Modern chassis to put my 3.0/A543 into?

[87turbodance]

I've been hunting for a new chassis for my 3.0/A543 combo. My Spirit is pretty rotten and I would rather invest in a newer vehicle with a more modern interior with more safety features. Whatever I choose I will be running a 3.0/A543 combo with the option of the van AWD system. Megasquirt will be used for sure.

I have been looking extensively at the cloud cars as a replacement chassis but I'm having trouble figuring out how to handle the factory BCM and digital odometer. I have fairly easily install (in theory at this point) my A543 into a cloud car and wire up MS but I need a working speedometer and odometer.

I have also been looking at other platforms and abandoning Chrysler altogether but I don't want to to that unless I have to.

Anyone else have any suggestions for a sedan chassis I could use? Or how to figure out the cloud car BCM and digital odometer?

[bond_bbs]

If you're going through all that work, why not just use an aftermarket Speedo?

[87turbodance]

If you're going through all that work, why not just use an aftermarket Speedo?

I want a car that looks 100% stock but a turbocharged V6 under the hood. I don't want the riced out look or the race car look.

[RoadWarrior222]

IMO anything it is close to fitting without maaaajor work is gonna be in the '95 to 2000 timeframe. Then all else being equal, you've only got a 5 year headstart on rot, which with anything over 10 years old isn't really a big enough lead to waste money on. However, I don't know if it is equal, since Chryslers from that timeframe that I've seen have rotted worse/quicker than the 90-95ish ones in my observation. Forget hyundai platforms from the same era also, they only pulled their metaphorical socks up 7 or 8 years ago. Mitsu are rare here due to them only entering the market a few years back, and you could have BIG import troubles, not quite old enough to get a free pass, and they might need unobtanium equipment to bring them to Canadian standards.

So, best bet IMO is just looking around for that Grampa owned gem of an AA, P, H, G, J etc that's in phenomenal shape now and looking after it. Though the TBIs are more common there, and you would still have the swap to do.

Also, I'm not tooooo sure that that era was great for safety either, some of our bodies seem to hold up pretty good in the vids and pics that are on youtube, whereas in similar tests, the neons, clouds etc, were a bit marginal.

[Murphy]

I can say that a spirit will hold up pretty good in a crash. I've rear ended a car and blew the airbag, t-boned a car and blew the airbag and rolled it over, and I was able to drive away each time.

[c2xejk]

I want a car that looks 100% stock but a turbocharged V6 under the hood. I don't want the riced out look or the race car look..
You may want to get a 24v v6 and a piggy-back controller. All the gauges should work. Not sure if the ecu will set any codes.

[RoadWarrior222]

This one must be worth checking out...
http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-cars-trucks-95-Plymouth-acclaim-W0QQAdIdZ319267615

[Force Fed Mopar]

You could get an Avenger, they came w/ a 2.5 V6 that is basically a small 3.0. Mounts should be pretty close. Or you could get a late-model Stratus R/T, they came w/ 6G74 5-spds. Shouldn't be too hard to swap a 6G72 into either one, especially if you are using MS. And, I know awd setups have been swapped into the Avenger body before (DSM setups), so that will help you on that front.

[Sundance 6g72]

naw the stratus RT had a 6g72 but it was with the 4 valve heads and slightly weaker pistons. I think that be why hes staying with the 12valve?

the stratus 5spd should bolt up to the 12valve motor making it slightly easy to custom make a front mount and a passenger mount? not sure how ghetto it would be if you had solid front, passenger, and tranny mounts, leaving no rear mount?

[dodgeshadowchik]

I though those 24V heads will bolt onto the 12V engine? That might be a cool option. :)

I'd say stick with the older dodges, but look for a clean one... or the dsm-based avenger/sebring.

[Sundance 6g72]

or just get a 94 awd talon and be done with it :D


i believe the heads bolt on, but coolant and oil passages are different.. same deal with the dohc heads? or its the fact that routing the timing belt and other accessories is difficult?

[Shadow24]

timing belt setup and crank are different 12v vs 24v (sohc or dohc), not compatible without swapping cranks and such.

I second the clean dodge motion. The newer cars are all alot heavier. The avenger and sebring/eclipse people are now swapping 3.5s and 3.8s in instead of building the 3.0 as well

[87turbodance]

Decisions decisions... Maybe something like that 95 Acclaim is the best option.

[bond_bbs]

That 95 Acclaim has the goofiest CL ad I've ever read. "This lazy little car"... lol..

Also - to the Americans :P - we didn't get the 2nd Generation of the Stratus here in Canada, so no late model Stratus RT for us :(

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

Another thing to remember - if you engine swap into a newer car, you still legally require that all the CARS factory emissions control crap are in place. The "Hot Rod" work around doesn't really work anymore unless you prove the engine swap was done pre-2000. As well - swapping the V6 into a 4 banger car also means you have to get yours running under it's lower emissions requirements.

Unless you know a place that does *cough*hot*cough* etests...

[Sundance 6g72]

we dont have any of that bull in michigan... yet.


you could always run a second exhaust that is easily swappable along with keeping the stock ecu in place like i WAS doing (took like 5min to go from MS to sbec)

[RoadWarrior222]

Decisions decisions... Maybe something like that 95 Acclaim is the best option.Might be a quick option too, looks like it has a V6 badge on the fender, so maybe you just need to switch out the Slips-Oh-Four, for the 543 to get mobile.

[Ondonti]

all 6g72 cranks are compatible in all 6g72 blocks, 6g73 also. 6g73 is just a 3.0 that has not been bored out enough.

2g dsm n/a body?

[jl93sundance]

Look for an 02' Chrysler Sebring Coupe, they were available with the 3.0l. They put 5-speeds in those too, not sure what trans they used though.

[87turbodance]

all 6g72 cranks are compatible in all 6g72 blocks, 6g73 also. 6g73 is just a 3.0 that has not been bored out enough.

I was wondering about this. I has assumed that the 2.5 crank would have lighter counter-weights making it not practical to us with 3.0 pistons. Can you confirm or deny if there is a difference between the 2.5 and 3.0 crankshafts? aside from the pin that sticks out from the crank snout in the 24V motors.

---------- Post added at 09:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------




2g dsm n/a body?

I've considered the 2G DSM and starting with swapping the 3.0(12V or 24V?) / A543 in place of the 4G63 (blasphemy! I know.) Axles might be a pain in the --- but it would be awful cool to make it AWD using van parts. Intake manifold would need to very low profile.

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------

MY biggest issue with the 24V motor is lack of inexpensive aftermarket cams. For under $500 I can have a couple crower regrinds in my hands for the 12V and solid rockers are available. I can't say the same for the 24V motors.

[87turbodance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk3Ot3Jb3dM

[Vigo]

wow... that side-by-side video at the end is a complete crock of ----. Maybe if the guy still thought the swap was a good idea after he finished, he would use video of his actual car.

The speedo isnt going crazy fast but it's still faster than a 2.5/604 with intake and exhaust would be. I really dont think that porting and polishing the heads on those things would do jack ---- if you ran a stock plenum and TB.. hes using the stock plenum off a cloud car 2.5 in one of the motor pics, but the finished install shows the stock avenger/sebring plenum installed. Even if you could move the limiter on those computers (how did he do it? B&G maybe.....) the thing wouldnt rev out on stock plenum and cams for crap. On a stock motor it's dying off at 5500 even though those heads on a 2.5 could go WAY higher.. it would not accelerate from 7-9k rpm like that. And his tach must be full of crap because a 2500 stall on a torqueless motor is not going to actually stall at ~4k like the video seems to suggest, and i dont think the stock 24v valvetrain could do 9k, and i dont know if you could spin a 604 to 9k without big converter problems. Also, i know of every possible 604 gear ratio mashup that doesnt involve custom gears, and there is no gearing you can stick in the 604 that gets you 9k rpm @37 mph in first gear. even with the lowest possible ~4.28:1 final drive, you would still be doing 59mph @9k rpm in 1st gear on a tire diameter like what he shows in his vid, and the tire you would need to make the math work would be 19 or 20" in diameter.. which only exists in racing tires for 13" wheels which wont fit over 2g dsm brakes.

So, theres a lot wrong with that clip at the end.

But yeah, it's easy to do a v6 swap into a 2g dsm. You would definitely have to run the mitsu-style intake manifold though, and probably dist cap and wires too.

[87turbodance]

He must be using the 4 cylinder tach with the V6. Regardless, shows how to easily as 6G7x can be installed in place of a 420a.

[Vigo]

I wonder when he says 3.0 internals if he means he did a 3.0 shortblock swap and used everything else from the 2.5 donor. I could see a 3.0 swap with some mods being that fast down a hill.

