 to 11:1 is about the highest on pump fuel.

That depends on other variables. One of which is the cam choice. Unfortunately, a camshaft design which favors low end torque generally produces lots of cylinder pressure, even at small throttle openings. So the tolerance for timing is reduced.

IIRC you guys in CA only have 91 octane available, so that reduces the compression tolerance even more.

[subbieatnz]

Larger displacement certainly didn't hurt Jack's EG33 (or 'EG35.34' if you want),

For some reason i thought the size of the motor was bigger :confused: :lol:

Would it be ok to do EG33 as a EG35.34 etc running a supercharger?
Or would the cylinder walls to thin to run F.I. when its bored to that size?

:)

[RallyBob]

For some reason i thought the size of the motor was bigger :confused: :lol:

Nope, it's got a 100 mm bore x 75 mm stroke = 3534 cc's

Would it be ok to do EG33 as a EG35.34 etc running a supercharger?
Or would the cylinder walls to thin to run F.I. when its bored to that size?

:)

I would certainly want to sleeve the block for forced induction with that bore diameter.

[subbieatnz]

Nope, it's got a 100 mm bore x 75 mm stroke = 3534 cc's



I would certainly want to sleeve the block for forced induction with that bore diameter.


Ok heres another question.
Would Having a EG33 Bored to 3.5L will it still be ok for using for normal road use...
Like having the bore walls thinner could they go out of round quicker etc?
or End up with engine failure quicker?

[svxistentialist]

Ok heres another question.
Would Having a EG33 Bored to 3.5L will it still be ok for using for normal road use...
Like having the bore walls thinner could they go out of round quicker etc?
or End up with engine failure quicker?

The short answer is no.

You don't just bore it out of what is there. To go to 3.5 litres you would replace the liners with different thicker ones, so the liners when bored would be as strong as [or stronger than!] standard.

Joe

[RallyBob]

The short answer is no.

You don't just bore it out of what is there. To go to 3.5 litres you would replace the liners with different thicker ones, so the liners when bored would be as strong as [or stronger than!] standard.

Joe

Guess we'll find out!

Jack's engine was bored out to 100 mm with the standard liners. So far it has survived numerous dyno sessions and some parking-lot antics, but it has yet to see track duty this year. His machinist used Jack's spare (junk) block as a test dummy, and they drilled some holes through the stock sleeves into the water jacket. They seemed satisfied with the wall thickness for a N/A application. I can't comment since I don't know the actual wall thickness myself.

[Zandar]

IIRC you guys in CA only have 91 octane available, so that reduces the compression tolerance even more.

What gains could be seen with a stand-alone EMS and E85? I hear one can run a bit more compression and timing advance with E85 since it's a higher octane. I know there would be a possible MPG loss, but could one expect significant power gains?

[svxfiles]

Guess we'll find out!

Jack's engine was bored out to 100 mm with the standard liners. So far it has survived numerous dyno sessions and some parking-lot antics, but it has yet to see track duty this year. His machinist used Jack's spare (junk) block as a test dummy, and they drilled some holes through the stock sleeves into the water jacket. They seemed satisfied with the wall thickness for a N/A application. I can't comment since I don't know the actual wall thickness myself.

A couple of days ago I was talking to "Mike", my local machinest, and we were looking at Sov13t's block.

He measured the factory sleeve wall thickness at about 0.160", and as I remember we thought that we could bore the cylinder out to 100mm to match popular pistons, and available head gaskets.
The aluminum casting surounding the sleeve is about 0.250" thick.
He thought that that was a safe overbore if it was not supecharged, or turbocharged, but untill someone does it this is all just speculation.
Tom

[svxistentialist]

I was talking to Ron last year. He was planning to bore and stroke one of his engines to 3.7 I think. He likes the idea of a more powerful NA engine.

I'm not sure what dimensions he was going on the bore, or whether he was re-sleeving.

My own gut feeling [speculation, for sure ;)] is that with the cost of work involved in boring out it is not worth the risk to run with thinner standard liners in relation to the cost of replacements. Absolutely not for a blown engine.

Others may see it differently. For a road NA engine that was not going to get grief it might be OK I expect. I personally would worry about head gasket integrity and would opt for belt and braces. I'm tight with money. :p

Joe :)

[RallyBob]

He measured the factory sleeve wall thickness at about 0.160", and as I remember we thought that we could bore the cylinder out to 100mm to match popular pistons, and available head gaskets.
The aluminum casting surounding the sleeve is about 0.250" thick.


