2.4L Hybrid Engine Buildup Live Cam [Archive] - DSM Forums: Mitsubishi Eclipse, Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon Forum: DSMtalk.com

: 2.4L Hybrid Engine Buildup Live Cam


kengsx
03-26-2003, 11:17 AM
This is the closest I can get to a live cam, and it's a work in progress link to Showdown Motorsports as they build my hybrid 2.4L. They have started with the basic pics of the 1990 g4cs Hyundai Sonata 2.4L long-block as-received with around 30,000 miles on it. Pictures and details will be posted on this website for the step by step process of building this block. I hope we can use this thread to post comments and gain insight about this project. After installation and tuning are complete I will post in part reviews, but for now I figure this is advanced enough to go in this forum as a working VFAQ.

Link (http://www.showdownmotorsports.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=211)

Backup Link (look for Tech Talk 2.4 DSM build) (http://www.showdownmotorsports.com/forum/)

Background:
My car is a 1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX and I was looking to swap in a 6-bolt 2L after my 7-bolt developed crankwalk and spun a rod bearing. I spoke with multiple shops about building me a forged internal engine, then read a lot of the posts about magnus and additional shops stroking their 4g63's or using a 4g64 or equivalent block for more displacement.

I ended up choosing to go the hybrid 2.4L route and haven't regretted it since. Bill Lowe is the man to contact if you have any detailed questions about procedures, however the intent of this thread and Showdown's website is to educate people about what is involved, and learn at the same time. What I'm not going to do is discuss costs, perhaps after this is all complete. I can tell you that Bill is performing a complete longblock build and assembly, and I am picking the engine up directly from his shop, hopefully the 2nd or 3rd week in April (my schedule constraints).

Planning Details (Block):
g4cs 2.4L block with ported and built 4g63 turbo head
8.5:1 forged custom Ross pistons and rings
156mm forged custom Eagle rods
Balance shaft elimination
New parts from dealership (front case, gears, bearings, gaskets, etc.)

Teardown, inspect, clean block
Core shift check (cylinder wall thickness)
Line hone mains
Deck block
Bore & Hone to 0.030" (2 step hone with torque stress plate)
Oil hole alignment
Chamfer crank oil holes, polish & re-nitride
Balance rotating assembly and assemble block

More details to come later.

Ken Young

MNGSX
03-26-2003, 07:32 PM
There is'nt anything on that link.

The engine I'm doing now is a 2.0. I might do something bigger or different later.

One drawback of a longer stroke is rod ratio. The relationship between rod length and stroke is imortant.

http://www.dunegoon.org/rod_ratio.html


1.64 ratio on 2.0

1.44 on a 2.4


I don't really even like the rod ratio of the 2.0.
It does meet the minimum recomendation of 1.6. It's better to have a ratio like 1.8 or something.

http://www.engineersedge.com/engine_formula_automotive.htm

MNGSX
03-26-2003, 07:43 PM
Ooh I forgot... Plug what you get for rod ratio from the first link into the formula for piston acceleration on the second site.

It's not pretty with a 1.44 rod ratio.


I just made a course measurement of a 1g big rod with a ruler. Its about 5.7. If anybody as exact specs or when my machinist takes the pistons off and has a measurement tool to measure something that long I'll maybe have a slightly different number.

kengsx
03-27-2003, 10:10 AM
Link works for me, it will bring you to page that is in progress showing the step by step process of a 2.4L hybrid build. So far there are 4 pics showing just the engine itself, but there will be more as they progress.

As far as details for why I or anyone would do this, that is more for other threads in the Advanced section. But that's a good point about the rod ratio and it is definitely brought up in those other threads (I was someone who posted about it, actually after looking so are you). Stock 2.0L rod length is 150mm and with a stroke of 88mm the ratio is 1.70. The most I can hope for with a 100mm stroke on this engine is a rod length of 156mm for a ratio of 1.56, which I am forced to live with and that's ok since I'm not revving her up past 8000rpm. I agree though, the higher the better, and if you have any ideas for my builder to extend the rod length even more (wrist pin placement, etc) then it might not be to late, definitely not too late for someone else.

Ken Young

Endless
03-27-2003, 05:07 PM
Theoretically 1.56 looks to be a terrible rod ratio. Pragmatically the domestic guys have been running rods ratio's that will make you cringe forever without problems. Just throw around some numbers for their strokers and see what you get. Then you will feel way better about your stroker. Marco has spun his to 9k with no problems. I say this because I am building one as well. Just waiting on a set of pistons from Marco. Updates can be found on my site. www.swordfishGSX.8m.com

jeff

flubyux2
03-30-2003, 12:03 PM
a 2.4 is a fine motor, especially if its a street car. it will build good torque, but it just wont have a high redline. which is OK, since the DSM tranny wont shift at super high RPM"s anyhow. So your better off building a motor w/ a 6000 redline than one w/ a 9000 redline.

then again, there are solutions to everything. a 2.4L motor can have its whole reciprocating assembly weight matched and balanced to the crankshaft counterweights so its a perfectly balanced motor. so you can get higher RPM's that way. which will allow you to stay in gear longer while accelerating, which means you can get more work done for the amount of time or something like that. being able to stay in a lower gear longer means you can have mechanical advanatges on your sider longer before having to shift into the next gear which your torque multiplication will suffer from.

But, John Shepherd builds his own trannies and shifts at about 8500 i think. and he uses stock gears and stock synchros...just his own special tricks that he adds to it in order to make it shift that high. so you could also get away w/ a high revving 2.0L also.

Just make sure they install oil squirters. itll help out alot especially w/ street driving.

btw, i knew Bill Lowe before he even opend "Showdown Motorsports". I was gonna buy a talon from him and he was tellin me about how he was gonna open this shop that he would work on DSM's with. i used to hang out there and talk w/ him all the time before i moved to fla. In fact, i used his lift to put in a new tranny from John shepherd and an ACT2600 while he was across the street drinkin w/ his wife Renee. bill is real easy to get along with, you just have to watch out for his wife when shes not in a good mood.

seoul power
04-01-2003, 05:26 PM
Would anything happen if you ran a 2.3 crank in a 2.4 engine? This would do what give it long rod 2.1 with the ability to rev really high? Or is this impossible. I'm looking forward to this buildup and thank you Showdown and Kengsx.