[Sundance 6g72]

the 2.5 v6 is a 6g73 right? (no time to look it up, gotta run) but i thought you could just use a 3.0 24valve 3.0 crank and call it good?

i know ive heard of 3si guys finding that they have 2.5 blocks.... with sohc heads or something like that. i think i posted about it on TD with a link to some guy on 3si who found that he had infact a 2.5 block in his stealth or some bs.

[Force Fed Mopar]

All that work for another 20hp lol.

Edit: I didn't watch all of it, but from the posts made, I gather it got some port work or something. Either way, IMO you would be much better off using a 3.0 bottom end. The 2.5 is pretty gutless, can't imagine they much more out of it w/ that little work than a stock 3.0 would make. I drove a Avenger w/ a 2.5 auto, it was a slow turd. Handled really good though :eyebrows:

[Vigo]

the 2.5 v6 is a 6g73 right? (no time to look it up, gotta run) but i thought you could just use a 3.0 24valve 3.0 crank and call it good?

Yes, the 2.5 v6 is called 6g73. The crank is the same as a 3.0. The 2.5 has a smaller bore. Changing a 2.5 car to 3.0 involves swapping the shortblock. It's a direct bolt-up swap. The 3.5 and 3.8 have taller deck heights which involves changing some brackets and the lower intake and modifying the exhaust piping, so those are not direct bolt-up swaps.

[bond_bbs]

I do like the looks of the factory 6g73 exhaust manifolds in comparison to our 3.0L exhaust. Ours are terrible, the 73 at least looks like a little bit of flowtesting was done on them. Wondering on how interchangeable they would be with our motors.

Also love the exhaust crossover pipe being UNDER the engine instead of across the tranny. Yes, more difficult for crossover mounted turbo, but much easier to get better exhaust flow.

[87turbodance]

I'm thinking 2G Eclipse / Talon with a 3.0 shortblock. I'm going to use the 2.5 24V heads on the 3.0 block with an A543. Seems very doable.

I'm having a bit of trouble finding a tested cam re-grind for the SOHC 24V motors that doesn't cost the same as the car.

The SOHC / 24V manifold will NOT fit the 12V heads. The 24V heads could be potentially mounted on the 12V block in in a TD if you use a 24V crank and find a away to make the front engine bracket fit with the much wider 24V timing belt setup. 12V block might be missing a timing belt idler boss. Engine control would be a can of worms you might not want to open.

[ShelGame]

1st Gen Neon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zte8Tk_RmE8&feature=player_embedded

http://v6neon.homestead.com/V6SRT.html

AWD 3.0 Neon would be fun, I think...

[Vigo]

I do like the looks of the factory 6g73 exhaust manifolds in comparison to our 3.0L exhaust. Ours are terrible, the 73 at least looks like a little bit of flowtesting was done on them. Wondering on how interchangeable they would be with our motors.

Also love the exhaust crossover pipe being UNDER the engine instead of across the tranny. Yes, more difficult for crossover mounted turbo, but much easier to get better exhaust flow.

Too bad we have a k-frame ruining that whole idea... i have thought the same thing before. Unless you have a stock height car you probably wouldnt want to run a pipe beneath the k-frame. One guy did it using a mitsu 3.0 front manifold on a shadow, though.


with the much wider 24V timing belt setup

Uhh... im pretty sure the sohc 24v setup is damn near identical. I think they use the SAME timing belt.

[87turbodance]

Uhh... im pretty sure the sohc 24v setup is damn near identical. I think they use the SAME timing belt.

The 24V belt is much wider and the crank sprocket uses up nearly all the space on the crank snout. 24V uses an additional idler pulley for the timing belt. The 12V cam pulleys may fit on the 24V cams... I'd rather user the wider 24V belt though. Either way, 24V heads in a TD require custom exhaust manifolds.

[Sundance 6g72]

I'm thinking 2G Eclipse / Talon with a 3.0 shortblock. I'm going to use the 2.5 24V heads on the 3.0 block with an A543. Seems very doable.

I'm having a bit of trouble finding a tested cam re-grind for the SOHC 24V motors that doesn't cost the same as the car.

The SOHC / 24V manifold will NOT fit the 12V heads. The 24V heads could be potentially mounted on the 12V block in in a TD if you use a 24V crank and find a away to make the front engine bracket fit with the much wider 24V timing belt setup. 12V block might be missing a timing belt idler boss. Engine control would be a can of worms you might not want to open.

why bother with a 12valve block then? iirc, the only diff is the 24valve block had weaker pistons.. and wouldnt we be able to just put 12valve pistons in the 24valve motor? or are they dished differently (now that i think of it, im sure they arE)



edit: i second the 3.0 in a neon. they have better suspension than us AND they are a little lighter than a pbody i believe.

oo and i have a pair of sexi headlights and smoked taillights for a 1g neon ;)

[Vigo]

The 24V belt is much wider and the crank sprocket uses up nearly all the space on the crank snout. 24V uses an additional idler pulley for the timing belt. The 12V cam pulleys may fit on the 24V cams... I'd rather user the wider 24V belt though. Either way, 24V heads in a TD require custom exhaust manifolds.

Thanks for the info. I have done a few (even owned one for a few years) but my eyeball micrometer and my memory are not 100% accurate. lol.

they put that sohc 24v in longitudinal apps. Depending on what those manifolds look like and what they are made out of, it MAY be easy to adapt one to run crossover exhaust. As i said earlier too, i did know of one guy who used a down-pointing mitsu 12v front exhaust mani (same arrangement as 24v) on a k-car.. he simply ran that pipe under the k-frame instead of between the k-frame and the body. The two downpipes merged somewhere behind the k-frame.

I wonder what Shadow24's exhaust looks like. he has the 24v sohc 3.0 in a p-body, after all.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Why not just run a 3.0 24v? Should be the same heads or better than the 2.5, and it should be the same height.

[Ondonti]

Not a fan of the 24v sohc heads unless they are mivec. Have never seen performance numbers to back up the hype. Not comparable to the dohc in any way.

You could consider RWD since bill Hitchner (spelling?) has a bellhousing adapter in the works for the Ford c4 auto. I am kinda excited about that for my Starlet.

[87turbodance]

RWD would be nice but If I was to go down that route I'd just a BMW 3-series E36.

I've looked at a few 1G Sebring/Avenger cars and I think that is the route I will take. I like the 97-00 Sebring specifically. The car desperately needs an A543 swap though which is a can of worms.
I'd like a sedan but I can't find a sedan I like that meets my requirements.

I also don't know what to do with the SOHC 24V heads. Cams are a must but I'm don't know what to do about regrinds or what kind of revs the stock rockers and springs cam take.

[bond_bbs]

If talking of motor swapping, why not look for a DOHC 3.0L from a scrapper / wrecker / parted Stealth/3K? Some good potential there..

[87turbodance]

I think the DOHC cams would be way too wide to fit the engine bay. Upper intake would have to be modified to face the right direction. DOHC heads on the 3.0 SOHC 24v short block might be a possibility.

[Force Fed Mopar]

You could just use the late-model Stratus R/T 5-spd, clutch components would probably match up easier. Unless you can find an early Galant or Eclipse w/ a cable clutch (not sure if they ever came with them or not, worth a check though).

[87turbodance]

To use the 543 I'd have to attach a clutch slave to the clutch arm. I've never seen a stratus R/T because they were never sold in Canada but from what I've read, that transmission won't fit in the 1G Avenger/Sebring, 1G/2G Eclipse/Talon. My understanding is that the 5 speed transmission found in the Stratus R/T is the same as the one found in the 3G Eclipse.

Food for thought: Avenger 4G63T AWD swap (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/633614/1997-dodge-avenger/page-4), Another Avenger 4G63T AWD swap (http://www.nyspeed.com/showthread.php?82731-RedVengeAPX-s-4G63T-awd-swapped-Dodge-Avenger)

I wonder if the Caravan transfer case and rear end would fit?

[Force Fed Mopar]

Well, a hydro clutch probably wouldn't be hard to fab on a 543.

[87turbodance]

Here is a good thread on Club3G: http://www.club3g.com/forum/3g-eclipse-gt-gts-specific/136385-3-8-mivec-avenger.html


Pictures taken from above thread:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/skyy406/Avenger%20Swap/slavebracket.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/skyy406/Avenger%20Swap/slavebracket2.jpg

[Sundance 6g72]

To use the 543 I'd have to attach a clutch slave to the clutch arm. I've never seen a stratus R/T because they were never sold in Canada but from what I've read, that transmission won't fit in the 1G Avenger/Sebring, 1G/2G Eclipse/Talon. My understanding is that the 5 speed transmission found in the Stratus R/T is the same as the one found in the 3G Eclipse.

