How can they share the same transmission when the 4R has a longitudinal mounted engine and the RAV engine is a transverse mount?
Sent from AutoGuide.com App
Sent from AutoGuide.com App
That's confusing... the RAV4 is front-engine front-drive, and the 4Runner is a front-engine rear drive. The RAV4 uses an S-series trans, and the 4Runner should be a W-series, correct?Hello Everyone!
I am looking into swapping my 2.0 L 3S-FE I4 engine in my 96 RAV with the 3.4 L 5VZ-FE V6 from a same year 4Runner. I know they use the same manual 5-speed gearbox, but my question is will it fit in the engine bay? And what else will need to be replaced? Any input is appreciated, thanks!
Are the later gens simple-swaps for the subframe (matching trans/etc).Better yet start with a V6 RAV4! The engine fits perfectly.
Yes, but only if you built them with Legos.Are the later gens simple-swaps for the subframe (matching trans/etc).
For the cost of buying TWO V6 RAV4s it might be possible. Then the first time you pushed the pedal on the right you'd hear loud crunching sounds and find your AWD parts scattered on the road soaking in oil. :egad:Does anyone know if it's a problem to put a Camry v6 in since I have AWD? Thanks.
True and you could always disable two cylinders to make sure the "thin geared gearbox" could handle the power. :winkThe V6 camry engine is not a fantastic power lump anyway.
If that's where you want to go, re-visit the MR2 mailing lists from 10yrs ago. 400 is a walk in the park, and if you can deal with getting equal fuel to all four cylinders 600 is no problem. You are correct, a big turbo will create giant-lag, yet produce monster numbers.If I swap for a big, big turbo, the Rav wont take off very quick, but one could tow a mighty big boat to the dock.
400, 600HP with old tech? Sure sounds simple. Heck they must be at 800-1000 by now! Probably at 12,000 rpm which you only reach once!If that's where you want to go, re-visit the MR2 mailing lists from 10yrs ago. 400 is a walk in the park, and if you can deal with getting equal fuel to all four cylinders 600 is no problem.
I dyno'ed a stock '91T to 160rwhp (200hp flywheel?), and got it up to 240rwhp with nothing more then a CAI and MBC, so that's 300hp flywheel (or so)? With a decent exhaust and fuel-cut defeat, 325rwhp.. that's 400hp flywheel? So yea, that's when things got interesting. Once it was found there was uneven fuel distribution, fixing that, adding ARP bolts and a good gasket, throwing in some ignition upgrades, and putting on a big turbo, you'd see 600hp at the flywheel. Then it came down to making it last, such as upgraded/front-mount intercoolers, improved cooling, etc. Ah, those were the days...400, 600HP with old tech? Sure sounds simple. Heck they must be at 800-1000 by now! Probably at 12,000 rpm which you only reach once!
Interesting. When I dyno supposedly high HP bikes that don't make what the owner was promised their first question is always, "How much loss is there between the crank and the rear wheel?" My answer is, "Whatever your engine builder needs to make his numbers come out right. For example if you were promised 100 and I only measure 80 at the wheel obviously there must be 20% loss." Nice to have numbers you can pick out of mid-air!I dyno'ed a stock '91T to 160rwhp (200hp flywheel?), and got it up to 240rwhp with nothing more then a CAI and MBC, so that's 300hp flywheel (or so)? ...