2.6 mitsubishi

[TopDollar69]

Is the 2.6 mitsubishi an interference engine?

[bakes]

yes it is a valve bender if the chain goes .

[Dodge Aries K]

*Shrugs* I've heard otherwise... but usually if the chain goes out it's because the small silent shaft chain went first... which means it was running with no oil pressure...

[1966 dart wagon]

...time for a 2.2 turbo swap :eyebrows:

[TopDollar69]

I was thinking 2.5 turbo swap. I spoke with the guy on the phone last night and told him I would take it. Now I just need to get down to SF to pick it up.

[1966 dart wagon]

SWEET, well give me a ring when your in town, and if you need any help thats cool

[SebringLX]

No no no.... 2.4L and stoke it out to a 2.6L!

[1966 dart wagon]

No no no.... 2.4L and stoke it out to a 2.6L!

even better :clap:

[WickedShelby88]

Whats wrong with the 2.6 as it sits? I mean this one in particular. Is already broken? You can get a balance shaft eliminator kit. Also there are numerous ways to build them up. There is also the 2.6 wideblock that will accept a head from the 4G64(not sure if I got that right), but basically same as eclipse head. Whats this going in?

[BadAssPerformance]

Whats wrong with the 2.6 as it sits?

Probably too many things to list... for starters, I'm guessing the head is already warped?

[WickedShelby88]

lol, yeah. One of those deals you might as well ditch it for a 2.5. That is usually more common than not.

[TopDollar69]

I'm not sure whats wrong with it for sure since I don't have the car home yet, but the previous owner stated that it doesn't run and he thinks the timing chain went out. Strange since it looks to be a low mileage well taken care of 85 NewYorker.

[BadAssPerformance]

New Yorker... easy turbo swap :thumb:

[WickedShelby88]

The 2.6's in the front wheel drive variety seemed to have more problems then their rwd siblings. +1 easy turbo swap!

[bakes]

Go with the 3.0l 3spd swap and drop a Holset turbo on it then hold on!

[TopDollar69]

Well, I got the car home last night. The Lebaron tows pretty well for a chick car. It was a terrible trip though since there was a rollover on the interstate. We sat for an hour before they finally cleared the road and let traffic through. Keep in mind this was at 1:00AM, so we didn't get home until 2:00AM, needless to say mom and baby were not happy. Oh well, I got a clean california car with 50K miles for $450, not a bad deal IMO.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/photopost/data/500/Picture_026.jpg

[WickedShelby88]

That is a sweet deal! Sounds like one of the cleanest yorkers in the community right off the bat.

[Vigo]

Hey, that car looks familiar!


http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC03682.jpg





But since its an 85 it has those different taillights so its technically more like my other one...
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC02772.jpg



I have opinions on several facets of this issue...

1. I would not keep the car a 2.6. Tepid performance.
2. The swap that was mentioned involves using a 4g64 2.4L bottom end which should bolt up identically at the tranny and front mount. The motor comes with a sohc head, but you can swap a 4g63 dohc head on top of it. So basically a 2.4L DOHC mitsu swap. If you leave the stock pistons and run it n/a, it even has high compression because of the differences in chamber volume. I WOULD consider doing this, but you would need a standalone like megasquirt to run it, most likely.
3. I would also consider 2.5 turbo swapping it if i just wanted it to run. Im taking this route with my 84 executive sedan which came with 2.6.http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/DSC04069.jpg

However, im not giving up on the 2.6 entirely... I have an 80 plymouth pickup with the 2.0 and the 2.6 out of the limo.. Im thinking i will try and combine them into a running rwd 2.6 and possibly using starion turbo stuff on it. I did have grand ambitions for the 4g64 hybrid swap but now i figure i should just try and get the most out of what i have, since it wont take much power to make the thing fast. It weighs a lot less than my new yorkers :thumb:



Easy: 2.5 turbo
Interesting: Turbo dohc mitsu swap

[TopDollar69]

I think I will end up going the 2.5L turbo swap route. If the turbo minivan I had spotted is still for sale that is. If not, it's hard to say what will end up happening to it. One thing is for sure, I don't like the looks of the mess of vacuum lines under the hood on this 2.6.

[Vigo]

I would recommend using wiring out of an 87 turbo k-car such as a new yorker, caravelle, lebaron, 600, etc as they're generally pretty easy to find and would be pretty much a complete drop in. I bought an 87 harness for my 85 several years ago from someone on the forums.

Let us know how it all comes together! I havent even started on the executive sedan swap, except that i throw the swap parts into the trunk as i come across them in my piles of parts. hehe.

[1966 dart wagon]

sweet you did buy it, nice :eyebrows: have you started to clean it out, or checked out the motor at all to verify that the chain is broken?

[TopDollar69]

So far I've washed the outside at the car wash, looked in the trunk, and looked under the hood for about 5 minutes. I did notice the spark plugs are missing, so I'm glad I didn't power wash the engine bay yet. I really don't want to work on it untill I get my Laser running as that seems slightly more important at this time. I did manage to get my cycle endorsment last week, and insurance. Hard to believe but I'm actually legal to ride now.

[TopDollar69]

The good news is that it ran with some fresh gas, the bad news is the balance shaft chain seems to be broken. The car has no oil pressure and a serious case of rod knock. Oh well, I wasn't planning on keeping the 2.6 anyways. It should be interesting to tear this thing down and see what failed exactly. Hard to believe such a clean car with 57,000 miles had a chain failure, but thats the only thing that explains the lack of oil pressure.

[Vigo]

Those motors were notorious for that. I dont blame you for not wanting to fix it, either.

But... a 4g63 or 64 swap is still an option :p

[WickedShelby88]

a 4G63 would put a hurtin on most of the TM options stock to stock.

[Vigo]

and good thing it'd be auto too cuz you wouldnt be able to get 20 year old synchros to shift right at 8k rpm anyway :p

[strang3majik]

There is also the 2.6 wideblock that will accept a head from the 4G64(not sure if I got that right), but basically same as eclipse head. Whats this going in?

LOL...I wish.

Not true, sadly. The only head that will fit on them that is any better than stock is the Magna head from Australia since it lacks jet valves (where they crack)
and, a 4G63/4 head is completely different....its been tried many a time...lol

also...G54Bs are non interference engines to answer your original question...at least mine is.

[TopDollar69]

Well, you seem to know what your talking about moreso than anyone else I've spoken with. I ran a compression test and it shows 30 PSI per cylinder, so I figure it was driven for some distance with no oil pressure. The carnage should be interesting when I do pull it apart.

[strang3majik]

Well, you seem to know what your talking about moreso than anyone else I've spoken with. I ran a compression test and it shows 30 PSI per cylinder, so I figure it was driven for some distance with no oil pressure. The carnage should be interesting when I do pull it apart.

if you need any info on the 2.6L...

starquestclub.com however, thats for the turbo version.

or...check out sites for the D50/Mighty Max trucks for n/a specific info.

http://www.mightyd50.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3873

or, any questions...let me know

compression should be 140-160 across the board...but, thats for the turbo version which was 7.1:1 ....N/A motors were 8.1:1....so...

[tsiconquest88]

Just so u guys know, its not an interference engine :thumb:

[Vigo]

the old g54 motor wont take a 4g64 or 63 head, but you CAN bolt in a wideblock 4g64 truck motor using stock parts, most likely, and put a 4g63 head on THAT. You would probably have to modify front and pass. side mounts.

[strang3majik]

the old g54 motor wont take a 4g64 or 63 head, but you CAN bolt in a wideblock 4g64 truck motor using stock parts, most likely, and put a 4g63 head on THAT. You would probably have to modify front and pass. side mounts.

also...to use that head, you have to do something with coolant passages as some are there and some aren't on the head/block.

Also, to use the intake in a starion/conquest, you have to move the thermostat to the front, I believe, since they are different on a FWD car.

[tsiconquest88]

the 4g64 wideblock from the mighty maxes etc can be used with the sq tranny and bolt right into the sq engine bay using just 2 same side sq motor mounts i think its 2 pass sides u would use. The 4g63 dohc head can bolt directly to that 4g64 wideblock. You wont be using anything from the sq on the dohc dsm 4g63 head though.

