Welcome to the 2GNT Forum!
Home Site Background Info & Specs Mods & Tech Info CAPS Part Reviews Donate 2GNT Stickers
Search Printer-friendly copy 1 User in Chat
Top 2GNT Technical Performance/Engine topic #42813
View in linear mode

Subject: "rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4" Previous topic | Next topic
Amish_EclipseJan-26-03 01:28 PM
Old School 2GNTer
3026 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42813, "rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"


          

i'm still sittin here with a blown motor. i'm wondering what the differences in difficulty would be between rebuilding the 420a up and using everything from the head up on a reg. 2.0 vs using the same valve train on a 2.4 build.

from what i gather the 2.4 rebuild recquires using the 420a valve train to switch it to DOHC. in my case i just need a bottom end. so how much more difficult is building a 2.4 to drop in the clips than to rebuild a stock 2.0 and plop that in? i was reading about some conversion things and my head started spinning, partly because i don't know alot about building motors.

either way i will most likely be doing this with a book or a walkthrough printed off the net. i could get help from my dad, he's been a deisel mechanic for like 20years or more, but he doesn't talk to me much anymore.

advice?

http://www.ocaddict.com

thanks beefgg for the sig

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic

MotoFoolJan-26-03 08:47 PM
Member since Sep 08th 2002
2103 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42854, "RE: rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"
In response to Reply # 0


          

what are u going to do with the motor ? turbo or na?

the 2.4 swap includes swapping injectors usging 2.0 head, moving cam magnet swapping plug wires, custom oil pan, custom radiator hoses,custom passenger side mount

and a few other things...

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Amish_EclipseJan-27-03 06:28 AM
Old School 2GNTer
3026 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42880, "RE: rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"
In response to Reply # 1
Jan-27-03 07:00 AM by Amish_Eclipse

          

probably 10.0 -10.5:1 compression NA for awhile than maybe running low boost. same as i would with a regular 2.0 420a. i talked to gary about this setup on a 420a on his board and he said he's built a few high comp turboed motors and they came out well as long as you kept the boost at safe limits(below 10psi).

listing stuff i would need is all good but it doesn't help me cause i don't know what i would need to do for that. custom oil pan sounds like a PITA. hoses and stuff seems pretty easy. i can cut+bend some new ones easily or have my exhaust guy bend me some if i give him some mandrel bent peices. how hard are the cam magent and passenger sidemount things? swapping plug wires seems simple enough.

http://www.ocaddict.com

thanks beefgg for the sig

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Amish_EclipseJan-27-03 11:12 AM
Old School 2GNTer
3026 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42899, "RE: rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"
In response to Reply # 2


          

bump

http://www.ocaddict.com

thanks beefgg for the sig

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
MotoFoolJan-27-03 01:26 PM
Member since Sep 08th 2002
2103 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42909, "RE: rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"
In response to Reply # 3


          

u dont *need* the passanger side mount to drive around noone can provide pictures at the moment for that mount cause the only person that has it done does't have pics...

the swap isn't that hard search for topics on it on here ie listed everything a few times its a good list....

hit me on aim and i can help u out or msn messanger

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
WIKKIJan-27-03 03:56 PM
Donating 2GNT member
699 posts,
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#42919, "RE: rebuilding: 2.0 vs 2.4"
In response to Reply # 4




          

I would guess that you are going to do this yourself either way, right? so the question is... how much time are you willing to devote to this project? IMHO the 2.0 rebuild would be much more straight foreward, but if you are willing to risk some headaches (and intend to be doing a lot of modding ayway), the 2.4 will make all of those future mods yield much higher results.
you can do anything that you want, providing that you have lots of free time, but are you willing to spend it?

peace
WIKKI


THAT is not f**king THAT!
THIS is f**king THIS!

  

Report This Post to Admin Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Top 2GNT Technical Performance/Engine topic #42813 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 2.2
Copyright 1997-2005 DCScripts.com, Copyright 2005-2026 2gnt.com
Generated in 0.076 seconds, executing 24 queries.