prawnabie
|
| posted on 3/11/13 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
Which donor for Mazda Vortx?
Hi guys,
I have fired off an Email for MNR for the official word, but also wanted to get the opinion of people who have built one...
Which MX5/Eunos can you use as a donor for this kit?
There is only one comprehensive build diary on the net which is First350's and he uses and 1.8 NB, but states in his build the chassis is
designed for a 1.6 and there are some differences.
The initial build will ideally have to be built to a budget but in the future I would possibly like to turbocharge it.
Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks
Shaun
|
|
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 3/11/13 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
When I spoke to them at the Stoneleigh show, I seem to remember you can use 1.6 or 1.8 NA or NB. There are some slight differences but not huge.
If you want a turbo in the future you might want to consider a pre-95 donor to avoid emissions regs.
|
|
|
BigLee
|
| posted on 3/11/13 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
Pre '94 makes the emissions easier, but they are relatively clean engines anyway. Mine was a '94 1600, with a turbo and no cat, and it
sailed through IVA.
I wouldn't want to purposely influence you as the choices you make now are all part of the process. When I got my chassis it was designed for
the 1600 as that engine has the reputation for free revving. I believe the chassis now allows the slightly larger 1800 diff as that was the sticking
spot. Talk to Marc.
If I were to do it again, I would go for a Eunos (not UK) car '94 1800 and keep it simple. If you turbo it, you'll spend more time
tickling the throttle mid bend than you will enjoying it. Plus the additional cooling/pipework for inter coolers etc really adds to the weight and the
overall cost. A 1.8 has larger brakes and clutch. I would consider a lightened flywheel though.
You will have more fun ringing out an 1800 (or even a straight forward 1600cc) than the headaches that come with a turbo install. Easy in an MX-5. Not
so easy (or relevant) in an MNR.
If you have any questions, just ask
Lee
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 3/11/13 at 07:58 PM |
|
|
Biglee, slightly off topic but I've noticed your signature mentions a supercharged '5. What is your opinion regarding a supercharger
install in a 7 kit car? On paper it certainly suits a 7 better than a turbo install, but is it as much of a headache?
|
|
|
BigLee
|
| posted on 3/11/13 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
Biglee, slightly off topic but I've noticed your signature mentions a supercharged '5. What is your opinion regarding a supercharger
install in a 7 kit car? On paper it certainly suits a 7 better than a turbo install, but is it as much of a headache?
Ah ha! You noticed! Sadly I've now sold my supercharged '5, but I proper loved it! The power delivery was awesome, plus the sound
isn't limited by the turbo. I had an Eaton M42 (from a mini) on a 1600. Sadly, that wouldn't fit in the nose of a 7 unless it had a very
large bulge to one side. That's not to say it isn't possible, but would certainly cost more than a turbo install. And arguably more of a
headache. Then you've got the heat....! Any extra heat in a 7 is not your friend. Using a polo rad, and no intercooler, I fried an engine 4
weeks after IVA. If you must go forced induction, you'll peak at 180-200bhp unless spending lots. There are much simpler ways of delivering that
bhp. Stick with simple. Spend the extra on getting it set up properly.
Cheers
Lee
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 4/11/13 at 10:16 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the info guys. Sounds like the 1.8 is the one to go for. Chris as emailed back telling me that the MK2 chassis now accommodates the 1.8.
Whilst I'm saving up for the starter pack, I will be on the look out for a Eunos!
Shaun
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 08:26 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by prawnabie
Thanks for the info guys. Sounds like the 1.8 is the one to go for. Chris as emailed back telling me that the MK2 chassis now accommodates the 1.8.
Whilst I'm saving up for the starter pack, I will be on the look out for a Eunos!
Shaun
You should pick one up quite easily this time of year, it's the end of summer and people start to look at offloading imminent MOT failures.
Depending on where you are in the West Mids I can give you the number of a guy with a flatbed who might be of use to you?
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 11:16 AM |
|
|
Thanks mate I will keep you in mind, I live in Bromsgrove and work in Willenhall.
Shaun
|
|
|
ChrisL
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 01:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigLee
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
Biglee, slightly off topic but I've noticed your signature mentions a supercharged '5. What is your opinion regarding a supercharger
install in a 7 kit car? On paper it certainly suits a 7 better than a turbo install, but is it as much of a headache?