Food for thought: Avenger 4G63T AWD swap (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/633614/1997-dodge-avenger/page-4), Another Avenger 4G63T AWD swap (http://www.nyspeed.com/showthread.php?82731-RedVengeAPX-s-4G63T-awd-swapped-Dodge-Avenger)

I wonder if the Caravan transfer case and rear end would fit?

:O

do the awd avenger. screw everything else. thats awesome !

[Vigo]

I never really got far enough to figure out if the caravan T-case would fit in the front, but i DID figure out that you can use a 2g gsx rear suspension/diff and get the gearing close enough to an awd 604 that you could run the awd with slightly staggered tire sizes. Now the caravan t-case has been adapted to the 543, so i havent run those numbers but i still think it is probalby workable if you use a 3.5fd 543.

Just throwing this out there.. if i were you id do an eclipse center console conversion. I like it much better than the avenger/sebring one.

I hope you go for it. I really liked my Avenger. I was JUST about to put it on coilovers/agx's and start adding power when i lost it. :(
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk124/Vigo327/myoldcar.jpg

[87turbodance]

If I were to use the Caravan AWD in one of these cars, I'd use the 2001+ AWD setup that has no viscous coupler.

[Vigo]

I think not having a viscous coupler might be making more work since the coupler gives you a tiny amount of fudge factor which may allow you to use the almost-bolt-in gsx rear setup.

[Sundance 6g72]

does the rear end of a dsm bolt up.. just need a custom driveshaft?

[87turbodance]

I think it bolts in with minor custom work

[Johnny]

Why not just get a car or mini van with NO rot and use that? Why does it have to be newer?

[Sundance 6g72]

i think because he said hes sick of k cars.. had them to long?

[Johnny]

Then something really different...510 Datsun?.....what about make a mid engine car, put the engine in the back of something.
Oh, FWD...Fiat 128.

[87turbodance]

Something different. I have been yearning to drive something a generation or two newer. I suppose this forum may not the be the appropriate place to discuss replacing a turbo dodge but I think a DSM with a 3.0 is still relevant to the forum.

I want something with a tilt and slide sunroof = no TD
I want something with four-wheel independent suspension = no TD
Aerodynamic = No TD
Something without that stupid parking brake hole = NO TD
...
you get the point I'm sure.

[Sundance 6g72]

lol i think he wants it to be fun yet replace all the jobs of his spirit... I.E. being somewhat reliable

[Johnny]

I want something with a tilt and slide sunroof = no TD

My turbo dodge has this.


Something without that stupid parking brake hole = NO TD

My TD doesnt have this

[Sundance 6g72]

http://imgs.pbnation.com/smilies/runaway.gif

[Johnny]

Build your own car. Something like a homemade Ariel Atom.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA

[87turbodance]

My turbo dodge has this.



My TD doesnt have this

What TD do you have?

[Johnny]

1990 Mini Van

[87turbodance]

1990 Mini Van

With a tilt and slide sunroof?

Also, I love UK Top Gear!

[Johnny]

Yes, in my black ES....

[Johnny]

These were just taken....

[87turbodance]

Sweet. What else was available with this sunroof? I've never seen a TD with a decent sunroof.

[Johnny]

What else? This van has electric front windows and electric open rear windows.

You mean what other cars? I am not sure. Shadow? Daytona?...maybe.
It is really rare for the van.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Lebaron I think had the electric sunroof like that available.

[Shadow24]

I know my 94 shell has a sunroof, but i'm not sure if its a dealer added option. Glass and only tilts up in the back...

[Johnny]

Build one of these....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XXZjEBKgSA&feature=related

[bond_bbs]

Yeah, my 93 Shadow ES has a sunroof, but it's a hand flip-lock tilt type, and you can also lift out / remove the glass completely.

[Vigo]

I suppose this forum may not the be the appropriate place to discuss replacing a turbo dodge but I think a DSM with a 3.0 is still relevant to the forum.

Dont leave!! I actually look forward to reading this thread more than most of the other ones that are active on TM right now.. It's even got my gears turning about stratus and avenger builds.

Plus, i think between this thread and the one on the other forum you have gotten some really good feedback/info. And you've probably noticed the ...caliber... of the stratus & avenger/sebring forum population by now.. and the dsm forums to a lesser but still noteworthy extent. :p

So keep it coming. :)

[87turbodance]

I'm not going anywhere. Don't worry. I need to take my tape measure to the pick n pull and measure the van transfer case and take a look at how much room there is behind the motor in the Avenger/Sebring. Even just to start out with the 3.0 24V Sebring with an A543 would be awesome. My 3.5fd A543 needs a refresh but there is a 3.77 A543 in the wrecker on the other side of town. They want $300 for it. I might have to pick it up for spare parts.

[87turbodance]

I have wondered about the LSA. Obviously the offset LSA promotes a broader torque curve at the expense of peak power but I wonder how much offset is best for a forced induction car. Or would a pair of cams with match LSA be safest for boost?

MS is capable of reading a pair of widebands, with one in each bank. MS can use the feedback to tune each cylinder bank independently. Perhaps the offset LSA would work better in boost if we had the capability to trim the fueling for each bank based on feedback from two widebands.

I don't have any experience running these motors with boost. All I know is what I've read from the SOHC 24V community who blame failures with boosted motor on the offset LSA.
__________________

[Force Fed Mopar]

I'd run the torquey cams and let the boost make up the top end.

[Sundance 6g72]

edit: ^ ^ ^ i was wondering about that. would stock cams not be as bad when boosted? you can really feel the power drop off around 5500rpms.. i kind of want to be able to rev to 6800rpms when racing just because it sounds bad ---... and if i can still win with the stock cams then im happy. lol


I have wondered about the LSA. Obviously the offset LSA promotes a broader torque curve at the expense of peak power but I wonder how much offset is best for a forced induction car. Or would a pair of cams with match LSA be safest for boost?

MS is capable of reading a pair of widebands, with one in each bank. MS can use the feedback to tune each cylinder bank independently. Perhaps the offset LSA would work better in boost if we had the capability to trim the fueling for each bank based on feedback from two widebands.

I don't have any experience running these motors with boost. All I know is what I've read from the SOHC 24V community who blame failures with boosted motor on the offset LSA.
__________________

i think the offset cams mess with things when you go further into the build

iirc, eds current NA cams are still offset, which would be fine but he replaced the front manifold with a custom header and saw a big improvement in downlow power (ve table needed to be increased) but maybe that is messing with the overall tune.

wasnt the purpose of the offset cams to make up for the good flowing rear manifold and the crap flowing front mani?

[Vigo]

All I know is what I've read from the SOHC 24V community who blame failures with boosted motor on the offset LSA.

I read a page at the website of one of the big sohc 24v community vendors that builds/supports boosted cars, and they were using vague, non-sensical gibberish to make it sound like the pistons were junky and would always break/melt at 8 psi or something like that. They showed a few pics.. looked to me like they were just cracking off ringlands, possibly from the ring ends butting, which many people here now recognize as a common issue with boosting non-turbo motors...

Honestly, MOST of the stuff you need to know to make a car/motor work is pretty universal and you can probably find any number of people on the sohc 24v forums who have lots of useless, specific info about the 24v app but dont have their fundamentals down. I like to think T-M is a pretty openminded place when it comes to projects besides a factory-turbo'd chryco car, so i think this is a good place to be having these discussions.

I think the best reason to minimize or do away with the asymmetrical cams is tuning issues. It's hard enough to get a turbo car into proper tune without having to worry about that. Is there any reason you cant run 2 front, or 2 rear cams other than the rear cam having something specific to drive the distributor? If that's the only issue it could almost certainly be worked around.

[RoadWarrior222]

to make it sound like the pistons were junky and would always break/melt at 8 psi or something like that. They showed a few pics.. looked to me like they were just cracking off ringlands, possibly from the ring ends butting, which many people here now recognize as a common issue with boosting non-turbo motors...

So what you're saying in TM cheapskate language is... don't use a fresh rebuilt to N/A spec, or low mileage motor, just go for a cheapy high mile one with looser rings :D

Actually come to think of it, I've heard story that many times over, "How come X is running 12 psi for the last 2 years on his junky old 250,000 mile motor, and I did everything "right" and by the book on this fresh rebuild and fugged it up at 6psi the first time down the track..."

[Sundance 6g72]

if they did everything right on the fresh rebuild, the ring caps would have been opened up like brent tells everyone over and over.

[RoadWarrior222]

Well what I meant was they built everything to "factory spec" for N/A not what they should have for boost.

