SC400 under 3000 lbs.
11-23-11, 11:42 PM
#46
Pole Position
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: California
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-24-11, 12:24 AM
#47
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm exploring a new idea of making this more of a track car vs.
the original post of keeping more street luxuries in the car.
I'm still open to anything in between since ill likely decide how
far I wanna go depending on how much I enjoy it on the track.
But either way, this wouldn't be a daily driver.
But I like having the option.
the original post of keeping more street luxuries in the car.
I'm still open to anything in between since ill likely decide how
far I wanna go depending on how much I enjoy it on the track.
But either way, this wouldn't be a daily driver.
But I like having the option.
11-24-11, 06:06 AM
#48
Iam going for a balance in mine. Racing seats but no back ones. And keeping the sunroof and ac. So a fast midlife crisis car. My rb s13 is 2700lbs with half a tank and nothing but full interior. My sc will never be that weight. Hence the need for mutiple cars.
11-24-11, 10:11 PM
#50
Complete 1uzfe motor without tranny is about 450 lbs.
Complete 2jzgte motor without tranny is about 594 lbs.
I don't know how much just a GE weighs, but I suspect still more than the 1UZ.
11-26-11, 12:52 AM
#52
The heavy cast-iron block and rotating assembly that is the 2JZ-GE may be weightier than a 1UZ-FE but it is the reason why ridiculous boost is so sustainable in these cars. Other than the engineering it is also why the I6 lasts so long whether turbocharged or stock. I like the V8 cars and they probably can be made slightly lighter but I'll take the tank-like nature of both the chassis and drivetrain in either car.
You now what other cars were heavy? Early 70's Camaros (around 3,500lbs one year). Any muscle car or semi-luxurious (for the time) Chrysler or Plymouth that had powerful 383 or 440 engine options such as the two-door 1973 Satellites. They are heavy, heavy cars. They also were fast cars if optioned with big enough V8's or modified/swapped in the hands of young second or third owners. Some of them even looked cool, but you'd have to like American muscle cars to see it I guess.
The 1986-87 Buick Grand Nationals and T-Types were also heavy tanks but those V6 turbos were killer. They didn't have near the build quality or handling the SC's have either but that's another story-- we're just talking about curb weight. Plenty of sporty RWD two door cars back into the 1960's were not lightweight.
The SC is just one of the better such heavy semi-GT performance chassis ever designed. At least in Soarer spec it was viewed as such.
You now what other cars were heavy? Early 70's Camaros (around 3,500lbs one year). Any muscle car or semi-luxurious (for the time) Chrysler or Plymouth that had powerful 383 or 440 engine options such as the two-door 1973 Satellites. They are heavy, heavy cars. They also were fast cars if optioned with big enough V8's or modified/swapped in the hands of young second or third owners. Some of them even looked cool, but you'd have to like American muscle cars to see it I guess.
The 1986-87 Buick Grand Nationals and T-Types were also heavy tanks but those V6 turbos were killer. They didn't have near the build quality or handling the SC's have either but that's another story-- we're just talking about curb weight. Plenty of sporty RWD two door cars back into the 1960's were not lightweight.
The SC is just one of the better such heavy semi-GT performance chassis ever designed. At least in Soarer spec it was viewed as such.
Last edited by KahnBB6; 11-26-11 at 12:58 AM.
Have a wonderful day
11-26-11, 02:36 PM
#55
11-26-11, 04:42 PM
#56
okay people. but you are talking about a engine with 2 heavy *** turbos vs a big *** v8 with no turbos. when i chucked my 1uz it was really heavy. and bulky. the 1jz with turbos and now with no turbos makes you confident you and a friend can "team lift" the damn thing. i still don't believe a 1uz is lighter..
11-26-11, 05:55 PM
#57
okay people. but you are talking about a engine with 2 heavy *** turbos vs a big *** v8 with no turbos. when i chucked my 1uz it was really heavy. and bulky. the 1jz with turbos and now with no turbos makes you confident you and a friend can "team lift" the damn thing. i still don't believe a 1uz is lighter..
Take both motors out and weigh them. Don't forget to take pictures.
11-26-11, 06:20 PM
#58
okay people. but you are talking about a engine with 2 heavy *** turbos vs a big *** v8 with no turbos. when i chucked my 1uz it was really heavy. and bulky. the 1jz with turbos and now with no turbos makes you confident you and a friend can "team lift" the damn thing. i still don't believe a 1uz is lighter..
11-26-11, 09:09 PM
#60
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also weigh equal accessories and less trannies.
Either motor has to be lighter than a friggin 300zx vg motor.
That was another car I was looking at before
Either motor has to be lighter than a friggin 300zx vg motor.
That was another car I was looking at before