Ah ha! You noticed! Sadly I've now sold my supercharged '5, but I proper loved it! The power delivery was awesome, plus the sound
isn't limited by the turbo. I had an Eaton M42 (from a mini) on a 1600. Sadly, that wouldn't fit in the nose of a 7 unless it had a very
large bulge to one side. That's not to say it isn't possible, but would certainly cost more than a turbo install. And arguably more of a
headache. Then you've got the heat....! Any extra heat in a 7 is not your friend. Using a polo rad, and no intercooler, I fried an engine 4
weeks after IVA. If you must go forced induction, you'll peak at 180-200bhp unless spending lots. There are much simpler ways of delivering that
bhp. Stick with simple. Spend the extra on getting it set up properly.
Cheers
Lee
Lee,
For the uninitiated what are the "much simpler ways of delivering that bhp"?
Cheers
Chris
|
|
|
BigLee
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 01:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisL
Lee,
For the uninitiated what are the "much simpler ways of delivering that bhp"?
Cheers
Chris
Easy, use an engine that has 180-200bhp in the first place. 
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 01:57 PM |
|
|
If I don't do the supercharger option, my money would go towards a KL V6 conversion... not exactly a big increase in power, but a huge
improvement in sound!
|
|
|
ChrisL
|
| posted on 5/11/13 at 02:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigLee
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisL
Lee,
For the uninitiated what are the "much simpler ways of delivering that bhp"?
Cheers
Chris
Easy, use an engine that has 180-200bhp in the first place.
LOL I though it was a bit of an ask from an engine that puts out 130 to go to 180 without forced induction!!
I'm interested as I'm toying with the idea of building a locust\haynes based on a pre august 95(6?) 1.8 MX-5
|
|
|
raddish
|
| posted on 12/11/13 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigLee
Pre '94 makes the emissions easier, but they are relatively clean engines anyway. Mine was a '94 1600, with a turbo and no cat, and it
sailed through IVA.
I wouldn't want to purposely influence you as the choices you make now are all part of the process. When I got my chassis it was designed for
the 1600 as that engine has the reputation for free revving. I believe the chassis now allows the slightly larger 1800 diff as that was the sticking
spot. Talk to Marc.
If I were to do it again, I would go for a Eunos (not UK) car '94 1800 and keep it simple. If you turbo it, you'll spend more time
tickling the throttle mid bend than you will enjoying it. Plus the additional cooling/pipework for inter coolers etc really adds to the weight and the
overall cost. A 1.8 has larger brakes and clutch. I would consider a lightened flywheel though.
You will have more fun ringing out an 1800 (or even a straight forward 1600cc) than the headaches that come with a turbo install. Easy in an MX-5. Not
so easy (or relevant) in an MNR.
If you have any questions, just ask
Lee
Does the fact that the car is an import make any difference during the IVA process?
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 12/11/13 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
I really hope not, otherwise I'm screwed!!! 
The only problem I could see was that while the car was made in 92, and got a K plate as it came into the UK, it was imported in 2002 which according
to the V5 is the 'date of first use'. If the DVLA do their usual hash of things and try and register my car as a 2002 car, I won't
be able to pass the emissions.
If they use the 'date of manufacture' then I'll be fine.
I would also recommend an import, apart from there being far more of them, they are usually higher spec which either means more sales or better donor
parts. Electric windows for example might be useless on a donor, but they do fetch a decent price.
|
|
|
BigLee
|
| posted on 13/11/13 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
Does the fact that the car is an import make any difference during the IVA process?
I can only speak from my own experience, but I would say no. I don't believe the origin of the car is relevant, so long as you have paperwork
that matches the engine number with a date that favours the IVA emissions. In my case it was an oily V5 that the tester in Nottingham had a quick
glance at. Done.
I dare say you could get a '94 1800 MX5, officially change the engine number with the DVLA (conveniently for a much newer 1800cc engine
purchased from eBay - with receipt from reputable engine supplier) then use the V5 to prove the engine age. Or am I missing some detail?
Lee
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 13/11/13 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
If you're looking for a decent engine, I have a MK2.5 2005 1.8 VVT with 55k on it going spare and a choice of either a 5 or 6 speed box for it.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