[Ondonti]

Seen TJ blow 18 forged pistons and I am sure the 4th motor blew too. 24v pistons might come with instructions but that doesn't make them a good idea to use. I do know they have small ringlands on the turbo pistons that are sold by CP. I have gotten away with the tiny 10:1 top ringlands but I was careful when I took apart the motor to inspect and reassembled. High ringland does mean you will need some extreme ring gaps. You have to take all your circumstances into account. The cams really don't do much but cause 3 cylinders to make less power (more reversion then the other 3). If you tune your motor to the colder burning high reversion cylinders then the hotter ones are going to be unhappy. I have blown pistons on both sides. The hotter cams do bleed off more compression so in an NA application you kill off peak torque which is the most dangerous place for detonation, but as you pass peak torque then those hot cams will also suffer more reversion thanks to their greater overlap. I think the offset overlap setup might work decent with super boring oem application but when you push it (which mitsu and chrysler never did) then it becomes an annoying extra variable. I just ignored it. I believe safe overlaps will knock out much of the reliability concerns. Our OEM ring gaps are a huge range and when you get a couple small ones you are effectively limited by those cylinders even though you may have a cylinder that can handle a hundred horsepower by itself. Safe gaps AND safe timing should be very reliable. I spent so much time with OEM n/a timing regardless of boost level. What else could you expect. See what happens if you take n/a spark tables to a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo at any boost level on the same octane. Most people are afraid to boost n/a 2.2/2.5 motors but its really just their misunderstanding of what it takes to safely boost an n/a engine. The scarier thing about the 3.0 or an n/a 2.2/2.5 is that you have much higher compression levels so while n/a spark tables on a low compression turbo might work okay, its gets a lot dicier as compression rises.

I ran a bone stock n/a 3.0 with 16 pounds of boost on E70 fuel with FULL n/a timing and it was happy. Probably hurt power. Then on 22 pounds it was unsafe for the motor with the same n/a timing. It actually had to lean out thanks to inadequate fuel system on a full 1/4 pass to even get hurt. Staying nice and rich it was fine. Running more timing then ANYONE with a 2.2/2.5 on 1-2 points higher compression and n/a pistons and someone claims reliability problem? Hah! Just evidence that the n/a computer by itself hides a lot of potential. All that happened was a ringland broke. I increase compression level 1 point to 10:1 with 190,000 mile pistons but regapped the rings to prevent piston failure, added ported heads and my big cams and made so much power the crankshaft bent when the OEM girdle bolts stretched. I upgraded those but with the same n/a timing that we already knew was unsafe with a full point more compression was obviously pushing it. I had a huge fuel system so there was no leanout. I ran 4 pounds less boost but made more power. Those are all severe tests. Thanks to those tests you can have an idea where you don't want to push your motor, and an idea of where you could safely be if you had better tuning options.

[Sundance 6g72]

thank you Brent, for blowing up your motors for the better good of the 3.0 community :thumb:

[Ondonti]

Well I knew at least one person had turbo'd and blown the ringlands but it was all kept secret. Pretty standard for car guys to keep their failures a secret so they can seem to do things that are impossible or appear to have special abilities.

When I swapped to MS, I went with a standard fuel pressure regulator, maxed out my injectors at a much lower power level, and have not been able to revisit since I moved back to Seattle.
My 3.0 daily can make good power right now but it can't handle basic daily driving right now thanks to age, wear, or probably a set of pre OEM fix cylinder heads. Smoke is a reason I ditched the forged piston block and started playing with OEM motors. I could go back with forged pistons in a motor but for experimentation purposes I think its a waste of money until you have a functional setup that is even capable of blowing things up. Seen a few people build nice motors then be unable to ever use them. How do you get your money back? You don't. Easier to get your money back on turbo parts, and lets face it, its the fun part of the project. Keep your boost low and your brain cautious and see how she fairs.

[Shadow24]

on the cams, yes, the staggered setup does not help but as previously mentioned, tuning is key. The biggest detriment i can see with the proliferated idea on the 24v forums for why the 3.0 is so hard to boost, is everyone seemto cheap out on EFI. Once they cheap out there, it only leads to not being able to tune the motor correctly and blowing motors. As most of the 24v forum cars are OBD-II, they hardly ever consider something like MS, and usually rely on the iffy piggyback, inline or stock reflash engine controllers.

There was one member that ran 15psi on a bone stock GT motor (9:1 cr, non re-gapped rings) but it was propery tuned. With MS, i dont have any problem with my plan to boost in the 10-15psi range on a bone stock motor.

As for running 2 front or 2 rear cams on the 24v: you cant. Its just like the 12v, the front and rear bank cams are different lengths in order for the cam gears to line up.

[Vigo]

Thanks, i knew there was something obvious i had forgotten. I had all this figured out back when i had mine, but it's been 4 years now.

[bond_bbs]

on the cams, yes, the staggered setup does not help but as previously mentioned, tuning is key. The biggest detriment i can see with the proliferated idea on the 24v forums for why the 3.0 is so hard to boost, is everyone seemto cheap out on EFI. Once they cheap out there, it only leads to not being able to tune the motor correctly and blowing motors. As most of the 24v forum cars are OBD-II, they hardly ever consider something like MS, and usually rely on the iffy piggyback, inline or stock reflash engine controllers.

There was one member that ran 15psi on a bone stock GT motor (9:1 cr, non re-gapped rings) but it was propery tuned. With MS, i dont have any problem with my plan to boost in the 10-15psi range on a bone stock motor.

As for running 2 front or 2 rear cams on the 24v: you cant. Its just like the 12v, the front and rear bank cams are different lengths in order for the cam gears to line up.

That seems to be the going rate for basically every popular car out there - unless they can buy a kit it "can't be done" or "you'll just blow it up". I have been finding this to be much the case in the WRX world (my DD is a Bugeye WRX), where a guy was installing MS2 onto his STI and everybody told him he was building his car wrong or should've went with Brand X ECU / Chip / Reflash. Too many people out there are cheque book racers or (as I call them) Sears Catalogue tuners, where if they cannot buy it in a bolt on kit, it's not possible.

I also get a laugh out of people who drive 400+hp tuned custom cars, who cannot figure out or know how to even change their own oil. Trial and error, finding out the hard way, etc, all those things I would consider innovation - gets laughed at, ignored, put down, or shunned by the modding community.

I think that's why people like yourself (24V), Brent, 87turbodance, knightmoves (on TD), Ed, and few others get quite a bit of respect from the community because they're not afraid to go the dark road, try things out, and report back. You're not keeping all your cards close to your chest when you experiment.

[Shadow24]

That seems to be the going rate for basically every popular car out there - unless they can buy a kit it "can't be done" or "you'll just blow it up". I have been finding this to be much the case in the WRX world (my DD is a Bugeye WRX), where a guy was installing MS2 onto his STI and everybody told him he was building his car wrong or should've went with Brand X ECU / Chip / Reflash. Too many people out there are cheque book racers or (as I call them) Sears Catalogue tuners, where if they cannot buy it in a bolt on kit, it's not possible.

I also get a laugh out of people who drive 400+hp tuned custom cars, who cannot figure out or know how to even change their own oil. Trial and error, finding out the hard way, etc, all those things I would consider innovation - gets laughed at, ignored, put down, or shunned by the modding community.

I think that's why people like yourself (24V), Brent, 87turbodance, knightmoves (on TD), Ed, and few others get quite a bit of respect from the community because they're not afraid to go the dark road, try things out, and report back. You're not keeping all your cards close to your chest when you experiment.

Thanks. I'd rather show what happened that way I can usually get feedback and learn myself. That has a side-benefit of showing people what does and doesn't work as well.


<rant>
I also agree on the people that drop off a car, pay a bill and pick up a finished product. I personally prefer to build it myself so i can say "i did this" rather than those that show up at a car show and they have a list the length of their arm of who did what and all the owner did was sign checks.

Unfortunately a lot of the 24v community is younger and don't have the higher level of thought process, or willingness to go into the "ughknown". There are the odd one or two, but they seem to have become jaded with all the posers, n00bs and wannabe's that seeing someone truly wanting to learn gets lost in all the BS and flaming
</rant>

[87turbodance]

I'm still torn on what chassis to get. One day I think I'll just go get a Shadow Es 3.0 5 speed. The next day, I want an Avenger and then the next day I say F it and start looking at Audi 1.8t Quattro's.


Hmmmm....

Joe's turbo Shadow really makes we want to go that route.

[Sundance 6g72]

Joe's turbo Shadow really makes we want to go that route....

;)

[Force Fed Mopar]

I'd do an Avenger, they are nice looking cars.

[paduster]

I love the look and feel of my 1994 lebaron conv. It has the 3.0 and a 5 speed now I got it with a bad auto for 400 dollars it has no rust and air bags and rides great. Mind u its running like crap right now but i think it needs a fuel filter so I will see. If you could find what i did I would but it just keep looking for something you will find something you like. But do u need emissions inspection if you do u will need to stay away from 96 and newer since it is obd2

[87turbodance]

OBD2 is fine because they don't plug it in here to check if the car still had the OBD2 electronics - as long as it passes the sniffer test I'm good.