MNGSX
04-01-2003, 05:57 PM
Its the same crank. It's the bore difference.

Get a different crank.. Like 94mm stroke and run the tall deck 2.4 block. Then use pistons with the same pin height as a 2.3. Then you can run 162mm rods with a 94mm stroke. That would be a long rod 2.3 in a 2.4 block.

kengsx
04-02-2003, 08:38 AM
I need to get that link updated. Apparently they're moving to a larger server and revamping their website, so when and if the link changes I'll be on top of it. Right now its the same 4 pictures of the as-received block.

FYI, squirters are not being installed, but I feel ok about that since the pistons are forged not cast and they won't transmit the heat to the underside of the pistons anyway like a cast piston would. Several builders have spoken about clearance issues with the squirters and this problem will be avoided, as will any loss in oil pressure at higher rpms. i.e. I'd rather have the oil going elsewhere. Also it's not in my budget and I'd rather spend the money on other details.

I was informed by my builder that this particular block doesn't have a tapped hole for a knock sensor, so he will tap the block at the same location to accommodate it.

Also, I just got done reading some interesting information on break in procedures, and after doing some more thorough research and consulting my builder I will share it here.

Ken Young

Endless
04-02-2003, 06:24 PM
I'm curious as to what turbo you are going to be running. I have been leaning toward a T61 0 Trim or a T66 P trim on mine.

jeff

kengsx
04-02-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally I thought the more torque the better, but I've since decided against keeping my small 16G. Instead I've compromised between ludicrous speed spoolup and ultra flow. I had thought long and hard about the different turbos available, and almost bought a L2R or equivalent ball bearing turbo, but I decided against that since they haven't been proven in our cars (yet) and because I refuse to buy a turbo without a compressor map.

That said, I decided to keep the variables down, and I bought a trusty 20G. TD06 compressor side, ported and clipped TD05 turbine side. This way I can always upgrade if I need to but I can focus on making this engine work first.

I'm running this turbo with the DNP stainless equal length tubular header, a custom tubular o2 housing with dump returned into itself, and a Tial 40mm wastegate. After that it's a 3" mandrel downpipe, 3" high flow cat, followed by a 3" pressbent catback.

FMIC, HKS 264's, 750cc/min ball type injectors, AEM EMS (MAP), water injection. My head was just completed as I write this and is set up for street (mild port for torque & flow) which will match well with my ported short runner cyclone intake manifold.

On the subject of this web link, I'm meeting with my engine builder this Saturday. He's got a lot of ideas to share and I hope you bear with me on this thread.

Ken Young

MNGSX
04-02-2003, 07:29 PM
Keep us posted on those cams.

I'd think even 274's would be good. Our cars (obviously) have different cams for intake and exhaust which means we can, with the right gears, adjust not only advance or retard but lobe centerline (how much intake/exhaust overlap. The bigger displacement would tolerate longer duration. Dialing back bigger cams to concentrate for more midrange would be effective. We can degree in any way we want.

When I do my next engine I'll be doing 1g squirters. I'll be doing alot of work myself again. I'll come up with a solution to the clearance problem. I'll probably make spacers for them to move them lower for piston skirt clearance. DSM "Mountain motor" anyone? If I can get them to clear with what I'll have going on inside that second block nobody should have any problems on a 2.4.

flubyux2
04-03-2003, 06:45 PM
Ken, i figured Oil squirters would be a good idea, especially if this is going to be a street driven car. I know there are plenty of track-only cars running squirt-less motors...but they dont have to worry about extended heat, you know?

Forged pistons will carry as much heat as cast pistons. the problem is that they will expand MORE, since there are more aluminum and silicon molecules due to increased density. so there, in fact, would be MORE of a reason to install squirters to cool the pistons during long, hard use.

but like i said, if its track only, you dont need to worry about it. And if you have a motor with tight tolerances, you dont need high oil pressure. My 7MGTE supra motor is a perfect example: it runs 4-5 psi of oil pressure at Idle. Thats also the reason why New production cars specify the use of thinner oils; their tolerances are much tighter than the old days.

But, if your motor has a bunch of slack in the bearings, you would need extra oil pressure.

kengsx
04-03-2003, 09:08 PM
The link has been updated. My head is shown :D, and there will be updates soon on the shortblock.

flubyux2, have you seen the heat distribution of a forged piston vs a cast one? The forged piston doesn't transfer the heat nearly as much. I don't agree about the difference in density. Aluminum alloys cast or forged have no significant difference in density, it is a matter of grain structure and therefore strength and conductivity. I'm a materials engineer, please don't get me started;)

Ken

HYPED-1
04-04-2003, 12:14 AM
Im ahead of ken on this project. Im using the same block but its out of a 91 sonata instead. Ken the main problems you will have are drilling the coolant holes in the block for passage through the head. The 1st gen eagle rods for 90-92 eclipse 4g63 bolt up and work just fine with this motor. You will need to use the front case off of a 4g63 motor to get the hydraulic timing belt tensioner to work (there is no bolt hole for it on the g4cs one). Hmm what else can I tell you, oh, you will have to weld a bung for the knock sensor on the block somewhere. I welded a washer over a freeze plug that had the bung welded onto it and that seems to work fine. About oil squirters, you wont need them. The reason I say this is because of the longer stroke, the piston skirts quench themselves with oil at the bottom of each stroke. This is why the stock block doesnt have them in the first place. The stock pistons are forged believe it or not and end up with a compression ratio of 8.4 to 1 with the dohc head on the g4cs block. Alls I need to do now is take a week off of work so I can install the dang thing. If you have any questions about the build up just as I did when I was building it up (I had no one to turn to on the build, just did what I thought was best) email me at hyped1@attbi.com Btw this is my first mitsubishi engine build. My dad was a 27 year honda veteran mechanic and I just changed over to the awd eclipse in 2001 december. All my engine building I learned from him, that plus the fact that I have a mad attention defecit disorder that makes my mind active 25 hours a day which really speeds up the whole process of an engine build HEHE! Anyways I will check back to this thread now and again to see how things are going. Regards, Sean

kengsx
04-04-2003, 12:56 PM
Ken the main problems you will have are drilling the coolant holes in the block for passage through the head.

I wasn't aware of that one. The sonata block has the same hole pattern as the 4g63 head, it's the galant block that has extra holes. What are these missing holes you refer to? Thanks for the heads up either way.

Ken

HYPED-1
04-04-2003, 01:18 PM
Ken lay the stock head gasket under a 4g63 head gasket. You will see what Im talking about. Also lay the g4cs head gasket on the head you are going to use you will see the holes it blocks. If you dont drill holes your head will warp in about 500 miles (i learned the hard way). Once the head warps your engine is useless as you pry already know. I used a metal 4g63 head gasket on this hybrid motor and it seems to work just fine. This isnt as plug and play as a project as you or I first thought. Regards, Sean

kengsx
04-04-2003, 05:23 PM
FYI, I'm using a 4g63 3 layer mitsu metal head gasket, same one quoted in the other posts. It has to be machined out slightly to accommodate the larger bores.

I spoke to the engine builder. All the cooling holes are a perfect fit on the 4g63 head and the g4cs head. Give me a chance to check the block as well, but this tells me they are the same and pics will follow to show if this is true or false.

Ken

HYPED-1
04-04-2003, 08:22 PM
Trust me you will see the block needs a few more coolant holes.

knockedoutawd
04-05-2003, 01:09 AM
So you're saying a G4CS 6-bolt block needs to have coolant holes drilled into it??? Why havent I heard about this before...

Ill check my block and head out tomorrow to double check this.

HYPED-1
04-05-2003, 08:12 AM
Yes thats exactly what Im saying. Look at the block especially near the water pump. There are 2 holes that need to be drilled directly above where the water pump mtes to the block. Check it out you will see.

flubyux2
04-05-2003, 08:30 PM
Forged aluminum is denser than cast. Im quite sure that when you place a piece of aluminum in an 80,000 ton press, the molecules get a LITTLE closer together yeilding a higher Mass per volume (Gram Per CC). And in turn, it changes the grain pattern, as does heat treatment...like case hardening does to a deisel engine block. Denser materials retain heat more readily and longer than less dense materials. Thats why Hawaiians can walk on a fire pit covered with Lava rocks (fire walker) but not if the rocks were Granite. The overall density of the lava rock is less than granite due to the air pockets and the fact its not as tight a grain structuer as granite is.

Course, then again, i dont know everyting...

Crankwalker
04-07-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by HYPED-1
Ken lay the stock head gasket under a 4g63 head gasket. You will see what Im talking about. Also lay the g4cs head gasket on the head you are going to use you will see the holes it blocks. If you dont drill holes your head will warp in about 500 miles (i learned the hard way). Once the head warps your engine is useless as you pry already know. I used a metal 4g63 head gasket on this hybrid motor and it seems to work just fine. This isnt as plug and play as a project as you or I first thought. Regards, Sean

Knockedoutawd asked me about this in another thread today. I raise the B.S. flag all the way on this one, more internet mis-information is all this is.

These hybrids aren't a new concept in the last year or so, people have had them for years and just kept quiet. In the 6-bolt versions I'm not sure how much more plug and play you could want.

I'll stick my neck out and say I probably have more hybrids out than any other vendor, some of my early customers are approaching 10,000 miles already, where are the problems? I haven't had anyone with any issue of any kind.

Crankwalker
04-07-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by flubyux2
Ken, i figured Oil squirters would be a good idea, especially if this is going to be a street driven car. I know there are plenty of track-only cars running squirt-less motors...but they dont have to worry about extended heat, you know?

Forged pistons will carry as much heat as cast pistons. the problem is that they will expand MORE, since there are more aluminum and silicon molecules due to increased density. so there, in fact, would be MORE of a reason to install squirters to cool the pistons during long, hard use.

but like i said, if its track only, you dont need to worry about it. And if you have a motor with tight tolerances, you dont need high oil pressure. My 7MGTE supra motor is a perfect example: it runs 4-5 psi of oil pressure at Idle. Thats also the reason why New production cars specify the use of thinner oils; their tolerances are much tighter than the old days.

But, if your motor has a bunch of slack in the bearings, you would need extra oil pressure.

Piston coatings can totally eliminate the need for squirters on a daily driver. With the right coating you'll keep the dome from absorbing as much heat so your piston runs cooler. Not only are you running cooler you make more power because the combustion chamber efficiency skyrockets.

Then you can coat the bottom inside / internal area to make it as slick as snot. The oil spends less time on the bottom of the piston and doesn't get as hot. Result is you'll get cooler oil more frequently. They get oil splash even without squirters.

kengsx
04-07-2003, 01:16 PM
Denser materials retain heat more readily and longer than less dense materials.

That's true but the whole point of this discussion is to see why oil squirters are really necessary if forged pistons are used. I maintain that more heat will exit out of the cylinder to the turbo with forged pistons but it won't be a lot (much less than say using a ceramic coating). Since the piston is forged the grain structure is more refined and thus is stronger and more resistant to detonation. But there is no density change, and there is also no stiffness change. Some properties do not change if you strain harden them (i.e. forging, rolling, extruding...).

Originally posted by flubyux2
[B]Im quite sure that when you place a piece of aluminum in an 80,000 ton press, the molecules get a LITTLE closer together yeilding a higher Mass per volume (Gram Per CC). And in turn, it changes the grain pattern, as does heat treatment...

I'll say right off the bat that it is possible for a forging to be more dense than a casting but for two different reasons. One is that the alloy makeup might be different, i.e. more magnesium in a casting will bring down the overall alloy density. But we're talking less than a half a percent here.

The other is defects, but this is where the conversation gets hairy and we should take it offline. Fact of the matter is that forgings start their life out as castings. They are pressed into a shape and will "barrel" out. Or if the volume of the mold is smaller than the amount of material put into it, the extra material will squeeze out and that flash gets cut off. But the density doesn't change. Defects occur when strain hardening the metal, but they are there to strengthen the metal (defects prevent other defects from moving type of thing). A row of defects can be seen as a grain in metal, this is why smaller grains are stronger. That is what a forging does, it decreases grain size, and aligns grains in a preferred direction (sort of like why carbon fiber parts are stronger in selected directions).

You can stretch or compress a bond, but the bulk of the material will move to accommodate the change. It's hard to realize but if you take a 3" cube of aluminum and hit it with a hammer to make a 0.1" square indent, it doesn't get denser. The sides of the cube will just be 3.00005" to accommodate the indent (barely even measurable). That has to be machined off if large enough, or just close enough tolerance wise.

I would love to talk about this more, but on another thread please. Unless you have a counter why eliminating oil cooling the bottom of a forged piston will make it any less durable.

Ken Young

flubyux2
04-07-2003, 01:29 PM
Ken i totally understand. we are taking the forging process and making it too involved. I agree w/ you and i know waht you are saying.

I wasnt sure if piston coatings (silk screened or sprayed) were gonna be used. i dont think i saw it mentioned earlier thats why i was raising a concern. But hey, if your gonna put some ceramic coating on the crown, and teflon? on the skirts and more ceramic on the bottom of the piston, that ought to totally alleviate the necessity of oil squirters. Cuz that coating on the crown will really change everything. Now i understand where you are coming from; Ceramic coating the pistons and leaving out the oil squirters to make a safer margin of error and increase oil volume. im all for that :D.

Keith black has been using teflon coatings that are silk-screen applied to his hyperutectic pistons. Im not sure if anyone would wanna run that on a serious motor or not. Ive never been comfortable w/ Teflon coatings or additives in my engine. But if its ALL teflon composed (like valve seals) then thats ok... just not comfortable w/ the possibility of teflon shavings coming off and clogging small oil orifices, you know? Its supposed to reduce piston scuffing on the skirts though. has anyone had any first-hand experience w/ these types of coating applications?

I am actually interested in finding out some more info on the other ceramic coating on the piston crowns. I think its also supposed to reduce the carbon build-up too. It makes the surface pretty smooth. good for the underside of the piston too. if the surface under the piston is smoother, then the thinner the coating of oil will be, and the higher the sheer-strength, and less reciprocating weight. Someone let me know if im out of line on any of this :)

talonted_one
04-07-2003, 02:39 PM
Well guys I too am doing this swap, but I haven't even started. For the most part I have just been doing research on the project. So any helpful hints would be awesome. One thing is that I am not a rich man since my car hates me, so any hwlp would be very nice.

knockedoutawd
04-07-2003, 02:45 PM
I chose to leave out oil quirters and just get the piston tops ceramic coated...
http://www.cse.ca/darko/shortblock2.jpg

Do you guys have any ideas about how long these coatings hold up in a daily driven car? I know they should be resprayed once in a while but I havent heard any numbers as far as mileage goes.

Oh and thanks for clearing up the G4CS hole-drilling thing Crankwalker, you've been a great help to those of us doing 2.4L buildups. Thanks!

flubyux2
04-07-2003, 03:23 PM
Id just liek to correct myself:

earlier i had mentioned piston skirt coatings as being Teflon. They are not, they are Molybdenum-Graphite blends that are silkscreened onto the skirts.

Also, here is a page of FAQ that regard piston coatings on a specific company's website. It addresses the question about the life of the ceramin/metallic coatings.

Coating FAQ (http://www.dicustomcoatings.com/benefits.html)

check out that shizzle...

Crankwalker
04-07-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by knockedoutawd
Do you guys have any ideas about how long these coatings hold up in a daily driven car? I know they should be resprayed once in a while but I havent heard any numbers as far as mileage goes.

If the coatings are applied correctly and the part was prepped correctly they should last far longer than the part they are applied to.

To recoat you'll need to remove any previous coatings, run through the entire prep process or the coating will fail very quickly. I fix so much stuff done by other places from bad prep work.

flubyux2
04-07-2003, 04:31 PM
Crankwalker (can i call you Luke Crankwalker? :D) you make it sound like you do cermet coatings... How much does it typically cost to do the full treatment on the pistons? and how long does it take to perform the work?

Crankwalker
04-07-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by flubyux2
Crankwalker (can i call you Luke Crankwalker? :D) you make it sound like you do cermet coatings... How much does it typically cost to do the full treatment on the pistons? and how long does it take to perform the work?

You're right I offer those coatings, my web site is linked on that www button on each of my posts. Prices will be deleted by the moderators so shoot me an e-mail directly.

HYPED-1
04-07-2003, 07:11 PM
I dont care how many of these engines you have out. Have any of them used the g4cs bottom end?? There are coolant holes you have to drill to provide coolant to the head. Trust me on this I emailed pics to ken. He knows the deal. Regards, Sean

knockedoutawd
04-07-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by HYPED-1
I dont care how many of these engines you have out. Have any of them used the g4cs bottom end?? There are coolant holes you have to drill to provide coolant to the head. Trust me on this I emailed pics to ken. He knows the deal. Regards, Sean

http://www.powderblastco.com/hybrid.htm

G4CS is all he uses as far as I can tell... Ill post the pics you sent me in a few minutes so everyone can see.

knockedoutawd
04-07-2003, 07:27 PM
These are the pics HYPED1 sent me. This is a 4G63 headgasket laid over-top a G4CS gasket from what I understood...

http://members.rogers.com/darko/cap1.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/darko/cap2.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/darko/cap3.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/darko/cap4.jpg

HYPED-1
04-07-2003, 07:28 PM
Ken post the pics of the head gasket on the block. Thanks, Sean

Crankwalker
04-07-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by HYPED-1
I dont care how many of these engines you have out. Have any of them used the g4cs bottom end?? There are coolant holes you have to drill to provide coolant to the head. Trust me on this I emailed pics to ken. He knows the deal. Regards, Sean

Hyped-1, can you explain to me why the holes are needed? This isn't to argue with you, if you know something factual then educate me and the others.

Coolant circulates through the head and block at the same rate with or without the holes.

Not having the holes doesn't starve coolant from that end of the head. It also doesn't starve coolant on that end of the block.

HYPED-1
04-07-2003, 08:39 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. I just thought it would be an issue since heads warp when they arent cooled properly.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:17 AM
I took some pictures of the different 6-bolt 2.0L and 2.4L blocks as well as the 2.0L head and head gasket to show the coolant passage differences between them. Hopefully it makes more sense than looking at just the head gaskets.

The numbered passage holes remain the same number from picture to picture so things don't get confusing. So 1 will always be 1 and so on.


http://www.powderblastco.com/images/4G63_HEAD_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This picture is of a 1g 4g63 cylinder head. Four different coolant holes are outlined, 1 and 2 are unique to the 2.0L blocks while 3 and 4 are unique to the 2.0L cylinder head and head gasket. That's correct 3 and 4 are missing from the 2.0L and 2.4L blocks. Mitsubishi has already seen fit to block off some coolant passages on the 2.0L 4g63 engine.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:24 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/4G63_HEAD_-_GASKET_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This is the same picture as above but it has the 2.0L head gasket laying on top. You can see the gasket has provisions for all four coolant holes but 3 and 4 are blocked off on the 2.0L and 2.4L blocks.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:26 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.0_BLOCK_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This picture is a 6-bolt 2.0L 4g63 block. You can see the coolant holes numbered 1 and 2 will match up with the 2.0L cylinder head and head gasket while 3 is blocked off and doesn't match up with the head and head gasket. You can see the residue from the head gasket where the coolant passage should be located on 3.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:28 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.0_BLOCK_-_GASKET_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This picture is the same as above but has the 2.0L gasket laying on top. Again 1 and 2 match the gasket while 3 doesn't match the head or gasket on the 2.0L or 2.4L blocks.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:30 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.0_BLOCK_MISSING_COOLANT_HOLE.jpg

This picture shows another missing coolant hole between cylinders 3 and 4 on a 2.0L block. The 2.0L head and head gasket both have provisions for this coolant passage. Again you can see the gasket residue where the coolant passage should be.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:31 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.4_BLOCK_MISSING_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This picture shows the 2.4L block and the missing coolant holes labeled 1,2,and 3 in the previous 2.0L pictures. 1 and 2 are the most commonly discussed missing holes. Holes 1 and 2 are found in the 2.0L head, head gasket, and block. Hole 3 is not found in either 2.0L or 2.4L block.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:33 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.4_BLOCK_MISSING_COOLANT_HOLE.jpg

This picture shows the 2.4L block and the missing coolant hole between cylinders 3 and 4. This hole is found in the 2.0L head and head gasket but not the 2.0L block.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:34 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.4_BLOCK-2.0GASKET_MISSING_COOLANT_HOLES.jpg

This picture is the 2.4L block with a 2.0L head gasket laying on top. You can see the missing coolant passages in the block that are found in the 2.0L head and head gasket. Remember hole 3 is not found in either of the 2.0L or 2.4L blocks.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:36 AM
http://www.powderblastco.com/images/2.4_BLOCK-2.0GASKET_MISSING_COOLANT_HOLE.jpg

This picture shows the 2.4L block and the missing coolant hole between cylinders 3 and 4. Again this is also missing on the 2.0L block but is present on the 2.0L head and head gasket.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 12:37 AM
As you can see the factory 2.0L block, head, and head gasket combination has mismatches between the coolant passages. The 2.4L has the same mismatches between the cylinder walls and it's missing 2 small holes over the water pump area. This is not a big issue and you do not need to drill them out, they do not affect the coolant circulation or create hot spots in the motor. For the most part these holes are simply return passages from the head to the block, many other passages exist to take care of this.

kengsx
04-08-2003, 01:13 AM
Thanks Crankwalker.

Ken

knockedoutawd
04-08-2003, 01:17 AM
Thanks, that explains everything very clearly :)

Every time a new rumor pops up about some "issue" with the 2.4L I cringe and hope its nothing major... I think Im just gonna seal the motor and stop reading these threads!!!

GrocMax
04-08-2003, 06:48 PM
Those 2 holes everyone is debating about are only useful for the SOHC heads. It all depends on which way coolant flows thru the head to the thermostat housing as to whether the block gets drilled in one place or another.

Crankwalker- Yeah, it would be safe to say you are stretching your neck pretty thin with that statement ;)

GrocMax
04-08-2003, 07:07 PM
I'd even go as far as saying trying to out-engineer the factory and drill matching holes in the DOHC head would be detrimental, not beneficial- look closely at the coolant flow thru the various RWD/FWD, DOHC/SOHC blocks and heads.
By drilling the DOHC to match those holes makes a significant portion of the coolant bypass straight out the t-stat instead of flowing thru the head where it is needed.

Moral- Measure twice, cut once.

HYPED-1
04-08-2003, 07:27 PM
Pay attention we are talking aobut the block not the head duh! Anyways on to the next matter to deal with. Which timing belt tensioner are you using with this setup?? I was going to swap over the 4g63 front case so i could use the hydraulic tensioner rather than the spring loaded one.

Crankwalker
04-08-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by HYPED-1
Pay attention we are talking aobut the block not the head duh! Anyways on to the next matter to deal with. Which timing belt tensioner are you using with this setup?? I was going to swap over the 4g63 front case so i could use the hydraulic tensioner rather than the spring loaded one.