[TopDollar69]

My Uncle used the head from this 2.6L on his 88 RAM 50 truck. The head was in great shape with no cracks or warpage. The RAM 50 has a 2.0L engine, but he said the head bolted on just fine. He's now complaining it doesn't have much power. Is their a chance the 2.6L head has larger combustion chambers or something that lowered the compression ratio? I'm guessing the thing is just underpowered from the factory, but figured I'd ask if anyone has any ideas.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

[tsiconquest88]

well the ram also had a 2.6 as one of its engine options in certain years, so is it possible he does have a 2.6 not a 2.0 engine? cus i never heard of the 2.6 head fitting anything but the 2.6, even the 2.0 starion's cant use a 2.6 head and most starions/conquests had a 2.6 engine with different specs than the N/A 2.6 engines and heads but still a 2.6 nonetheless. this is interesting to me. Also it is possible the head isnt any good. Or maybe something wasnt installed right? missing a vacuum line maybe? did u use the used plugs that were in the 2.6 head already?

[TopDollar69]

My bad, it must be a 2.6L. The truck is a 4x4, and it looks like you could only get the 2.6L with 4WD. I didn't swap the head, a friend of mine did. I really doubt he missed anything since he is a pretty good mechanic, but who knows. I'm going to take a look at it this weekend, hopefully I can figure something out.

[Vigo]

LMK what you find out as i still have a 2.0 and a 2.6 id like to combine into one running motor.

[TopDollar69]

I always thought they were the same family of engine, so I thought the head would interchange. However, I don't know that I've actually seen a 2.0L. I know I've worked on at least two confirmed 2.6L engines though.

[Dodge Aries K]

The old 2.0 has a timing belt instead of a chain.

[tsiconquest88]

2.6 head will not go onto the 2.0 as i said. yea u def have a 2.6 engine. Also dodge aries is right, the 2.0 has a timing belt. And yes the 2.0 mitsu and 2.6 mitsu are in the same family however the 2.0 like u thought u had is much different than the later 2.0 found in the dsm cars. However as i typed earlier in this thread, you CAN use a dohc turbo dsm head on a mighty max equipped with the 2.2 -(maybe 2.0 i forget as i know the turbo dsm engine was 2.0 and the wideblock is a different displacment so im assuming 2.2), wideblock
4g64 making it a 4g63/4g64 combo. Thats the only switch of heads between the 2 various engine blocks u can do.

[TopDollar69]

Out of curiosity, what is the same between the old 2.0L, and 2.6L if they are so different?

[tsiconquest88]

they arent the same lol. the similarities are the various 2.0's through the years and the 2.6 turbo compared to 2.6 N/A

the 2.0 in the starion made 210 or so hp to where the most stock power from a 2.6 starquest was 188 hp. both engines are completly different. However if the starquests' 2.6 engine was mpi it mighta been a different story. But whatever lol. Tbi did not justice for the 2.6.

[strang3majik]

the 2.0L and the 2.6L are not in the same family.

The 2.0L and 2.4L are both Sirius family engines, while the G54B (2.6L) engine is in the Astron family.

Also, the 4G63 (2.0L) in the D50 and the 2.0L found in DSMs is the same exact motor, besides the fact that in a D50, the engine can be a wideblock or a narrowblock, which, the only difference is the transmission it would bolt to, whereas all the FWD 2.0Ls are narrowblock.
The 4G64 (2.4L) was also found in trucks and all, and, for many, is the desired out of the two, as it is the same block, just a longer stroke.
Only the 2.0 and the 2.4 can swap parts. The 2.0L is the one used in the Eclipses/talons with turbo, and, the turbo engines had a DOHC head, only, along with oil squirters, forged pistons, hardened valves, and a couple other things. You can swap a DOHC head onto any of these engines, N/A as well (some n/a motors had them), but, I believe some of the oil or water passages have to be drilled out some on the block.

As far as the 2.6L head having lower compression, thats not possible. As every 2.6L engine used the same head and cam. Even the turbo Conquests/Starions used the same head and cam as the 2.6L N/A minivans/d50s.
The only thing that was different were some had jet valves, others didn't. That isn't really a difference or a bad thing, but, the heads are known to crack at the base of the jet valves...but, its all in preference.