I like the avenger but running 5 speed will take a bit of effort.

I already have a complete running 3.0/A543 spirit and a lot of the parts could be used in a shadow - especially if I get an A604 car.

[RoadWarrior222]

Well early OBD 2 is gonna be fine, 98 up is going to be an OBD 2 scan test from next year I think. 97 and below going to 2 speed idle test.

[87turbodance]

Well early OBD 2 is gonna be fine, 98 up is going to be an OBD 2 scan test from next year I think. 97 and below going to 2 speed idle test.

Oh yeah? That sucks.

[RoadWarrior222]

Particularly for any Neon or minivan owner who had the TC lockup disconnected by the dealer on a 3 speed under a TSB for lockup clutch shudder... Any code = fail.

[Irocelectric93]

Just get a shadow and call it a day :D

[87turbodance]

97 and below going to 2 speed idle test.

That's a pia. I always find the idle a PIA to pass. No test for NOx then I'm guessing?

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------


Just get a shadow and call it a day :D

If I can find a good one.

I'm trying to contact the person about this car. Two hour drive to get and the surface rust from the paint peel worries me.
http://img1.classistatic.com/cps/kj/110723/727r3/2817jl6_20.jpeg
http://london.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-cars-trucks-1993-Dodge-Shadow-ES-3-0-V6-Hatchback-W0QQAdIdZ296889293

[Force Fed Mopar]

If you aren't stuck on a newer car, then yeah, just find a clean 89-94 car.

[Sundance 6g72]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/380048_10150501769733899_534573898_10381863_181445 1455_n.jpg


VROOM VRROOOM

neon with 3.0 swap would be more baller imo. easier to get the suspension setup for power imo

[Vigo]

Audi 1.8t Quattro's.

Huh? Ive worked on and driven a mildly modded b6 one (k04, injectors, tune) and based on that i definitely wouldn't own one. It's too much of a PITA to work on and parts are expensive. I have seen some relatively cheap ones but honestly unless you buy one with few issues you will probably end up putting 1-2k in it in the first year or two.

[RoadWarrior222]

It's easy to put 1K into anything over 5 years old though.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Lol, I haven't seen very many TM's that didn't need $1k of work ;)

[RoadWarrior222]

Yeah, even if the starter, alternator, battery, steering pump, rack and water pump is good still after 10+ years on them, there's still new brakes, bushings, tie rods, balljoints, struts, springs, shocks likely to be needed.... then you probably want "good" tires on, even if the ones that came on it are legal. That's before you do anything to the motor beyond plugs, wires, oil and filter... yah, you can get the basic parts dirt cheap these days, but it adds up, and you don't really want bottom of the barrel parts, you'll be doing it all again next year.

[87turbodance]

My other car of interest is a BMW E36 and add a turbo to the M42. M52 turbo would be cool too but a much bigger pain in the ---.

http://imgc.classistatic.com/cps/kjc/111210/456r1/1844185_20.jpeg

[Ondonti]

Marybeth posted up a 6g72 auto 41te into a 99 DSM

http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/cto/2747743600.html

http://images.craigslist.org/5W25P55X13k13m13lbbcb3466297639f018c6.jpg
http://images.craigslist.org/5Y45Q65U33kc3oa3labcb19fe0d19c7e91f41.jpg
http://images.craigslist.org/5T45U35X03n63mc3lfbcbd23b93f30a4019bb.jpg

[Vigo]

Lol, I haven't seen very many TM's that didn't need $1k of work

I wasnt including labor, though. It's pretty hard to spend $1k on parts on a TM just to get it decent unless you're including paying someone else's labor for a turbo, motor work, trans build, etc. You can pretty much buy every single piece under the hood other than that, and brakes/wheel bearings/seals from rockauto for less than $1k.

Like, replacing all three mounts on a TM cost ~$60? No labor. Replacing all three motor mounts on an a4 costs as much as TU charges for a basic t3/t4 hybrid turbo.

[87turbodance]

I wasnt including labor, though. It's pretty hard to spend $1k on parts on a TM just to get it decent unless you're including paying someone else's labor for a turbo, motor work, trans build, etc. You can pretty much buy every single piece under the hood other than that, and brakes/wheel bearings/seals from rockauto for less than $1k.

Like, replacing all three mounts on a TM cost ~$60? No labor. Replacing all three motor mounts on an a4 costs as much as TU charges for a basic t3/t4 hybrid turbo.

You every use one of those $20 motor mounts? I sear they use jello instead of rubber.

[Vigo]

And the A4 mounts ACTUALLY have a jello substance in them (liquid filled) but cost 5x as much.

[87turbodance]

I like the idea of getting a 2.0 base Talon and swapping a SOHC 24V 3.0. An A543 would be a chore to get working though.

[87turbodance]

And the A4 mounts ACTUALLY have a jello substance in them (liquid filled) but cost 5x as much.

There is certainly an "entrance fee" to get into an A4 or BMW for that matter. The question is: Is it worth it? that is much debated. With my budget, I'm thinking Eagle Talon Esi 2.0 with a 6G73/A543 swap.

I don't want to deal with crank walk, LOL. Honestly, I just want to stick with the Mitu V6 platform.

[Force Fed Mopar]

You every use one of those $20 motor mounts? I sear they use jello instead of rubber.

Yeah, I just pulled the drivetrain out of my Daytona and found that my 6-month old mount from AutoZone is torn up already. It looked and felt great when I installed it, but it's junk now. Guess I'll spring for a poly next time.

Oh, and Audi's are real easy to work on, once you figure out how the nose comes off :D They are actually made to have have the nose easily removed, I've never done it but my brother and my buddy have both done a lot of work on them and can have the nose off in like 30 mins.

[Vigo]

I helped a friend r&r the trans in his ~02 quattro. Book time on that is like 12 hours. He was putting in a $1000 clutch because the stocker was wasted (thing only makes like 230hp), and he put it back in with a bad 3rd gear synchro because he couldnt afford the $300 synchro ring at that time.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Yeah parts are definitely expensive.

[rbryant]

My other car of interest is a BMW E36 and add a turbo to the M42. M52 turbo would be cool too but a much bigger pain in the ---.

http://imgc.classistatic.com/cps/kjc/111210/456r1/1844185_20.jpeg

BMW I6 > Mitsu V6.

Of course I am a big fan of inline engines...

I paid less than 6k for my '01 E46 330i with about 115k on it and it is a nice daily driver and really looks like a much much more expensive car.

The parts haven't been that expensive really but I can't imagine how much labor would be if I didn't do everything myself. For example I had an overboosted steering rack that started to leak and I bought a used rack from a '99 E46 for $80 shipped and installed it in a couple of hours. From the dealer it would have been $1200 for just the rack and then probably another $800 to install it.

The E46s were better deals IMO than the E36s which were getting pretty long in the tooth...

It is my daily driver so I am avoiding putting the twin screw supercharger on it which would add about 80-100hp and make it faster than an M3.

-Rich

[Ondonti]

6g73 is the 2.5L turd motor.

All out, that bimmer motor can't hang, but its cheap to make big power as long as you don't go too far. Not that we have transmissions that can handle big power in a TM.

[87turbodance]

The Bimmer motor can make some serious power when built all out - more power then practical! It is just a pain to fit a turbo and kits are expensive. The Vanos requires special tools and will likely need to be rebuilt on any bimmer I buy. Transmissions like to get stuck in gear. A nice one is expensive.

6G73 is no more of a turd then the 6G72 if we're calling the 6G73 a turd. It is basically the same motor with a smaller bore is it not? Smaller bore for improved fuel economy paired with a turbo to give it some kick when you need it sounds good to me.

I don't need 600hp. I just want something cozy and stylish that will run a high 12 when I want it to.

[Irocelectric93]

Stylish? Get a daytona then :eyebrows:

[rbryant]

I don't need 600hp. I just want something cozy and stylish that will run a high 12 when I want it to.

I love our cars for what they are but they are not going to be as comfortable as a newer Bimmer.

The I6 alone is going to be more cozy because it is just inherently smoother than the V6.

Our cars also simply don't handle like my 330i unless you seriously stiffen them up. If you want a reasonably soft ride that also handles it is hard to beat BMWs.

At any rate this discussion is a bit off topic because putting a V6 into a Bimmer isn't reasonable at all and would probably have terrible results...

If i was in love with the 6G72 and wanted a little more luxury than a shadow I would probably look into putting one into a Lancer.

If you want a newer car 2G Stratus is probably the best option but then you have to deal with OBDII so it would have to run all of the emissions components from the 6G73 anyway.

-Rich

[Vigo]

The 6g73 is a turd motor because it is a horribly mismatched design. smaller bores under the same heads = '305 syndrome'/valve shrouding, the port/runner CSA is too damn big for the actual rev range of the motor, the runner length is too long, the plenum is too small, shall i go on? The 24v top end makes a LOT more sense in the <6k rpm region on a 3.5, and enough more sense on a 3.0.

