4age into mk1 esky

General discussions on all non technical car related topics

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby Mr Revhead » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:03 pm

fangsport wrote:be careful comparing what others have done, as the MK1 engine bay appears to be narrower and shorter than the Mk2. remembering the Mk 1 is a pushrod body shell and the Mk2 is OHC.


hence when building the MK1 twincams and BDAs the engine was actually mounted on a slight angle
Being the subject of E-whinges since 2004 8)

http://www.centralmotorsport.org.nz/home

Image
User avatar
Mr Revhead
SECURITY!
 
Posts: 24635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Nelson

.

Postby ezy10s » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:36 pm

if youre still considering the 4age just remember the escort 1600 engine ran a rear bowl sump while the 4age runs a front bowl- this will need t be reversed and a new pick up fabricated- engine mount wise just shave the metal mounts form the cross member and start fresh
Member #244
Gone fishing until further notice
ezy10s
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: auckland NZ

Postby eskimo » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:39 pm

Cheers guys thats for all th input, Im not sure on what shocks it has in in at the mow, will find out on sat when i pick it up.

I belive it use to be an auto so has a larger tunnel. ill be using the car to fang around the track. thats why i was looking at a revvy 1600. looked into the ztecs,

the other option was the 3rd gen 3sge or beams redtop 3sge( i wish) i wana try do all the work myslef so the 4age seems like it will produce the best results with out to much mucking around.
"If in doubt, flat out" Colin McRae 1968-2007
Current:2003 Legacy 3.0R Spec B
Previous: ST185 GT4, SW20 MR2, ST206 Curren, AE111 Corolla GT
User avatar
eskimo
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:55 am
Location: Auckland

Postby durty starlet » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:34 pm

pop over to oldschool forums, pm methodz100, he was thinking of selling a zetec kit if you wanna go that way
durty starlet
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Upper Hutt

Postby Volodkovich » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:06 pm

Mr Revhead wrote:
fangsport wrote:be careful comparing what others have done, as the MK1 engine bay appears to be narrower and shorter than the Mk2. remembering the Mk 1 is a pushrod body shell and the Mk2 is OHC.


hence when building the MK1 twincams and BDAs the engine was actually mounted on a slight angle


Umm, im pretty sure the majority of the mk2's came out with the pushrod kent....only the rs2000's etc had the OHC pinto.
I thought the differences between the mk1 / mk2 body shells is only really cosmetic and the floorpan, engine bay etc is the same
Volodkovich
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 10:23 pm
Location: ChCh

Postby Mr Revhead » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:20 pm

yes most MK2s had the kent engines.
no, the shells are very different, MK2 has a bigger engine bay et
Being the subject of E-whinges since 2004 8)

http://www.centralmotorsport.org.nz/home

Image
User avatar
Mr Revhead
SECURITY!
 
Posts: 24635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Nelson

Postby MikeMan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:45 pm

fangsport wrote:be careful comparing what others have done, as the MK1 engine bay appears to be narrower and shorter than the Mk2. remembering the Mk 1 is a pushrod body shell and the Mk2 is OHC.


Ummm there is not THAT much difference between a Mk.1 and Mk.2 shell's engine bay dude.

The Mk.2 might be SLIGHTLY larger but the difference will not make something fit in a Mk.2 that would not fit in a Mk.1 IMHO.

The OHC engine was fitted to a total of 3 types of cars in the Mk.1 and Mk.2 ranges.

Mk.1 RS2000 (2000cc OHC, ~100HP)
Mk.2 RS2000 (2000cc OHC, ~110HP)
Mk.2 Mexico (1600cc OHC, ~80HP)

The Mk.2 Mexico was no faster than the Mk.2 1600 Sport in real terms and the 1600cc OHC was a DOG!
MikeMan
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:16 pm

Postby escortman » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:49 pm

yeh its not heaps bigger, dads m8 droped a 302 in a mk2 and then into a mk1 sed mk1 was slightly shorter in length but not by heaps
toyota supra 1996 2jzgte t64 turbonetics
Was 300hp on 10psi with stock twins, hopefully on similar boost be around 400hp

4x4 toyota blizzard offroader

widebody markII escort panelvan

RIP 13sec AE82 fxgt 4agte 5psi TD05 20g
escortman
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: West Auckland

Postby RED TOP MR 2 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:50 pm

another popular conversion is the caprie v6 plenty of info on the net.
User avatar
RED TOP MR 2
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:32 pm
Location: auckland

Postby MikeMan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:14 pm

escortman wrote:yeh its not heaps bigger, dads m8 droped a 302 in a mk2 and then into a mk1 sed mk1 was slightly shorter in length but not by heaps


IIRC it is about an inch and a half in total length.

The thing that gives it away as being minimally different is that you can put Mk.2 front panels onto a Mk.1 with no issues, so they cann be majorly different.
MikeMan
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:16 pm

Postby RomanV » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:57 pm

eskimo wrote:the other option was the 3rd gen 3sge or beams redtop 3sge( i wish) i wana try do all the work myslef so the 4age seems like it will produce the best results with out to much mucking around.


lol, why would you go for a redtop of a gen 3? It's a lot of work or $$ to fit one to a RWD. The only reason I'm doing so is because I already had the engine there.

All up, it would be cheaper/easier to go straight for the altezza engine, and you may as well grab the 6 speed. :D

But I doubt it would fit in an escort engine bay, my beams setup isnt much narrower than a v8, because the intake/exhaust stick out so far either way. And they're a pretty tall engine too.

4age would be heaps of fun in an escort I reckon! And much easier to fit. (except for gay sump issues, which coult be a huge PITA)
User avatar
RomanV
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 4915
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:17 am
Location: West Auckland

Postby fangsport » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:08 pm

RomanV wrote:4age would be heaps of fun in an escort I reckon! And much easier to fit. (except for [person of homosexual orientation] sump issues, which coult be a huge PITA)
the local 20v in a Mk1 re-worked the oilpan, and used a 202? holden pick-up. Matt would possibly know more as he has done work on it.
I've been a bad bad boy. I should read the rules and behave before I get spanked by an admin

f#@k you i won't do what ya tell me

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fangwood/225658970893404
fangsport
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:52 am
Location: Timaru

Postby fangsport » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:13 pm

MikeMan wrote:
Ummm there is not THAT much difference between a Mk.1 and Mk.2 shell's engine bay dude.

The Mk.2 might be SLIGHTLY larger but the difference will not make something fit in a Mk.2 that would not fit in a Mk.1 IMHO.
i was of the impression that it was 2 1/2 inches shorter and 1 1/2 narrower. event the 1 1/2 shorter can make all the difference when trying to do bellhousing bolts or fitting radiators :?
I've been a bad bad boy. I should read the rules and behave before I get spanked by an admin

f#@k you i won't do what ya tell me

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fangwood/225658970893404
fangsport
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:52 am
Location: Timaru

Previous

Return to General Car Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests