hey guys can that engine be swaped into our 2GNT DSM with no problems ??.. That is what i read on DSMTUNERS on a forum i just wanted to make sure its true.

thanks

>hey guys can that engine be swaped into our 2GNT DSM with no
>problems ??.. That is what i read on DSMTUNERS on a forum i
>just wanted to make sure its true.
>
>thanks

since it probably hasn't even been done yet (that car just came out, and it's not even everywhere yet) that isn't a question that can be answered, only tried and then found out. and if someone said you could just swap it in with 'no problems' then they are full of shit, doesn't matter if the motor's were near identical (which they aren't) NO SWAP has 'no problems'.

Dude, that engine and turbo is TINY compared to ours. I've seen it first hand. It might go in, but I seriously doubt it would be worth it cost and effort wise.






Jaeson
'96 Eclipse RS

Looks:
APC Euro clear bumper lens
front grill
chrome front emblem
Razo carbon fiber pedals
carbon fiber gauge bezel

Performance:
Perma-Cool oil cooler
custom airbox
GS-T muffler

On The Way:
Kaminari GTR wing off Shauns NER Eclipse
Hurricane_GS front & rear lower tie bars
95-96 side skirts

Well, the shortblock would be all that you would be able to use. And, why spend all the money on a new motor like that when you can get the same block for cheap, and the same internals (or better) and be a bit better off financially? As for the ease factor of swapping in a 2.4, well, I am still working on that one.
-=B-=

ok. I hate to ass out on anybody. But there are 50,000 threads about engine swaps. THESE AREN'T CIVICS! we have a decent engine. You actually think an engine swap is cheap? NO, you have to fabricate motor mounts except for the 4G63, then you have to make sure you get EVERYTHING. for the $4,000 ballpark an engine, tranny, ecu swap usually costs, you could turbocharge your 420a and run strong.
There are so many options for our motor. If you have enough money to kill, do an engine swap. But for that same amount of money, you can have something better than another car's stock performance. Get a turbo kit. Not trying to be an ass. I am easy to get along with. I just know myself and a lot of others are tired of seeing threads about engine swaps. When 1 pops up, they pop up like wild fire and don't stop for 2 months.

I have argued for a couple engine swaps, saying that I would do them... But this one isn't worth it. The engine alone is going to cost you an arm and a leg...Maybe a few balls too. I mean, in this case if you think that engine is better then it would probably cost about the same to buy the car (not exactly) but still not worth it. Hey theres nothing wrong with being the second person to do somthing. Unless you are loaded, theres no reason. And to a certain extent I would agree with EclipzeGamer that the neon engine really isnt anything overly special. I would wait to see if its even worth probably around $10,000+.

Well, guys, as I post to those who don't read my posts... this is a 420a, not a whole lot different then our motor. Our ECU will drive this motor, and it will bolt up to our engine. This is not like swapping in a 4G63, or a rotary, or a 454. This qualifies as a (relatively) easy swap. Sure, I have had problems along the way, but they are all failry easily fixed. So don't jump on his back over this one, that motor is the same as was in the Stratus, Cirrus, Breeze, PT Cruiser, etc... To further simplify things, this motor will even accept the 2GNT head. Furthermore, the Neon guys have been swapping this block in for years. It takes them 6-15 hours. Granted they have a kit for it, but once there is a good writeup, it won't take us that much longer.
-=B-= <===== wondering if anyone actually reads my posts...

That turbo is a Mistu TD04LR the LR is for left rotation.

mmmm good! :-)

just send me that spare ya got there.. ill take real good care of it ;-)

damn that's a nice engine.

not to menchen.. that engine will soon OWN the road.. :-)

Hmm, damn that engine's gonna be a b!tch to work on in accessing the turbo! (it's going to be facing the firewall)

>Hmm, damn that engine's gonna be a b!tch to work on in
>accessing the turbo! (it's going to be facing the firewall)

just like any neon that has added a turbo to it.. but my question is.. after you add the turbo kit (initial install) how often to you actually need to access/play with the turbo? I wouldn't think it'd be that much so who cares if it's in the back, but I also don't have a turbo car, so I don't know.. that's why i'm asking.

doesn't look much smaller than the 420a IMO

That would be badass to have a valve cover that said TURBO...just a random dumb thought...

Don't flame the guy, it wasn't a stupid question.

I got your back Edgard!!! :)

OoOoOo that is pretty nice too bad it's for a neon can't just drop that sucka in :(

If anything you should probably just take the goodies its got on it and use it on our existing engines. What's soo good about this engine that it's better than ours? discplacement, valvetrain, etc...?

>OoOoOo that is pretty nice too bad it's for a neon can't
>just drop that sucka in :(
>
>If anything you should probably just take the goodies its
>got on it and use it on our existing engines. What's soo
>good about this engine that it's better than ours?
>discplacement, valvetrain, etc...?

I would guess that since it's factory turbo'd.. it'll have forged internals, possibly cams designed for FI, and be able to pass SMOG, hint hint hades.. hehe.
but those are all guesses.

i want that valve cover.
it has more displacement, better valvetrain, stronger internals, and problably a buncha other stuff.

since we can use the n/a 2.4 cams, we should be able to use the turbo 2.4 cams. only problem i see is still untested as far as i know, valve to piston clearance when using the 2g head with turbo 2.4 pistons.


btw bill, have you had any more progress with the swap?

Not my idea... just passing what I have heard.

Will that manifold not bolt on?? It makes sense that it would, being as how its the same head other than internal parts and reverse flow.

I highly doubt it has forged internals from the factory. If they need forged internals to run 205hp out of a turbo 2.4 liter I will be very dissapointed. The 4g63 uses cast internals can easily support 450 horsies.

This motor is a 2.4 with a good valvetrain, a better flowing head, strong cast internals, and a factory turbo. The manifold will bolt on with some creative drilling and a custom downpipe. Yes, it is still a 420a. Not, it won't just bolt on. Yes, we can use the rocker arms, the lifters, the valve springs, but not the cams. I just discovered that we cannot use the cams from the 2.4 in the 2.0, or the Neon cams in a 2GNT. The exhaust cam for us has the cam position sensor, but the intake cam for the 2.4 and the Neon has the cam position sensor. Therefore, the #6 cam cap is slightly wider, which prevents interchange. I was dissapointed to see this, as the intake cam on the 2.4 is really quite nice. Also, you need to time the motor with the valve cover off, so you can use the TDC dimples on the cams. The 2.4L cam gear timing marks are worthless for use with the 2.0 cams. The Cloud car/PT Cruiser valve cover fits, and sits lower, but you need to use the valve cover bolts from the 2.4, otherwise the bolts and studs will bottom out without pushing the valve cover against the head. Whoops! :D I have no knowledge about the 2.4L Turbo valve cover. It might bolt up, it might not. And it doesn't look smaller then the 420a, because it is a 420a! And it should look about an inch taller, an inch wider, and a half inch longer then a 420a, as it is a bigger 420a. :D Any by the way, there is no interference between the low dome 2.4L found in the '95-'99 2.4L 420a and the 2GNT valve train, at least, as far as I can tell. I have turned the motor over several times by hand, and have felt no interference.
Today's mission was to relocate the power steering
Tomorrow's mission is to shim the valve cover so that it presses onto the head because the bolts are too long for the 2.4L valve cover

-=B-=

Hey Bill, is the head you have bolted down and ready to go? I ask b/c if its just sitting there to mock it together, could you put some silly puddy in there and put the head on and check to see how far the valves are from interference? I'll have to look again to see how far up the low dome pistons sit in the cylinder as opposed to the new Turbo high dome pistons.

ya know.. i was thinking, and if you guys are worred about valve interference.. i'd be more worried about compression.. do you even know what the final compression ratio will be? cause compression ratio is based on stroke, cylinder 'domeing', and cylinder head shape.. as I'm sure you know.. so if you are going from a low dome piston with one head, to a high dome piston with the same head.. i'd be very worried about what compression ratio it's ending up with, especially since you are going to turbo it. any input or thoughts on this?

I am not worried too much about compression, as the piston sits lower at TDC then the 2.0 piston. I bet it evens out, as the combustion chamber of the 2.4 is the same shape and size as the 2.0. The head is long bolted up, so I can't viably stick silly putty in. The low dome will have no problem with interference, as long as you time the motor with the timing bosses that are on the camshafts. Both bosses should be facing up for TDC. Another thing, if you thought about using the intake cam off of the 2.4, don't. It doesn't bolt up, as the cam position sensor bolts to the end of it, and the last journal is wider on the 2.4 intake then it is on the 2.0 intake, and looks more like the 2.0 exhaust.
-=B-=