DSMTalk Forums: Mitsubishi Eclipse, Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon Forum banner

What is a 420a?

15K views 27 replies 19 participants last post by  crumbdrakey 
#1 ·
I'm embarassed for not knowing this.. But I always see threads referring to NT's as 420a's but when I took out my NT engine it was a 4g63 2L. I definitely know that 420a sucks, but im still not sure exactly what it is. Seems like the bottom of the food chain for sure the way you guys talk about it...
 
#27 ·
I agree I bought mine already built and turbod with its problems for 3k, fixed up the problems so all around in the end 4.5k. Great car for me I’m just constantly scared it’s gonna break cus of what I hear online. Other than that I say if you’re older then the age of 24 you’re probably at the position to save a couple more thousand for a 4g63 gsx so might as well. (Side note) I like to compare 420a to a Honda engine lowkey, I’ve owned 2 Hondas before (f23a1, k20z1) and it just feels like a built version and working on it is the same, however looking at 4g63s they don’t give that Honda vibe
 
#7 ·
They're not terrible motors. Some of their owners do try to glorify them as better than 4g63's, which is why 420a's seem to be looked down upon.

Number wise, the "bottom of the food chain" would be the 4g37 1.8L in 1g DSM's...a whopping 92 horsepower. :banana: I owned one and my friend's mom's Corolla was faster.
 
#10 ·
This is all very interesting.
I always thought 420a was pot smoking time in Canada.
Man, you sure can learn alot ot this forum. :eek:
 
#11 ·
shadow_FIX said:
They're not terrible motors. Some of their owners do try to glorify them as better than 4g63's, which is why 420a's seem to be looked down upon.
True, but not all of us are like that.

The 420a in the eclipse/talon actually have more in common with the Avenger and Sebring 420a's than the neon 420a's. My eclipse has been the most reliable car I've owned, never had any big problems with it (besides general maintenance: plugs, wires, etc).
 
#14 ·
Wraith said:
The Neon also had a SOHC 1.8 available that was nothing like the 420A.
That engine was seen in export models. The neon engine is actually quite different from the dsm platform; as mentioned above. The heads are reversed between the platforms.

Neon:


Intake is up front and engine installed where the front is facing passenger side of the car.


I do have to note on the comment about the shadow mentioned above... since I do deal with the old turbo dodges. Not all of the shadows were super slow! My 89 CSX-VNT features a VNT turbocharged and intercooled engine. The VNT (variable nozzle turbo) virtually eliminates turbo lag making for quite a fun car! I'm also working on a tubo setup for a 92 3.0L Mitsubishi V6 powered shadow (6g72). So far I've seen one guy finish his v6 setup and without traction in 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd gear he ran a 13.9 at 5psi in a shadow. :)
 
#16 ·
dodgeshadowchik said:
That engine was seen in export models. The neon engine is actually quite different from the dsm platform; as mentioned above. The heads are reversed between the platforms.

Neon:


Intake is up front and engine installed where the front is facing passenger side of the car.


I do have to note on the comment about the shadow mentioned above... since I do deal with the old turbo dodges. Not all of the shadows were super slow! My 89 CSX-VNT features a VNT turbocharged and intercooled engine. The VNT (variable nozzle turbo) virtually eliminates turbo lag making for quite a fun car! I'm also working on a tubo setup for a 92 3.0L Mitsubishi V6 powered shadow (6g72). So far I've seen one guy finish his v6 setup and without traction in 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd gear he ran a 13.9 at 5psi in a shadow. :)

That's all fine and good but 99.9% of the Shadows were not turbo'd and the 4 door 2.2 n/a versions like I drove were not great cars by any stretch of the imagination. The '95 neon replaced it and was hailed as a much better car all around which tells you all you need to know about n/a Shadows.
 
#17 ·
Top end, they are not the greatest. The advange with the VNT comes in at a launch from a dead stop as well as acceleration from a roll. The old chrysler 2.2/2.5 were more of a torquey engine rather than top end power.

Also, I do agree that base model 4-cyl shadows do suck...at least power wise. lol! I have owned one before. It ran great and next to impossible to kill. There were times I was afraid of merging on the freeway due to lack of accleration power. Heh!
 
#18 ·
I had a 91 Eagle Talon with a 4g63nt before I bought my 97 RS, and I had the timing belt slip 3 times and kill the cylinder head each time. I beat on my 420a powered RS more than I ever beat on my Talon and it never gave up. I was spraying it with nitrous oxide to be able to keep up with my friends that had built Honda's. I would go through a tank of nitrous in a couple of hours because I used it from 2nd till 5th gear. I know they are not capable of the power that the 4G63 in, but they are not junk either.
 
#24 ·
91-Bluebird said:
That's all fine and good but 99.9% of the Shadows were not turbo'd
hmmm, this sounds familiar, I wonder why? Oh that's right because the majority of DSM's were NT. That doesn't take anything away from the turbo ones does it :rolleyes:


totaleclipse_05 said:
The SRT-4 uses a 420a, do some research. The internals are different like what was mentioned though.
Well now lets be fair, it is an A853 or whatever, but it is a derivate of the 420a and many parts can be used interchangeably. At the same time you can't just drop an srt4 engine in and go. It's definetly not the equivalent of na 4g63's versus turbo 4g63s

Simple answer, they aren't the same

Long answer they are
 
Top