Good news, they swap in easily. :)

[87turbodance]

My understanding of the 4 valve head design is that it is beneficial for engines with smaller bores. Would this not be beneficial for the 6G73 with its smaller mores size?

[Force Fed Mopar]

I drove a 2.5 Avenger once, it wasn't very powerful but it went decent. It pulled all the way up to the redline. It also handled very good.

[Sundance 6g72]

and it should accept a 3.0 block with sohc25v pistons right? Custom plenum isnt a big deal either

[rbryant]

and it should accept a 3.0 block with sohc25v pistons right? Custom plenum isnt a big deal either

The 6G73 has a smaller bore. The 7.6mm smaller bore of the 6g73 compared to the 6g72 is a pretty big difference.

I think it might make for excessive piston clearance and low compression if you used a 6g73 piston in a 6g72 block. :)

Just to throw out a bigger nit pick on your typo... I am not sure how that 25th valve would work out for you with the sohc25v. ;)

The 24v DOHC 6g72 pistons with a 6g73 head might work though.

Is the 3.8l galant block compatible? :)

-Rich

[Sundance 6g72]

i should have been more specific. take the avenger with the 2.5 and swap a 3.0 sohc 24valve block into it.

everything should be the same just the bore... and it should just swap in just fine.

problem with 12valve block is getting it to just swap in 100% just fine with sohc 24valve heads... and even worse when using dohc heads.

3.5block swap into a dohc car is common.. not sure on the specifics though

[rbryant]

i should have been more specific. take the avenger with the 2.5 and swap a 3.0 sohc 24valve block into it.

everything should be the same just the bore... and it should just swap in just fine.

problem with 12valve block is getting it to just swap in 100% just fine with sohc 24valve heads... and even worse when using dohc heads.

3.5block swap into a dohc car is common.. not sure on the specifics though

Just giving you a hard time...

The 3.5/3.8 swap seems better to me. Most of the time the bigger engine is the way to go unless your head is the restriction. Even the 3.8l is oversquare so it should still rev decently and make more horsepower.

Unless you are sold on building up an engine it will probably be easier to find a low mileage 3.8l than a low mileage 3.0l...

-Rich

[c2xejk]

My understanding of the 4 valve head design is that it is beneficial for engines with smaller bores. Would this not be beneficial for the 6G73 with its smaller mores size?

The problem with the cylinder heads in specific is the ports are too big. Based on some work I did on these, a 3.5L w/Nitrous was at the bottom end of acceptable displacement for the engine. Even then the engine would probably benefit from shrinking the ports slightly to keep the flow from getting to lazy/slow... For a 3.0 or 2.5, I would definitely want to decrease port cross-section area.

[87turbodance]

If we're talking about a complete 3.0 SOHC 24V swap in an Avenger than a complete 3.0 24V SOHC motor is the answer. If we're talking about SOHC 24V heads on a 12V 3.0 block in a K based car, then ebay 3.0 SOHC 24V pistons installed in a 12V block with 24V heads bolted on sounds doable. Swap the 24V cam gears for 12V cam gears and add a custom toothed crank wheel and Mesgasquirt. No messing with motor mounts required. Exhaust manifolds will be an issue though - build log manifolds for a cross over mounted turbo?

[Sundance 6g72]

just turbo the damn 12valve :thumb:

[Vigo]

i should have been more specific. take the avenger with the 2.5 and swap a 3.0 sohc 24valve block into it.


Yes, that is a very simple and highly recommended swap.

But consider my, and Ed's comments. Even a 3.0 is on the small side for the port sizes in the 24v sohc top end. A 3.5 would be better. However, because of the deck height difference vs the 2.5 and 3.0, it is not a 'drop-in' like the 3.0. Some adapting is needed on the brackets. I think it's worth it for the extra .5, which makes the whole setup work better.

[Sundance 6g72]

so the ports are actually to BIG causing a drop in performance? whether it be a 2.5 or 3.0?

2.5sohc lower intake
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/393697_10150523248578899_534573898_10442950_251955 771_a.jpg


this is a dohc head port

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/391104_10150523239518899_534573898_10442939_115861 6004_n.jpg


i dont know much about head ports for the intake but they look the same.. and everyone raves about the dohc head's ability to flow really well

[Vigo]

2 points:

1. the dohc AND sohc 24v 3.0 actually make less torque than the 12v 3.0 up to a certain rpm, and that's a symptom of the larger ports lowering velocity, which hurts volumetric efficiency in the 'normal driving' range.

2. The dohc people actually rev the motor to 8, even 9k rpm once they get serious. The ports on the sohc 24v top end would work well at that kind of rpm (on a 2.5 or 3.0), but nobody actually does it (valvetrain issues?).

It's all about context. In a *1-6k rpm* context, the ports on the sohc 24v top end are a bad match for a 2.5L. They are a decent match for a 3.5L.

My personal opinion is if you arent going higher than 6-7k rpm, the main selling point of the sohc 24v setup is the ease of getting 3.5 or 3.8L of displacement under it. As a 3.0 it's a bad compromise of the 12v and the dohc's strengths, and as a 2.5 it just doesnt make sense at all.

[black86glhs]

Yeah....burn all 2.5 V6's!!!!

Just kidding.

[RoadWarrior222]

The same is mostly true for all 4V per cyl vs 2 valve per cyl heads on the same motor, crappy torque on 4V, no top end on 2V

If I had the 24V I'd be figuring a way to knobble one intake valve until 3000RPM or so. (Drill big hole in lifter???)

[Ondonti]

Big RPMS and big mods are still needed to make that dohc head remotely useful in n/a applications. N/A dohc heads are different then turbo Dohc heads.

24v sohc 3.0 = super lazy on spool and then no top end thanks to whatever reason. IPS's 24v sohc actaully had a great looking powerband but it was professionaly built for big big bucks. It didn't make big bucks power.
I think that lazy spool leads people to run too much boost because the car IS slow and then things want to fail. The car never stops being lazy but they try to make up for it when things wind up.

[black86glhs]

What about making a sleeve that would go down into the port to make it slightly narrower to keep up the velocity? I have no idea how to do it, just asking.

[RoadWarrior222]

You can sorta do the same thing by roughing up the port.

---------- Post added at 10:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

BTW I keep sketching up a load of self-activating variable intakes working off vacuum... haven't come up with something really killer yet.

Simplest idea though is to line a runner/port with a bit of inner tube, with ambient pressure relief on the outside, which with vacuum narrows and constricts the runner/port but at WOT expands to size of port.

[Ondonti]

Spending so much $ and effort to make a 24 valve head function properly seems to prove its merit. Or take a head that already performs well and make it better.

+3 +3 head is pretty cool stuff.

Say all you want about my car being lighter then the turbo SOHC 24v I beat up on but I beat that 24v up on the dyno chart even when he makes more peak hp for a few rpms (also running higher boost then me). Same freakin dyno shop. My top end also doesn't fall on its face. I hit max headflow (or wherever the bottleneck was, probably my tiny 1.38" intake runners) for a certain pressure differential and torque slowly descends at the same rate so hp starts to flatline. My car had a plug wire completely disconnected but still sorta sitting on the plug that was misfiring bad under load and he still had no chance in the video. I just would not pull strongly and then completely stop pulling as rpm's increased to the point where the plug wire would arc to something besides the nearbye plug wire.

Same weight it would have been a loss for him because he lagged too bad and then couldn't hold the top end after his middle upper range HP spike.

[Ondonti]

24v SOHC on a 61mm GT35R ball bearing. Complete control over tune. Built motor. 23psi

http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh426/ondonti/No%20racing%20tonight/TJ530TCharged.jpg?t=1242034223

12v SOHC on a "laggier" dinosaur journal bearing P trim + 67mm wheel. No control over tune beyond fuel that was rigged as carefully as possible. Also a meager 7.0:1 compression ratio.
This pull doesn't have messed up torque axis like my 516hp pull and I started lower so it spools a little more, this was 19.5psi and the pull is cleaner then my 516 where I ran 20ps but obviously suffered detonation and maybe spark blowout (first 2 pulls were huge blowout so I gapped the plugs smaller).
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh426/ondonti/No%20racing%20tonight/run4c.jpg
20psi. Makes mower power at 5k rpms but things are not happy up top. Probably coolant push from detonation. We had water on the floor below the overflow bottle on one of the first spark blowout pulls and you can see the radiator cap venting in the original quality during the blowout pulls. Lost video (battery) on the later pulls.
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh426/ondonti/No%20racing%20tonight/run5c-1.jpg?t=1255467255

Same dyno, same shop. Look at the angle his torque is dropping, where mine will clearly run out a few thousand more RPMS and basically flatline HP if I had engine management back then. I didn't even need the rpms to win this contest but just imagine adding 500 or 1000 or 1500 or 2000 more rpms to the table. Imagine having control over the tune! This is why I am excited about the valvetrain and headwork potential for the 12v.