Hyped-1, your comment to GrocMax is a little out of line. You were just spoon fed the technical answer by one of the true elite members of the DSM community.

I'm also a little confused about the stuff you have been posting. I allowed myself to assume some things and piece together some information. I assumed you had already done the hybrid conversion since you were talking about warping your head when you didn't drill the coolant holes in the block. Did you already attempt this conversion?

Now I see you are asking about the tensioner, all of the answers you need are in that other long thread on this board. You should read through it closely. No point in two threads with the same info, actually this coolant hole discussion should be in that thread as well.

GrocMax
04-08-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by HYPED-1
Pay attention we are talking aobut the block not the head duh!

I can guarantee you I've paid more attention than 99% of y'all. Of course this doesn't exlude me from being info-dyslexic ;)

HYPED-1
04-08-2003, 10:06 PM
My bad sorry grocmax. Stressful week trying to gather parts and piece together information. About the coolant holes. I was relating that to my past frankensteins with honda motors. This is my first frankenstein mitsu buildup. I was applying the knowledge from honda motors to mitsu motors and obviously they are far from the same. Coolant holes are a priority in honda engines. 2 warped heads on supercharged crvtec and I learned my lesson. That is what my big concern is for this buildup. Didnt mean to step on any toes.

BICTURBO
04-09-2003, 02:12 AM
Im so jealous of all you guys with working 2.4s. I'm so tired of this project right now I have to give it a rest for a couple weeks so I dont loose my job over it. Today was one of those days where you spend all day trying to fix one little thing...

92gvr4#333
04-09-2003, 10:30 PM
as far as the holes in the block I am just matching whatt the 4G63 gasket has to what is missing on the G64B block that I am using...right now I am waiting for the oistons to come in so I can assemble at the machine shop

kengsx
04-11-2003, 10:34 PM
I'll have to admit that I'm still undecided about ceramic coating the pistons. I understand the pros of having it done, but I also question whether it's worth it unless you have the entire combustion chamber done (valves, bowls). Fact of the matter is that it would be nice to have, but not necessary unless you're on the hairy edge. I intend to tune to zero knock, and I'm not looking for extremely high boost either. Unless somebody can also convince me that for piston longevity at a near zero knock environment would necessitate the ceramic coating. And at any environment the thermal efficiency will be higher, but again I don't think that it would be significant until you coat everything.

And how much friction improvement can be had with a molybdenum coating? I see that Nissan is using and even advertising it for the maxima.

Ken

Crankwalker
04-12-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by kengsx
I'll have to admit that I'm still undecided about ceramic coating the pistons. I understand the pros of having it done, but I also question whether it's worth it unless you have the entire combustion chamber done (valves, bowls). Fact of the matter is that it would be nice to have, but not necessary unless you're on the hairy edge. I intend to tune to zero knock, and I'm not looking for extremely high boost either. Unless somebody can also convince me that for piston longevity at a near zero knock environment would necessitate the ceramic coating. And at any environment the thermal efficiency will be higher, but again I don't think that it would be significant until you coat everything.

And how much friction improvement can be had with a molybdenum coating? I see that Nissan is using and even advertising it for the maxima.

Ken

You're only looking at one benefit of using the coating. The piston gets hot no matter how good you tune. Parts that run hot don't live as long. Your combustion chamber works more efficiently.

That coating offers increased reliability and some horsepower.

Bigfoot
04-14-2003, 04:52 PM
One more consideration. Cast pistons need to heat up and expand. BJ's said the coating might change the operating diameter, and was against it. I'm going with water/alc injection in part to reduce carbon buildup and the resulting detonation. I'm still coating the manifold to help spool though.

kengsx
04-14-2003, 05:59 PM
Did you mean to say a forged piston needs to heat up and expand? ...

Ken

Bigfoot
04-14-2003, 06:43 PM
Yes, I am a tool. Note to self, proofread posts.

kengsx
04-15-2003, 09:43 PM
But your point might be a good one. If the ceramic coating is doing its job of keeping heat away from the forged piston then it might not expand properly. I've read different opinions about the content of J&E vs Ross pistons and how J&E expands a lot more, and Ross a lot less. However, forged pistons do expand more than cast pistons, and a thermal barrier may inhibit expansion at operating temperature. That would be a problem.

Would anyone like to counter this?

You're only looking at one benefit of using the coating. The piston gets hot no matter how good you tune. Parts that run hot don't live as long. Your combustion chamber works more efficiently.

I agree with that, it's just a matter of how much and whether it's significant. Any information on comparisons, before and after, where someone measured more horsepower with the coating than without, and found that the pistons were in better shape?

Ken Young

kengsx
04-17-2003, 11:17 AM
I'll take this one step further. If a ceramic coating is applied to a forged piston top, then the piston to wall clearance must decrease to make up for the reduced piston expansion. On a ross piston, 0.0035-0.005" would be a standard "tight" clearance. I've read articles about coatings that suggest a coated piston can be run as tight as 0.0015", but is that cast only or does that also apply to a dimensionally stable forged brand like Ross too?

Ken Young

flubyux2
04-20-2003, 11:40 AM
i agree w/ the pistons running cooler. This does allow to run tighter piston-to-wall clearances. So yea, the forged pistons wont expand as much...well, any piston wont expand as much as before. Its just matter of figuring out HOW much less it will expand and how much tighter you can make the clearances.

Its true, itll get hot regardless, but the heat radiating from the flame front will be reflected back up into the combustion chamber more readily than before. Before, the heat of combustion was absorbed more quickly, which quenches the flame front and reduces your combustion chamber efficiency...and costs you some power. im sure you all know WHY it would cost you power and i dont need to go into a discussion or description.

kengsx
04-27-2003, 09:19 PM
The pistons, main and rod bearings are being sent to Swaintech for coatings. Gold coat on the piston tops, PC-9 molybdemum-graphite on the side skirts, and whatever their flavor is for the bearings. The machinist has to now take the 0.0007" thickness of the skirt coating into account for the final honing step, and we are setting the piston to wall clearance at 0.0035".