EDIT: figured I'd add, there was a 2.0L (I think it was, maybe a 1.8?) back in the early 80s/late 70s called the G51B. Thats the same block as the G54B (2.6L)

[tsiconquest88]

they arent in the same family in that aspect but being they are both the common mitsu engines used in the 80's was what i was referring to. As for the compression thing, no one even mentioned such a thing so not sure why that is even being brought up. As far as the jet valves go, its not a matter of some had some didnt, no minivan/mighty etc with the 2.6 had jet valves, every starquest however did. there is no 2.0 the same block, you might be thinking of a 1.8. However an early 90 or so mighty had a wideblock (4g64) that has about the same bolt pattern since the starion tranny can bolt to that block. Hence the more simplistic swap of the 2 various mitsu's of those motors in the starquest. then u can swap the dohc head from the turbo 4g63 and u have the bottom end 64 with the head off the 63. The more difficult being complete 4g63 block which is a whole different ballgame of a swap into the SQ.

[strang3majik]

they arent in the same family in that aspect but being they are both the common mitsu engines used in the 80's was what i was referring to. As for the compression thing, no one even mentioned such a thing so not sure why that is even being brought up. As far as the jet valves go, its not a matter of some had some didnt, no minivan/mighty etc with the 2.6 had jet valves, every starquest however did. there is no 2.0 the same block, you might be thinking of a 1.8. However an early 90 or so mighty had a wideblock (4g64) that has about the same bolt pattern since the starion tranny can bolt to that block. Hence the more simplistic swap of the 2 various mitsu's of those motors in the starquest. then u can swap the dohc head from the turbo 4g63 and u have the bottom end 64 with the head off the 63. The more difficult being complete 4g63 block which is a whole different ballgame of a swap into the SQ.

The OP was asking if the head he put on it may have had larger combustion chambers, so, I was simply stating that all the 2.6 heads are exactly the same...besides the jet valves obviously.

Also...there was an engine in the late 70s that was the same block as the 2.6L. The 2.6 has an extremely long stroke, whereas the destroked version is the engine common in the 70s Mitsus....that the stroker version replaced.

I'll do some research and find out...I believe its what was in some of the Plymouth Arrows and all. But, I know it existed :p As I said...I think it was the 4G51.

[tsiconquest88]

i didnt see him ask that. Also as i said i think it was a 1.8 however the arrow came with the 1.6
(4g32), 2.0 (4g52), or 2.6 engine for the fire arrow. the 1.8 was in 70's galants and colt but idk specs on the engine or how close it is to the g54b (2.6) afterall there was the 4g52 as well.

[TopDollar69]

I was asking about combustion chamber volume, but it looks like they are all the same. Now to stir the pot a bit more, can you put the later 3 valve 2.6L head on the older block?

[strang3majik]

aha...found it....

4G51 : 1.85L
4G52 : 2.0L
4G54 : 2.6L
4G55 : 2.3L

They're all the same block, just different bore/stroke per engine.

And...Top Dollar...I'm not sure they ever made a 3 valve head for the 2.6L. But, an Astron family engine is an Astron family engine...from 4G51-4G55, the heads will bolt up.

[tsiconquest88]

by 3 valve im assuming your counting the jet valve as a 3rd valve? cus the 2.6 heads are 2 valves per cylinder unless you count the jet valve. Will it fit on the 4g52, yes but the 2.0 used in your type of truck wouldnt be that 2,0 anyway. Your truck having the 2.6 head on it is definately a 2.6 block you have. the 4g64 was used in the early 90's and such mightys. Prior to that a t-belt style 2.0 was used which was a bit different 2.0 than the later ones such as the 90 mighty. Even the starion 2.0 used the 4g63 earlier version not the 2.0 in the astron family. there is several 2.0's by mitsubishi in various familes. The one above in that list is a chain 2.0 apparently if he says is totally right about them all being the same block then it would have to use timing chain cus thats what the 2.6 head is setup for an never had a tbelt setup for that head. In other words any 2.6 head you see is chain and couldnt possibly be any 2.0 besides the one in the astron family above. Therefore you have a 2.6 without a doubt cus that 4g52 wasnt in your truck since your truck is 80's year model.

[TopDollar69]

I'm pretty sure the truck is a 2.6L now. My Uncle never did make it to my grandparents for me to check it out, so I guess we may never know for sure. I saw a 3 valve head on a Mazda B2600 and I figured that 2.6L was also a Mitsu since I thought Mazda used to use the Mitsu 2.6L in the B2600. It almost looks like it would fit.
http://i.ebayimg.com/03/!Bcl!4J!BWk~$(KGrHqUH-DUEqvhBWU6JBK1G4M77dg~~_35.JPG

[TopDollar69]

http://i22.ebayimg.com/01/i/001/15/38/366a_35.JPG

[tsiconquest88]

no completley different head. the ports arent even the same. dont have the same manifold areas either. that head is off a 2.6, but the g6 sirius engine not the same 2.6 as the g54b one, both were available and the g6 comming in between 88-91 or so in the 2600 truck. And of course the 2.2 wideblock I formentioned earlier. thats the problem with a company making so many variations and among all 2 the same liter engines lol. As well as the end of production and the hard to find info on it all. Causes many questions to arise lol.

[Vigo]

I'll do some research and find out...I believe its what was in some of the Plymouth Arrows and all. But, I know it existed As I said...I think it was the 4G51.

I have a 2.0 4g52 in a 80 plymouth arrow truck. I also have a 2.6 in an 84 k-car. I may be swapping the 2.6 head onto the 2.0 block, not sure yet. I will take pics if and when i do it :p

[tsiconquest88]

it will work, also as for your relatives truck being an 88 d-50 sets it in the possibility that it does have the g52 as it was still available just not common. I sat and thought on this for a while. Remembered a friend of mine a long time back had one. the 2.0 4g52 was still there as well as the 2.6, much more common of course. So the truck u spoke of (88 d-50) prob does have the 2.0 and he used the head off the 2.6 which should be fine and not be the cause of the engine issue.
As far as the arrow truck goes, it was only made till 82 anyway. So who knows what would have been in it after that haha.

[capev86]

TopDollar69. i hope you have a class 2 hitch on that lebaron (i've seen one listed for a spirit). a class 1 is not rugged enough, especially if it mounts to the bumper/floorpan like the one on my 86 aries wagon. i had a custom fit class 3 hitch on my 89 lesabre (3.8 fwd) along with '93 lesabre front 11" brake upgrade, t type sway bars, strut brace, plug in trailer harness, 15 inch rims with 70 series tires (vs 75's), etc, etc and i still got pulled over towing a neon a couple years back 'cause i didn't have trailer brakes on the tow dolly. thankfully i had 4 people in the buick and the neon/dolly combo was lower than the base weight of the tow vehicle so he let me go after what seemed forever and a day. i never had any problems because i drive like a grandma when towing and leave plenty of reaction time in front of me. the car worked awesome for the several times i used it as a tow vehicle but now i have a 72 suburban 3/4 ton to handle all my serious towing needs. i did save all my mods when i junked the car.....in case i buy another late 80's lesabre......i dig the flip forward hood.

[TopDollar69]

The lebaron did have a class 2 hitch. I wouldn't try towing a car with one of those half assed class 1 hitches. The Lebaron is now gone, but I have installed a class 2 hitch on my 85 T&C wagon, and I have to say the Lebaron vert was a much better car for towing as I think it was actually heavier, and had a more solid chassis.

Anyways, I know it's been quite some time but I wanted to give an update on what I found had failed on the 2.6L that was in my New Yorker. It appears the tensioner for the oil pump-balance shaft broke and wedged between the chain and the gear on the crankshaft where it stripped all the teeth off the gear. I'm willing to bet that if the guy I bought the car from had just shut it down when the oil pressure dropped it probably could have been fixed. It's amazing the engine continued to run with zero oil pressure, and even ran when I bought it (with a serious rod knock of course).

My uncles truck was a 2.6L and the head worked just fine on it, until it blew up last winter after he got it stuck ice fishing.