The interesting thing is that both of us are running 91 octane pumpgas and methanol, no race gas. I would think that 24v can get away with more abuse on the same octane level but with both engines being able to fully control timing I think there would be little difference. He had much higher compression ratio then me but also had control of spark. That should have helped him spool sooner.

To get a handle on the top end performance. He loses 100 ft/lb from 5000 to 6000 rpms and I only lose 50ft/lb. Thats why power is still climbing for me whereas his torque drop is too extreme to keep making peak power. My dyno runs are not quality runs because I actually advanced the base timing which I think ended up causing the coolant push. I suffered spark blowout at the same time and forgot to drop back the timing when I was regapping the plugs. Thats what happens when you have no real control of your tune. You don't have all that datalog data sitting there to feast over after a pull. I thought it gained power after raising timing but it was actually a blip in the dyno chart from missfire and the pull actually makes less power throughout the pull and the peak torque is also less. I only realized this after analyzing the charts more and thinking back to what happened that day. Dynoing for free for fun because your friend won money at a casino = no planning involved.

[87turbodance]

Interesting comparison. What cams are you running on these pulls Brent?

Do you know what cams the SOHC 24V is running?

[Vigo]

Wow, that 24v dyno takes big dump right at 6k. Almost seems to be acting like a stock top end (including cams) + a bunch of boost.

Now, if we find out that that guy had non-stock cams and a non-stock upper intake manifold.. that will be pretty damning. I already know ANY sohc 24v powerband is going to take a dump at 6k with the stock upper intake (except MAYBE eclipse gts?).

[Sundance 6g72]

the stock upper seems to be tooo small. especially on the 2.5

[Ondonti]

Running my custom cams, don't know about him. Bigger cams then he already has will just make his motor less responsive and less fun below peak torque. Its possible he has stockers or maybe RPW's. His build info is pretty much gone since his forums he created are all dead. Maybe on cardomain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7KONxzWcs&feature=related
When the motor was supercharged it was very anemic. "Running 20 PSI on a Vortech V5 G-Trim blower. Put down 374 WHP @ 6850 RPM and 286 ft-lb from about 5000+"

He did port and polish the heads but I am sure that really just means he polished them so he didn't increase port diameter enough to hurt things.
Just found in one of his videos where he is arguing in comments (other person deleted their comments) and says he will make 700hp with his new cams.

One thing to remember about his car is that he burned down 18 forged pistons (3 built motors) and never managed to hit the track with more then half boost, always on worthless street tires. To me the power numbers mean nothing, its the shape of the dyno chart. Numbers will lie but the plot shape does not.

[87turbodance]

I'm just wondering if he's running cams that have the offset LSA removed, causing a higher peak power but overall less power under the curve. Your built cams still have the LSA offset, if I remember correctly.

That's guys power curve is way too peaky with everything and dies off really quick. Why isn't his "built" motor built for more revs? You'd think he'd design something with a 5500 - 7000 powerband if you're spending all that money.

[Shadow24]

If they were RPW cams, they would have been symmetrical and not offset. RPW uses chinese cast blanks and supposedly grinds them to a regular symmetrical pattern.

His plot and #'s make me think something was vastly wrong with either his setup or his tune...

[RoadWarrior222]

yeah, be interesting to see the AFR for that run.

[Shadow24]

yeah, either that or he had something messed up with his ignition timing.

Heres the only dyno and log of my car i have, on a really bad, rich tune for comparison. Bone stock 24v 3.0 on MSII.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j16/shadowplane676/dynoPullLog.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j16/shadowplane676/s7300098.jpg

[Vigo]

When the motor was supercharged it was very anemic. "Running 20 PSI on a Vortech V5 G-Trim blower. Put down 374 WHP @ 6850 RPM and 286 ft-lb from about 5000+"

I wonder if 6850 was actually the peak? If so, probably just a symptom of the centrifugal boost curve. His peak was way lower on the 500whp plot.

You kind of need to see the boost vs rpm with a centrifugal setup like that to give the ---- numbers some extenuating circumstances. 20psi to get 280 lb ft sounds horrible but it was probably only making 6 psi at 4000 rpm or something silly like that.

In his turbo 480whp video he mentioned picking up 80whp with 1-2psi... and a MODIFIED INTAKE. Honestly if i had one of those motors i would build a better plenum before i even put a turbo on it.

[Ondonti]

He has never been very open about whats going on, like why he burned down 18 forged pistons and I never lost one except a chip in the side from a broken plug which just needs to be buffed out. I think he may have been preigniting. Never posted pics of the breaks in anyplace he was locally known. Maybe on some galant forums somewhere.
He was always very careful about monitoring knock counts but when you make more power, knock counts become useless as inaudible knock may still hurt things, plus he was probably just preigniting and melting down. Maybe hot plugs etc etc.

Centrifugal was certainly peaking at 6800 rpms for boost since if you try to make boost sooner, you will just have to blow off the excess at all rpms beyond that, which will pump heat into your motor and make it blow up sooner. Centrifugals suck. He is implying that his torque flatlines from 5000 something to peak hp, which means his boost increases over the rpms were just making up for his huge torque loss. I don't know that he did much to the intake manifold. Smoke and mirrors. I think they can take apart their upper intake manifolds so maybe he ported something inside. Their intake manifolds suck and I have seen an "upgrade" that was possibly worse then stock because it was a charge robbing machine. No space between any of the ports on any side. That was actually a car that the turbo guy helped work on. Some nissan shop built the plenum that didn't help anything even with a big TB.

Remember that those engine bays suck so they have terrible exhaust manifold setups for turbo. Another reason why remote mount is for the loss.

He liked me (in the I want to show off in front of you way) a lot more when we goofed around and I was on 1/3 the boost as him, then he never talked to me again after we raced again and he saw my disconnected plug wire in the gas station after.

[87turbodance]

I'm betting that both the 12V 3.0 and the 24V 3.0 make similar output when comparing a similar motor. I'm going to venture a guess that 24V setup and combustion chamber design is mostly for marketing and emissions.

[Ondonti]

The 12v also had a lot of bad press thanks to dodges dodgigness and idiot editors don't know the 24v is basically the same thing. I think they were looking for more "sophistication" without the higher cost of the twin cam + the clearance problems.

Maybe with more displacement. I still would rather run MIVEC. I also don't think any of the engine choices really matter because there is currently a limit to the power you can put through your drivetrain that was meant for a 100hp 2.2.

[87turbodance]

Well... To continue this thread, it looks like this summer I will taking what parts I want off my Spirit and hauling it off to the metal recyclers. I might get $300 for the wheels and rolling chassis.

I'm keeping the A543 and associated parts for my next car... unfortunately I will be leaving the TM world sort of... I'm not sure if my next car will fit in on this forum but I've decided that it will be a 95-97 Sebring/Avenger coupe.

Why 95-97 you might ask? Well, starting here in Jan 2013 our emission testing will consist of plugging a hand-held computer into the obd2 port and basically checking for any codes. This will not work well for running MS. This new test will happen for only the '98 and newer cars. 1997-1988 cars will only have a two speed tailpipe test - super easy to pass.

Anyway, I like look of the 95-00 Sebring / Avenger coupes and they share similar motors to the K based 12V motors. A 3.0 24V swap would be in order but my goal is to swap in my A543 and eventually turbocharge the motor.

First order of business will be An A543 swap and of course MS because MS is pretty much required to run these motors without the crank sensor in the A604 bell housing.

I've also considered using a 12V heads on motor in the Sebring/Avenger. Anyone have any thought either way?

I'll update this thread with progress for those interested. The forums dedicated to these cars are largely useless as far as I can tell so I'd rather put the info somewhere where people can have intelligent conversations about it.

Big power is not the goal. I just want a comfortable and stylish car that I work on and is somewhat familiar. The Mitsu chassis will give me the handling option I desire as well.

[Vigo]

Those forums ARE useless. I was on them back when i had my avenger and it was depressing then and doesnt seem to have gotten much better other than the fact that MAYBE a half dozen people have gotten around to doing cool stuff.

[Ondonti]

Going to fix up your 543? My biggest complaint is my 543s that are all worn out and make it feel like I am driving a crappy car when everything else feels nice. I hate the back and forth slop.

[87turbodance]

Going to fix up your 543? My biggest complaint is my 543s that are all worn out and make it feel like I am driving a crappy car when everything else feels nice. I hate the back and forth slop.