Neither my engine builder or myself wanted fluff to be posted, so as soon as these parts get coated there will be an update to the page. A slow live cam, but at least it's progress. And I'm glad we're taking the time to do things right the first time.

Ken Young

MNGSX
04-28-2003, 12:05 AM
Sounds like your going to have a kick ass motor when you are done!

flubyux2
04-28-2003, 11:46 AM
make sure you have him use a NEW crank. the last several G63's bill has built have failed. no one realized then that the G63 cranks couldnt be turned, but they were... so after engine break-in, rod knock showed up and the crank rod journals were destroyed but the bearings were still good. we all thought it was the machinists fault, but i recently found out that the cranks cant be turned down...Doh. Live and learn.

kengsx
04-28-2003, 11:49 AM
The crank is not being turned, just polished, then re-nitrided.

Thanks for the concern.

Ken

flubyux2
04-28-2003, 04:57 PM
:rockon: 10-4 good buddy. cant wait to hear some more about it. what is the piston clearance supposed to be w/ forged pistons and NO skirt coatings?

also, what are you setting the ring gaps at? Did you find out if Total Seal makes any Gap-less rings for our cars??? i would love to use a set on our car.

kengsx
04-29-2003, 12:45 AM
Both Bill and the machinist said 0.004" without a coating. That jives well with the 0.0005-0.001" change and the "never go below 0.0035" rule of thumb.

Ken

centxdsm
05-10-2003, 10:55 AM
Any more updates?

kengsx
05-10-2003, 01:05 PM
I've been told there is a 2 week turn-around for swain-tech, so I'm looking at 1 week past that until it's done (end of May). Unfortunately, I can't pick up the engine that weekend so it will have to wait another week, but pictures should start rolling along once the pistons are back.

Their forum is down therefore our access to the pictures is temporarily cut short.

Ken

ChrisAWD
05-24-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by flubyux2
:rockon: 10-4 good buddy. cant wait to hear some more about it. what is the piston clearance supposed to be w/ forged pistons and NO skirt coatings?

also, what are you setting the ring gaps at? Did you find out if Total Seal makes any Gap-less rings for our cars??? i would love to use a set on our car.

Hmmm...i'm curious about my build now. I'm using ross in a "regular" 2.0 buildup. anyway I had my piston clearance set to .006 per Ross's reccomendations. Also, I've heard BAD news about the gapless in our cars, a local guy in NJ used them and had bad leakdown almost immediately. went back to moly/cast and was fine.

no arguments hear that they are great in domestic applications.

quicktim
05-25-2003, 11:54 AM
i am not a big fan of gapless rings because the small ring that creates the gapless effect is chrome faced not moly coated. if you guys know rings chrome faced rings seal well but will cause you to burn oil alot. just give me a good set of moly faced file to fit rings any day. oh and did you every read gapless rings instructions they tell you to put a restrictor in the pvc tube because of the increase in blow by.

flubyux2
05-25-2003, 12:40 PM
Gapless=blowby??? wtf... doesnt taht kind of defeat the whole concept/premise of gapless rings?? :dunno:

i guess go back to teh drawing board and stick w/ plasma-moly rings...

Maybe theres just a special trick to installing gapless rings properly and they werent doing it right. who knows... i never used them, only file to fit rings... thats why i was interested to see how they turn out.

MNGSX
05-25-2003, 01:54 PM
They have increased cylinder wear.

Rings have gaps because when they get hot they expand.

Gapless rings overlap does not alow as much freedom for expansion.

The overlap ends are also thin not a good thing for the top ring in a forced induction engine.

kengsx
05-25-2003, 03:07 PM
Good and bad news, bad first. Ross messed up on one of the piston geometries, luckily it was found and they've been sent back as a rush job. Swain-tech will also be rushing the new pistons through, so hopefully I can still pick this thing up as planned. I'll know soon after the holiday weekend.

The good news is that the connecting rod length is nice and long, and my rod ratio will not be a concern as many have been theorizing. More details on that later, after I get more information, but I am very happy about this news. 100mm stroke with no loss in revving capability over the 2.0L configuration.

Ken

quicktim
05-25-2003, 05:56 PM
how long of a rod are you going? i was considering going with a 155 mm rod for mmy build up but now i decided to stay stock and see how it turns out. i wouldn't push that wrist pin up too high.
for the gapless rings, if i remember correctly that they cause a good increase in crankcase pressure so you end up blow more oil through the pcv. what i do know about them is that i never seen any motor run to it full potental with them installed.

flubyux2
05-26-2003, 01:00 PM
how can you run a longer rod and not have rod ratio/piston pin angle problems?

wont you run into issues w/ excessive side to side loading w/ exteme rod angles caused by longer rod length/stroke?

kengsx
05-26-2003, 03:23 PM
longer rod length/stroke gives you better rod ratios and less piston side wall loading. The trick is the piston design.

155mm too long? 156mm with a 2.4L hybrid puts you at the same wrist pin location (extra 6mm deck). I need to wait for more information before I post it here, but apparently my builder and his machinist figured out how to get the other 14mm.

Ken

quicktim
05-26-2003, 03:48 PM
the only thing i get not grasp is the fact of how thin your ring lands will be. unless you destroke the crank and have a small 2.4
you would almost need to install a deck plate to get that much but they cost $$$$. i would not shot for perfect rod ratio of 1.7 becasue you will end having more power up top with the longer dwell time of the piston at tdc. if you get a nice balance between a 1.49 lowest i would go and the ideal 1.7 high reving motor. i eould center around a 1.58 to 1.6 for a good all around street motor. oh i didn't think a 155 is to long i just decided not to deal with getting custom pistons and rods made. if the stock set up does not work well, i will end up ordering the stuff and then pull the motor back apart. the reason i figure to try the stock shorter rod becasue of some of the v8 strocker motors that have the worst rod angles/piston speeds/side loading/everything else that can be associated with a short rod and these are some of the most successfull motors used in a street/strip set up.
just my 2 cents

kengsx
09-05-2003, 01:28 PM
I'll revive this thread temporarily. There are some things about this engine that unfortunately can't be shared right now, which kind of defeats the purpose of an open discussion. Go ahead and say it, this is the worst "real time" post ever. But that's the way prototypes are. There are several features about this that have not been done before, and once settled and proven they will be shared here as much as possible. There's a question about the ring positions because of the extended rod length, and part of this development will include dyno testing to failure to determine durability.

In the mean time, they are being very accomodating, in that I was sent a temporary 2.0L race engine until the 2.4L is ready. I'll post an update as soon as it is appropriate.

Ken Young

Endless
09-05-2003, 05:52 PM
Here are a few shots of my completed 4G64 156mm Pauter rod shortblock.

Top View (http://swordfishgsx.8m.com/cgi-bin/i/4G64/shortblock1.jpg)
Another (http://swordfishgsx.8m.com/cgi-bin/i/4G64/shortblock2.jpg)
Bottom (http://swordfishgsx.8m.com/cgi-bin/i/4G64/shortblock3.jpg)
Lots 0 grinding (http://swordfishgsx.8m.com/cgi-bin/i/4G64/shortblock4.jpg)

In the above photo, it shows just how much work it is to clearance my longer 156mm Pauter rods. Dont be fooled by an earlier post. The standard 150mm Pauter is also a bitch to clear as well. The extra 6mm makes the beam hit more severely than the standard rod.

Here (http://swordfishgsx.8m.com/cgi-bin/i/4G64/pauter4.jpg) is a shot of the rods.

jeff

TellschAWD
09-11-2003, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Endless

In the above photo, it shows just how much work it is to clearance my longer 156mm Pauter rods. Dont be fooled by an earlier post. The standard 150mm Pauter is also a bitch to clear as well. The extra 6mm makes the beam hit more severely than the standard rod.

jeff

Looks good buddy - glad all the hard work has paid off!

Brian

flubyux2
09-11-2003, 08:27 AM
damn, good thing you dont have oil squirters... with that much grindnig on a 2.0, you would damn near punch into the oil galley... :eek:

Well, i hope Bill and Renee' do a good job, this is a high profile project.

kengsx
09-11-2003, 08:31 AM
There's definitely a difference in rod geometry between Eagle and Pauter, but they're working through that. Ideally they'll be no grinding.

Endless, what kind of rod to block clearance did you achieve after grinding? There's rod stretch and expansion to consider.

Ken

flubyux2
09-11-2003, 09:23 AM
[quote]Endless, what kind of rod to block clearance did you achieve after grinding? There's rod stretch and expansion to consider. [quote]

the only rod stretch i know of problems with is when billet aluminum rods are used. As far as i know, Steel or nodular iron rods have negligible stretch.

kengsx
09-11-2003, 09:28 AM
I'm not talking about plastic deformation (permanent), I'm talking elastic (non-permanent)., So the faster you spin the motor, the more deflection you'll have even with steel I presume. It might be small, but every thousandths counts.

Ken

flubyux2
09-11-2003, 10:07 AM
yea, i know. i wasnt talkin about exceding the plastic-limits of the metal of the rod. Steel or Iron rods are not known for issues w/ rod stretch and really arent even taken into consideration when building motors... at least, not to the point that Billet Aluminum rods are.

It has something to do w/ the elastic Modulus of specific metals, and how ferrous/Iron metals are more rigid and wont stretch like aluminum rods will. but im not talkin about past their plastic limit, i just mean in general during normal operation

Endless
09-11-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by kengsx
There's definitely a difference in rod geometry between Eagle and Pauter, but they're working through that. Ideally they'll be no grinding.

Endless, what kind of rod to block clearance did you achieve after grinding? There's rod stretch and expansion to consider.

Ken

We made sure that there was plenty of clearance so that even if I spin a rod bearing, the rod wont be whacking the block.

Once the new head is finished this thing will be up and running. Its going to have a very small turbo on it until december and then hopefully I will have made a decision on the final turbo setup that will go on the car.

jeff

kengsx
09-11-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Endless


We made sure that there was plenty of clearance so that even if I spin a rod bearing, the rod wont be whacking the block.


That's a good thing to consider too. Good luck with the setup. I feel like I've been waiting so long for this I can taste it, but the fact that this will be done the right way is worth the wait.

Flubyux2, we're both talking about the right thing, I was under the impression there was some deflection during the exhaust stroke when the inertia of the rod, and piston weight, pulls on the rod. I know they take this into account for bearings. But I agree Aluminum rods are a different story all together.

Ken

flubyux2
09-12-2003, 09:13 AM
right, ive never ever come across an issue of iron/steel rod stretch during operation come into question. Ive actually never seen it come into question or be addressed during a build-up of a high performance motor.. so i dont think its a big issue...

"its a Moo Point... You know, Moo like a cow. Like if a cow had a point, it wouldnt matter!"

kengsx
10-09-2003, 03:55 PM
The builder is currently considering a 98mm stroke due to clearance issues. It does help with crank bearing loads a little to free up some rev range, but not by much. Not to rehash any of the rod velocity racing on paper, but I found a better way of approximating loads using mean piston acceleration. I find that real life has better results than theory does, so the reason why longer strokes aren't a big problem is, because even with an extra 10mm of stroke, and slightly lower rod ratio, the rev limit should be lower by only around 500rpm.

I've basically compared numbers of a stock 4g63 at 7000, 8000, 9000 rpm, and you get comparable numbers of a 4g64 at 6500, 7500 and 8500rpm. Fact is we're crossing the theoretical limits with stock "ideal" blocks as long as the power is there, it's tuned right, and our heads can take it. Same thing will go for larger stroke.

More to come sooner or later.

Ken