you guys are all dumb… my k car is a dsm
Brian
whoa siq! :lol:
I think what eclipsed was trying to get across is that although minimal, there is a weight difference and stock versus stock, NT versus NT, the 4G64 wouldn’t really get you that much more torque. Again, a minimal increase at best. Now if your talking built and turbo’d, then that’s the direction you may want to persue if your looking for more torque and quicker spool.
And FYI, eclipsed is far from a NOOB when it comes to DSMs. He had one of the nicest 2G’s in the area til he wised up and bought a house!
The fact is the 2.4L 4G64 block is only 12mm taller than the 4G63. That’s not even 1/2in. How much weight could that possibly add? 2lbs? 5lbs? Even if it added 50lbs it’s still not enough to offset the power seen by it’s added displacement. I don’t care how long someone has been doing something or where their new goals are pointed; if they make an uneducated comment, they deserve to be called on it.
:picard:
ya bro, jer has been racing longer then you have masturbating…
STFU!
it would need to weigh 750 pounds more? thats ridiculous, we are talking about two motors that have wtq #s of around 110 and 125 respectively. so for 15 extra ft/lbs of torque, you are going to swap blocks? thanks for your input, highly inefficient as it may be.
LOL noob. cavi mike? so you drive a cavalier? :lol: what a joke. i think anyone driving a cavalier calling ANYONE else a noob is the definition of irony. you keep polishing that turd, good luck!
please see my first statement above in response to the fair gentleman. if you want to swap out your shitty 2.2L cavalier block for a shitter 2.4L cavalier block for the extra displacement and siqqqq 13.45ft/lbs of torque, then go ahead.
my point was simply that there is a shitload of misinformation in this thread. in addition, anyone that would swap an NA 4g63 block for an 4g64 block for an increase in NA torque is searching for gains in the least efficient of ways. but, by all means, if you want to perform swaps like that for gains like that, then be my guest.
DISCLAIMER: i do not know if “cavi mike” drives a cavalier. in addition, the cavalier 2.2 -> 2.4 statement was merely an example.
Well considering the block and head is completely shit, yes.
There is a 26% increase in the respective factory rated Brake torque, I have no idea what that is in repect to Wheel torque, however I would assume that drivetrain loss would be similar. Apples to apples, applesauce to applesauce.
You said there is no advantage because of the weight increase, the curb weight of a GSX is around 2900 lbs, a 26% increase is ~750 lbs.
I know this much logic must hurt your head, as much as the logic of buying a brand new car only to void the warranty.
I would say that if the block and head is trash, and you can get a 4G64 for the same price or less than another 4G63, then you should do it. To answer your original post, the flywheel is on the same side. Your obviously not doing the swap for any performance gain anyway, rather then just to have a running car.
Even if I did drive a Cavalier I still obviously know more than you. Don’t try to offset your stupidity by making fun of the vehicle I drive.
nope, the logic doesnt hurt my head. it hurts my head to think someone would want to swap an na 4g63 for an na 4g64. i get the percentages, but you have do deal in absolutes as well. is it really worth the extra 15 whp? for a block swap??? :bloated:
as for shot at my warranty voiding expedition, you clearly have subpar reading comprehension skills, and the entire purpose of that thread was NOT to complain that the warranty was voided. if you read the thread and couldn’t figure that out, then i am surprised you are able to survive and function in society.
listen mike, how many dsms have you built? how long have you owned a dsm? how many dsms have you owned? i really am interested! :lolham:
when i said there is rampant misinformation in this thread, i meant it, because there is. if you want to think that the shit posted in this thread is worthwhile, then by all means, go right ahead! there are some people who posted in here who actually know what they are talking about, while others post shit they “heard” or “inferred” without any factual basis.
for your next project, your should buy a 1990 laser 2.0 nt, and swap a 4g64 into it. do us all a favor, do a before and after dyno run, before and after at the 1/4 mile, and before and after at a roadcoarse. then, post up the amazing improvement! :bloated:
eclipsed and I started wnyDSM and have both owned turbo DSM’s since 2002. Your reputation has definitely been reaffirmed by posting in thread.
Obviously your knowledge of the subject is from strictly reading than doing.
you are right, I’ll just leave the siezed block in :picard:
that is probably your best option. think of all the common DSM problems you won’t have that way.
QFT :wiggle:
Lots of people start forums that don’t know much about the topic and I stopped owning DSM’s in '02. My reputation to DSMer’s doesn’t mean very much to me anymore but eclipsed’s stupidity has been reaffirmed with me. Don’t know about you so I can’t comment.
so ok what is true in here?
Delete anything that is off this topic in here.
eclipsed, care to awe us with your supreme knowledge?
Summary:
Evo’s arent’ DSM’s as DSM’s were manufactured by a joint venture between Chrysler and Mitsubishi. The only cars that can claim to be DSM’s are anything built with any motor configuration in the Normal IL plant under the DSM brand. from 89 to 95. Other cars were built out of that same plant but not marketed under the DSM banner and were to be resold under both Chrysler proper and Mitsubishi proper branding and therefore are not "DSM"s. Galants and the cloud cars are examples. The 2G Talons and Eclipses (96+), are still considered DSM’s even though by 96 the joint venture was dissolved as they are a product of the engineering and plant build of the original joint venture.
The only exception are the 3000GT/Stealth lines. The 3000GT’s and Stealths are badged as “DSM” not because they were built in the Normal IL plant but because they were a product of the joint Mitsubishi Chrysler venture for the design and build but it was built in a Mitsubishi plant in Nagoya Japan.
The Galant VR4’s are often considered to be “DSM” just because of the fact that the drivetrains are historically identical as US build DSM models ( 4G63 AWD setups ) but were in fact were all built in Japan and imported and built solely by Mitsubishi with no influence from Chrysler. By further extension, other model lines can be considered DSM’s, such as in the case of the Evo platforms, but this is an even more tortured interpretation as again the Evo’s were imported from Japan and have a counter rotating assembly and different drivetrain setup so the combined banner of “Diamond Star Motors” never had anything to do with Evos.
Side summarizations:
- You can swap any 4G63 with any other 4G63 as long as you ahve the right wiring harness and engine mount points. This includes swapping a 4G63NA in a GGSX with a 4G63T or a 4G63NA with a 4G63T in a NA 1G DSM, etc. or 6-bolt 1G blocks in 2G non-420A cars. Swapping a 4G63T into a 420A generally tends to be more of a waste of time and money than a way of getting any real gains.
- DSM’s have been around so long that everyone seems to think they know all about them. In reality, most people know annectodal evidence with little to no practical experience. It’s all " I heard this" or “my friend had that”.
- Arguing about shit like this over the internet just makes you all look fuckin stupid.