MY A543 functions perfectly fine but seems to have some noisy bearings on what I believe to be the input shaft. I found a 3.77fd A543 in town so I'm going to pick it up soon so I will have two A543s. One will go in the car while I tear into the other one to freshen things up.

That's the plan so far anyway.

My biggest concern for rebuilding the trans is finding new clutch fork pads - I've read they are difficult to get but I am by no means a transmission guru.

My shifter does feel really sloppy but I hoping that was due to worn out shifter bushings.

[Sundance 6g72]

i noticed in the picture you sent me that your using stock type bushings. the solids really freshem things up

[Force Fed Mopar]

I like the Avenger/Sebring in those years. They look good, and share suspension w/ the Eclipse. Makes it easier to go AWD :eyebrows:

[Vigo]

Thats what ive been trying to tell him but he doesnt want to accept the utter practicality of it!! Wants to adapt a van rear diff! :p

[RoadWarrior222]

Or you could find an AWD Tempo, it's about the same size :D

[87turbodance]

I'm just concerned about the 3.42 pinion ring gear on the transfer case on the van parts and the 3.545 (M/T) or 3.307 (A/T) rear end ratio on the DSM rear end. 3.42 vs either of the DSM rear end ratios is going to create a serious issue for the viscous coupler.

You keep mentioning the transmission final drive but it has nothing to do with the rear end gear ratio when using the van transfer case. All power whether to the front wheels or the PTO goes through the transmission final drive first which is 3.5:1 in my '90 A543. Then there is another ring gear and pinion coming off the transmission final drive ring gear running at a 3.42:1 ratio. IE the driveshaft to the rear end is spinning 3.42 times faster then the front half shafts. Then the power to the rear goes through the rear diff and if the rear gear ratio isn't 3.42 it's going to bind and eat tires and drivetrain parts. This is my understanding. If I'm wrong someone please correct me before I make a fool of myself :)

[Wiscoballer]

I would love to see a wrangler with a turbo 3L

[87turbodance]

If the planets align, I may install a van transfer case as well when I install the A543 but the passenger side axle will need some custom work with is $$$.

[RoadWarrior222]

Use a grinder and eyeball it :D

[Ondonti]

Rear end could probably get very close with a staggered tire diameter front to rear.

[Sundance 6g72]

I'm just concerned about the 3.42 pinion ring gear on the transfer case on the van parts and the 3.545 (M/T) or 3.307 (A/T) rear end ratio on the DSM rear end. 3.42 vs either of the DSM rear end ratios is going to create a serious issue for the viscous coupler.

You keep mentioning the transmission final drive but it has nothing to do with the rear end gear ratio when using the van transfer case. All power whether to the front wheels or the PTO goes through the transmission final drive first which is 3.5:1 in my '90 A543. Then there is another ring gear and pinion coming off the transmission final drive ring gear running at a 3.42:1 ratio. IE the driveshaft to the rear end is spinning 3.42 times faster then the front half shafts. Then the power to the rear goes through the rear diff and if the rear gear ratio isn't 3.42 it's going to bind and eat tires and drivetrain parts. This is my understanding. If I'm wrong someone please correct me before I make a fool of myself :)

dude.. awd swap but delete the front axles.... duh. rwd avenger with a sohc turbo 6g72. ? psshhhh that would top all.

[87turbodance]

I went to the pick n pull today to scout out some sebring\Avengers. I got a price of $100 for a shifter, shifter trim\boot, cables, clutch pedal and bracket and clutch master cylinder out of a '95 Avenger. I didn't buy it but gives me a good idea for costs and availability.

I also checked out the clutch hydraulic setup to give me an idea of how to set it up with the A543. I'll have to weld up some kind of bracket and rotate the clutch arm to attach the slave cylinder. I'm thinking of threading the end of the slave cylinder rod and threading on a small heim joint to actuate the clutch arm. Motor mounts look simple enough.

As for AWD, room for the transfer case looks pretty tight in the front end. Also, turbo manifold piping is going to be interesting. That stupid water manifold i in the way for over the transmission stuff.

[Sundance 6g72]

dont people swap awd into the stratus coupe and avenger seeing how they are based off the eclipse (stratus being a 3rd gen eclipse)

[87turbodance]

They do but I want to use a Van transfer case attached to an A543 for a transmission. I'm not sure what they do for the gas tank in the AWD cars or how to attach the AWD sub frame in the back. Lots of research ahead of me.

The 95-00 Sebring/Avenger coupe is based on a 2G Eclipse with a longer chassis as far as I can tell.

[Vigo]

Well you are right about what you are trying to say and you're doing a better job saying it than i was. i was just trying to get to the percentage difference between front and back but i should have been modifying the rear diff ratio with the pto ratio instead of doing anything with the front ratio.

IIRC the awd gas tank has the middle cut out of it and has a transfer pump. Also IIRC the awd rear stuff will not bolt to the avenger per se because some studs are missing so you have to pull up the rear seat and carpet and put those studs in yourself. Then it bolts in.

[87turbodance]

Do you know of any differences in th front end between the FWD and AWD DSMs?

For a passenger axle, I'm going to try putting the A604 passenger side bearing retainer in the A543. This is assuming the the bearing is the same. I'll have to re-drill the holes and they don't line up - it needs to be re-drilled to the same pattern for the AWD transfer case anyway. I just know know how I will figure out where to drill the holes without having a transfer case on hand to figure out where the holes should go.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Not how the van rear works with that much difference in gear ratio? Does the viscous coupler make up that much difference? Every 4wd I have ever seen has had the same ratio front and back, or rather, the front is like 1 point taller. IE 4.09 front/4.10rear. Assuming the same tire size all round, if the front has a 3.54 gear and the rear has a 3.42, the rear will be pushing the front, trying to overrun it so to speak.

I would imagine that in any case, you could have a custom ring and pinion made for it.

[Sundance 6g72]

i thought it was to make up for tire size.. i wouldnt want different gear ratios

[87turbodance]

On the van setup 2001+ the rear diff is 3.45 and the pto is 3.42 off the front wheel. There is no viscous coupler only a overrunning clutch. the idea being if the front tires faster then the rear wheels then the overrunning clutch will send power to the rear wheels. I know less about the older AWD stuff.

For me with a Van transfer case and 3.42 PTO ring gear and a 3.545 DSM rear end, the rear axle will spin 96.5% slower then the front axle. Slightly taller tires on the rear would be required to make up the difference.

[Sundance 6g72]

http://imgs.pbnation.com/smilies/runaway.gif

i dont get it! FWD4LIFE!

[87turbodance]

Interesting thread on swapping a 4G63t AWD into an Avenger / Sebring (http://www.nyspeed.com/showthread.php?82731-RedVengeAPX-s-4G63T-awd-swapped-Dodge-Avenger)

Not my plan but does talk about how to put the AWD parts in an Avenger / Sebring.

[Sundance 6g72]

4g63 works for me lol.

[87turbodance]

nah. to many cookie cutter 4G63 builds

I want something different plus a 4G63 siting the wrong way for the Avenger/Sebring engine bay so it's pain in the ---. Turbo 420a or 6G7X are the most practical engine options. The 3000GT or Stealth AWD 5 speed won't fit and neither will the 3G 5 speed because their too big. The lone option for a 5 speed V6 Avenger/Sebring/talon/ect is the A543, as far as I know, which only leaves the van transfer case for AWD.

[Force Fed Mopar]

What's different about the 3g 5-spd?

[87turbodance]

What's different about the 3g 5-spd?

It is made my mitsubishi and is too big to fit the DSM chassis from what I hear

[Force Fed Mopar]

It is made my mitsubishi and is too big to fit the DSM chassis from what I hear

I doubt it, I just looked at one the other day that my buddy was doing a clutch in. Looked smaller than the 543.

[Vigo]

They're longer and run into the frame rail from what i remember. I think it requires frame rail mods.

I think the AWD cars have a different front crossmember that has the hole in the middle for driveshaft stuff.

I would wait to drill your tranny until you have a transfer case.. or at least ask Kreel about it or look at his pics of 543+PTO.

[Sundance 6g72]

yeah the mitsubishi 5spd wasnt an option in the avenger iirc. I know the stratus and eclipse both got that option though...... but who knows how strong it is.

[87turbodance]

The few a/s guys that seem to be in the know say it's been proven that the 3G Eclipse / stratus 5 speed will not fit without extensive mods to the chassis.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Hmm, well I guess you're stuck w/ the ol' 543 :) Not a bad thing to be stuck with. I actually wouldn't bother with an awd swap on a daily. Drops the fuel mileage, more drivetrain loss, more parts to break/maintain. Fwd = simplicity.

[87turbodance]

AWD or FWD is going to be decided by my budget, ultimately.

I'd like a quick street car and AWD will really help that.

[Ondonti]

Well the mitsu FWD version would not be great if its related to the 4 cylinder model.