Register now to get rid of these ads!

4 cylinder questions

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by lakesmod, Apr 22, 2007.

  1. GM used a poorly executed (read cheap crap) head gasket on the Quad. They also were installed in only the chassis that featured the worst engine box ever designed. I wouldn't use one without replacing the head gasket, checking the head out and replacing the bolts with ARP studs. Then again, I've collected a pile of high output quad parts over the years, including an unused 086 casting.
    The lowliest Quad was more powerful in stock form than the best N.A. 2.3 Ford. Most Hornet type roundy pounder classes weight biased or outlawd them quickly when they started showing up at the ovals. The same happened to Mazda's rotory and that little Honda V-Tech.
    The Ford is definitley a good engine. Its just not better... til you boost the crap out of it. Then it absolutely excels.
     
  2. Here's my ongoing project...Harvested all the eng/drivetrain from an 83 Ford 2.3 TurboCoupe.....2300/T5....These engines are surprisingly tall (esp. with turbo piping running across the top)...since thes photos ,I've added a s/s tubular header,s/s 3" sprint car style side exhaust,roller cam,little bit of port work,etc
    Stan
     

    Attached Files:

    • 5.JPG
      5.JPG
      File size:
      88.2 KB
      Views:
      396
  3. Weasel
    Joined: Dec 30, 2007
    Posts: 6,693

    Weasel
    Member

    Toyota 2TC Hemi

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    But make mine an Alfa

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  4. ramzoom
    Joined: Apr 25, 2008
    Posts: 382

    ramzoom
    Member
    from California

    Heres my experience with the Quad 4. New gaskets take care of the Q4 problem and as far as cracked head this happened on cars pre head gasket resolution and with around 70k miles...I highly doubt anyone is going to rack up that kind of mileage on their rod and if you use the new gasket your fine..The "D" version Quad 4 puts out roughly 150 hp and the "A" version was 180-190 hp. Stay away from the SOHC version. The bellhousing from Quad 4 rods is not cheap. You can get a bellhousing to run a 4/5 speed manual or an automatic though. You can also use coil packs for spark and eliminate the computer if you go with a carb. I sort of fell into the Q4 for my Rambler because of its size and fit into my car..It looks cool and I am liking the result:)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  5. corsair
    Joined: May 16, 2009
    Posts: 287

    corsair
    Member

    Four bangers are more dependent on good head design than V8s. You can't make up for half-ass engineering with cubic inches. That's where the Ford 2.3L is weak, as is the Iron Duke and Quad 4. Likewise, a cheaply made bottom end means you can't run much in the way of revs or boost. You need at least one, preferably both.

    My first choice for a domestic four banger would be a GM Ecotec motor. Those are offered in RWD, and have stronger versions with factory turbos and superchargers. It's a very light motor, and drag racers have made 1000+hp with that block. The head flows very well, and there are lots of options out there in the aftermarket. Lighter, stronger, better than the earlier GM 4 pots.

    The only other domestic 4 banger I'd mess with is a Ford 2.3L turbo. Those are decent motors, but the electronics are dated, the head is pretty so-so, and they are all getting very old and worn out these days. By the time you rebuild it all you'll have put a ton of work/money into a pretty dated (but still not traditional) design.

    If you can stomach import stuff, the Nissan SR20 is cheap, light, and comes in turbo flavors. The Nissan KA24DE is in the 240SX and hardbody truck. It's a tough motor and can be sometimes be had for free after somebody swaps for an SR. On the other end of the spectrum, the Volvo redblocks are virtually indestructible. They make pretty good power if you snag a turbo motor.
     
  6. Hackerbilt
    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 6,251

    Hackerbilt
    Member

    For a RWD bellhousing the 2.2 was available in the early (square style) Dakota pickup and should fit the 2.5 engine as well.
    The 2.5 for the newer model Dakota was based on the old AMC 2.5 I believe so I'm not sure if an earlier 2.2 or 2.5 would fit to that later bellhousing.

    Now engine mounts for the earlier version FWD model might be a bit ungainly...I dunno. :)
     
  7. LarzBahrs
    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 759

    LarzBahrs
    Member
    from Sacramento

    Toyota 4 cylinders are reliable as hell, they could run forever if you just oil them and keep them up. You ever see the top gear episode with the toyota truck? They left the damn thing up to the windsheild in the english channel for about a day or 2 and when they came back the damn thing still fired up!
     
  8. Harry Bergeron
    Joined: Feb 10, 2009
    Posts: 345

    Harry Bergeron
    Member
    from SoCal

    For the guy who needs something completely different, there's the bullet-proof 2.0 Mitsubishi Eclipse twincam, 1989-1999.
    150 HP normally aspirated, 190HP stock turbo, and 300 HP no big deal.
    Dodge D-50 and MightyMax pickup 5-speeds fit.
    Only weak point is the timing belt must be set up absolutely correctly.
     
  9. 53dodgekustom
    Joined: Jun 18, 2006
    Posts: 880

    53dodgekustom
    Member

    87-95 is the Chrysler 2.2-2.5 SOCH. 96 is when they switched to the 2.5 AMC (Tried and true 4.0 strait 6 with 2 less cylinders.) 97 was when they switched to the "mini ram" looking body style. 2001 was the last year for the 4 cylinder. And all Dakotas with 4 cylinders are 5spds. No autos ever. 2.2 Turbo's make some amazing power!!
     
  10. shortbed65
    Joined: Feb 20, 2009
    Posts: 204

    shortbed65
    Member
    from ne Ill

    how about Mercury Marine? not the iron duke 140 but the 260hp four that used a Ford 460 cyl head....
     
  11. Hackerbilt
    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 6,251

    Hackerbilt
    Member

    There ya go! Detail!
    Makes perfect sense that a truck with a smaller engine wouldn't have a need for an automatic.
    I didn't realize that the AMC 4 popper was based on the 4.3/4.0 six. Tough little engine if its anything like its parents...:)
     
  12. RodStRace
    Joined: Dec 7, 2007
    Posts: 2,710

    RodStRace
    Member

    Toyota also other twin cam motors
    http://www.toysport.com/Technical%20Information/toyota_twin_cam_article.htm

    The 2TC (1.6L) and 3TC (1.6L) would make for a nice visual if no hood is planned.

    The Ford 2.3L is a proven, cheap motor. The GM ones tend to be a bit more rare and expensive to do up nicely.

    All of them will work hard in a heavier car, so the MPG won't be what you hope for.
    What kind of project are you considering?
     
  13. Retrorod
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 2,032

    Retrorod
    Member

    I'm thinking about a GM Ecotec four banger for a track roadster project. I always wanted an Offy powered roadster but I don't think I'll ever find one....so I plan on building my own "offy" type powerplant. Most casual observers will never know.
     
  14. farna
    Joined: Jul 8, 2005
    Posts: 1,238

    farna
    Member

    Yes, the AMC 2.5L (sometimes called a "2.46L" to avoid confusion with the GM 2.5L used in CJs and AMC cars from 80-83) is tough! Why else would Chrysler put it in the Dakota in place of their own 2.5L four? The Chrysler 2.5L is better suited for a higher rpm application, the AMC 2.5L was destined to be more of a truck motor from the start.

    The AMC 2.5L was actually derived from the 4.2L (258) in 1983 for the 84 model XJ Cherokees, but the head was a new design. Center two cylinders cut out, same bore as the 4.0L, but there's a slight difference in the pistons. When they developed the first 4.0L in 87 for the 88 models, they "stretched" the four cylinder head.
     
  15. tjm73
    Joined: Feb 17, 2006
    Posts: 3,404

    tjm73
    Member

    I can't claim to have created this but it was posted here once before. I'll PM you. The HAMB has a size limit on PDF's. :mad:
     
  16. HuffDaddy
    Joined: Apr 27, 2008
    Posts: 441

    HuffDaddy
    Member

  17. Side
    Joined: Feb 28, 2009
    Posts: 157

    Side
    Member
    from Berlin, OK

    What did you decide?
     
  18. lostforawhile
    Joined: Mar 23, 2008
    Posts: 4,160

    lostforawhile
    Member

    instead of a four,what about a slant six? still good on gas, and easy to work with, you can get an adaptor to change to a four barrel or stick with the tiny carb, they had quite a bit of torque. they can be made to look really nice to with a bit of work.
     
  19. Greg55_99
    Joined: Mar 3, 2009
    Posts: 39

    Greg55_99

    My personal favorite. A Mopar 2.5L short block with a Neon 2.4L DOHC head utilizing a Supra Turbo R154 5-speed and 2.5L Dakota bellhousing...

    Bellissima...

    Greg
     

    Attached Files:

  20. revkev6
    Joined: Jun 13, 2006
    Posts: 3,351

    revkev6
    Member
    from ma

    I'm surprised the H word hasn't come up regarding these 4 banger threads. the K series honda motors (2 liter and 2.4 liter) would be a great swap in a car like this. they run em in everything from compacts up to small SUV's. relatively cheap, bullet proof with HUGE aftermarket support if you are willing to deal with the ricer crowd.

    you can get one out of an acura tsx that makes 200hp and 175ft/lbs and a RWD bellhousing is supposedly available from acura (unfortunately I have no part number for that one) that bolts right up to a toyota T50 trans.

    these motors were built to be put in heavy cars. the tsx (acura's smallest car) weighs 3300lbs!
     
  21. 29nash
    Joined: Nov 6, 2008
    Posts: 4,544

    29nash
    BANNED
    from colorado

    "Only" SOHC? I would do the SOHC Ford.
     
  22. Ice man
    Joined: Mar 12, 2008
    Posts: 984

    Ice man
    Member

    I got a freeby 4 banger from a Jeep with a 5 speed. She wrecked it and gave it to me. It's in my 29 Pk Up. Made a manifold and installed a carb, FS Ignition converted the dissy to S/S with out the computer and I got a screamer. Very tough built engine. Its the 6 with 2 jugs removed. Ice man
     
  23. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 4,274

    Ned Ludd
    Member

    Don't many of the Honda engines run anti-clockwise?
     
  24. Phil1934
    Joined: Jun 24, 2001
    Posts: 2,717

    Phil1934
    Member

    Since 2002 they run clockwise
     
  25. jmcglynn
    Joined: May 19, 2005
    Posts: 115

    jmcglynn
    Alliance Vendor

    I'm pretty caught up with the 2.0L/2.3L Duratec from Ford. All aluminum block and heads, DOHC, 4 valves/cyl. The 2.3 comes in late ranger pickups so you can get RWD without buying an adapter. Apparently 250hp normally aspirated is pretty doable.

    I'm building a car in my head with one now :)
     

    Attached Files:

  26. pasadenahotrod
    Joined: Feb 13, 2007
    Posts: 11,776

    pasadenahotrod
    Member
    from Texas

    Most sideways engines have inline conversion kits available from the aftermarket or the performance wing of the OEM manufacturer.

    Mopar offered a conversion for the 2.2 bangers used sideways in the K-series Dodge/Plym/Chrysler cars and vans.
     
  27. I recently built a car with a modified 3.27 liter Allis Chalmers tractor 4 cylinder engine. It ran double its rated speed but for an unrelated reason, oil pressure went away, completely.

    As it takes 8.5" rods, it costs $1400 to make 4.
    [ The stock rods are not very strong and the pistons weigh 2.5 lbs each so a change is needed].
    Thus I'm quite interested in the info in this thread as it may be a cheaper option to the way I went. But it is important that the engine look as if it came from the 30's.[​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  28. lostforawhile
    Joined: Mar 23, 2008
    Posts: 4,160

    lostforawhile
    Member

    try the twin cam Miata engine they are rear wheel drive and there is a huge aftermarket for parts, they also look vintage, there is a nice article in classic motor sports on a Ford Cortina with a mazda Miata engine, he milled the mazda off the cam cover, and added a ford emblem, and it looks so much like an old engine no one knows what it really is. I have the article and it looks really good. I'm not a fan of Fi engines, I'm a carb guy, but this is one of the few i've seen that really does look clean.
     
  29. lostforawhile
    Joined: Mar 23, 2008
    Posts: 4,160

    lostforawhile
    Member

    Since Honda is already mentioned, i won't get shot for mentioning it, I'm a huge fan of the old 2.0 A20 engine, there is a small following for these engines, they are still iron, and they actually produce torque. they come in 86-89 accords, you can also take the fuel injected engine it has the same block, and pull off all the fuel injection stuff and add a carb manifold, we run webbers all the time with them, I own one of these cars myself, they are the forgotten hondas. with the original carb and all the junk on it, they produce about a hundred horsepower, add webbers and you can get 200 easy, there is also a company that by a miracle still makes a cam for them. best thing is they don't sound like a weedeater, they are a lot closer to an old school brittish engine then anything else they ever made. I'm in the process of converting one of these to SU carbs right now. the reason these didn't have a following is the engine was a great tough engine, but it was choked with a tiny carb and about a mile of vaccume lines and controls, get rid of that junk and you have a good engine, they also have a real distributor,not a computer controlled one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2009
  30. Ice man
    Joined: Mar 12, 2008
    Posts: 984

    Ice man
    Member

    I used a AMC 2.5 4 banger from a wrecked Jeep. It was free and also had a 5sp. Took of the computer and fuel injection, and it runs well and I've never looked back. I have a warmed B and now that it will be soon built and running I will probably sell it cause the AMC runs well and has no problems with a leaky rear main, cranks very well, and gets my down the road. Its giving me a new out look on what a hot rod is supposed to be. Iceman
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.