If this in fact the case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's plenty safe for an N/A engine then. At 100 mm, we're looking at a 3.1 mm bore increase, or 1.55 mm per wall (.061"). Leaving .100" of sleeve roughly, with a surrounding .250" of aluminum to support it. Heck, I've bored cast iron blocks down to .120" thick walls with no outer supporting walls, and raced them hard. I would still put in sleeves for forced induction or nitrous at that bore diameter.

[Johnybeas]

sorry to bring back an old topic but I was doing some reading I didn't do in feb lol and have some questions.. well one big one.

with all things considered, if forced induction is the end goal would it be advised to bore or not? and if so how much??

[JaySVX]

These 7k numbers seem pretty low to me. You'd need to acid wash the block, port the heads, custom cam profiles, complete intake and exhaust, injectors, valve springs, hydra engine management, pistons and rods, crankshaft balanced, you're at 7k right there, at least. Then you can add your super/turbo charger, at another 5k-8k. 400hp is pretty high, last I heard tom wasn't there, and he has over 20k in his engine. Then if i recall correctly, you have to have a 6 speed transmission out of an STI to handle the power, as well as sti axels, add another 8-10k. You can make 400hp all day long, but if you toss your trans or snap an axel every time you hit the gas, it's kind of useless.

Not to try to deter you, but setting aside 7-8k, getting less than half done, is very discouraging. I would take it one step at a time, work it, work it, have end game goals, and do it over time. I'm hoping you have another vehicle to drive before dropping 20k into your SVX. Also, be aware that once you do this, you cannot sell, ever.

[TomsSVX]

I make 400 crank all day, the supercharger is for sale and the cheapest way you are going to do it... Just sayin, the option has been on the table for over a year and no one bought it...:rolleyes:

Tom

[Freeman]

These 7k numbers seem pretty low to me. You'd need to acid wash the block, port the heads, custom cam profiles, complete intake and exhaust, injectors, valve springs, hydra engine management, pistons and rods, crankshaft balanced, you're at 7k right there, at least. Then you can add your super/turbo charger, at another 5k-8k. 400hp is pretty high, last I heard tom wasn't there, and he has over 20k in his engine. Then if i recall correctly, you have to have a 6 speed transmission out of an STI to handle the power, as well as sti axels, add another 8-10k. You can make 400hp all day long, but if you toss your trans or snap an axel every time you hit the gas, it's kind of useless.

Not to try to deter you, but setting aside 7-8k, getting less than half done, is very discouraging. I would take it one step at a time, work it, work it, have end game goals, and do it over time. I'm hoping you have another vehicle to drive before dropping 20k into your SVX. Also, be aware that once you do this, you cannot sell, ever.

Cannot sell? Why not?

[svxfiles]

Cannot sell? Why not?

Generally speaking, if you sell a modded car it will bring you no more money than a non-modded car.:(
Having been in the "car business" since before you were born,:rolleyes: I hate to tell people that the Corvette motor that they installed makes their Camaro worth LESS money than if it had a stock motor...



Unless you sell it to someone who REALLY likes it.
I would, and have paid more for a Hot Rodded car than a stock one, but then again, I'm not normal.:o

[Gamesy]

why the hell is it so hard for the EG33 to hit 400HP when an STi engine has been hitting 500 for abuot the same cost? Are the designs in the 2 boxer engines really that different?

[1986nate]

why the hell is it so hard for the EG33 to hit 400HP when an STi engine has been hitting 500 for abuot the same cost? Are the designs in the 2 boxer engines really that different?

one reason... aftermarket support due to the number of engines out there!!!!

[TomsSVX]

why the hell is it so hard for the EG33 to hit 400HP when an STi engine has been hitting 500 for abuot the same cost? Are the designs in the 2 boxer engines really that different?


Because it is not an Sti... I would start there

Tom

[Tim]

I'm not normal.:o

Tee hee :lol:

[Freeman]

Thus the reason I plan on keeping my SVX for a long long time..

[Gamesy]

Lol well true but i thought the principals of working on an STi boxer or even impreza to wrx blocks would be the same. Would it be correct to assume that the closest tuning of the eg33 be similar to the 2.2L?

Because it is not an Sti... I would start there

Tom

[sicksubie]

Lol well true but i thought the principals of working on an STi boxer or even impreza to wrx blocks would be the same. Would it be correct to assume that the closest tuning of the eg33 be similar to the 2.2L?

STi's have umptillion companies making every possible upgrade fathomable...


















Oh yeah and they are turbo to begin with :rolleyes: