PDA

View Full Version : Difference between 2.0 and 2.4



85boostbox
11-11-2012, 07:03 PM
Looking at info as far as what is different. Looking to do a swap into a omni but don't want the torque of the 2.4. Is it like the 2.2 and 2.5 where the piston and crank are different. Or could I use SRT piston, rods on a 2.0 crank with no interference problems. Let me know and any other insight. Planning on using this car as a good daily with reliability but weekend autocross. Reason as well that I want the 2.0 is for higher power band with RPM's. As stated let me know any insight.

turbovanmanČ
11-11-2012, 10:25 PM
The block is taller on the 2.4 vs the 2.0. The rods are also different between the 2, pretty sure the crank is also different. Just find a 2.0L, much easier than mixing and matching.

85boostbox
11-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Well I am looking at a budget as well. I like the fact that I can get SRT piston rod combos with rings for 100 bucks a pop. Not bad for something proven reliable for 400+ WHP. Looks like I will have to stick with a 2.4. Just have to figure out a good turbo combo to keep the torque down in the lower rpms. I guess cams might help too.

bakes
11-12-2012, 12:28 AM
The route i would go is 2.4l na 1st get it running then you can add H beam rods and forged pistons later and make the jump to turbo when you ready !!
You need globs of torque for auto cross

contraption22
11-12-2012, 12:44 AM
IMHO, anything you would do to shift the powerband up on a 2.4 would be counterproductive IMHO. The 2.4 doesn't really like to rev. Your best bet is to build the rest of the car to take advantage of the available torque.

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 02:10 AM
Well that is hard for a l body. I don't want something that is torque. This is my glht btw. No sense in going NA. Even though a 2.4 NA would be something cool in a NA omni. Looking to go 2.0 or 2.4 due to the parts availability. I am finding it harder and harder to find good parts for the 2.2 and 2.5 without spending a paycheck. I know you have to pay to play which I completely understand but why not go with something that is proven that there is a lot more aftermarket out there for a fair price.

Force Fed Mopar
11-12-2012, 09:51 AM
Problem with the 2.0 is the rear oil drain interferes with the starter. It can be cut out to clear, and either blocked off at the top or diverted with an external line. Other than that, Not much different from doing a 2.4 swap. I actually have a mount laying around made for a 2.0 in an L-body (2.4 mount plate is different), if you are interested.

ShelGame
11-12-2012, 09:53 AM
2.0 is a different block completely - shorter deck, smaller mains and rod bearings, piston pin, etc. The 2.4 is very similar to the common block engines in terms of those basic dimensions, but the 2.0L only shares the bore and bore spacing, making the head interchangeable.

On the other hand, it's a lighter, more efficient engine than a 2.2 due to the shorter deck and smaller parts. I think a 2.0 turbo would be a good choice for an L-Body, actually. The thing is, it's no more easy to swap in a 2.0 than a 2.4.

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 12:50 PM
Problem with the 2.0 is the rear oil drain interferes with the starter. It can be cut out to clear, and either blocked off at the top or diverted with an external line. Other than that, Not much different from doing a 2.4 swap. I actually have a mount laying around made for a 2.0 in an L-body (2.4 mount plate is different), if you are interested.

Rear oil drain? Can you explain please. And pm me on the mount. I might be interested regardless.

Rob,
That is why I was wanting to do the 2.0. I think that it would be a nice combo for an omni. Due to the less torque and higher power band and higher revs. Any more insight that you guys might have.

contraption22
11-12-2012, 12:55 PM
All you'd have to do to get less torque out of a 2.4 is to run less boost.

ShelGame
11-12-2012, 05:00 PM
2.0 Neon might also be a good home for a Mitsu turbo, too. If you're not looking for big power with basically stock internals...

OmniLuvr
11-12-2012, 06:46 PM
i know its not a voting thread, but i say 2.0! my first gen sohc neon barks second and third gear with 200k miles on the odo, plus mid 30 to low 40 mpgs to boot. i believe there has been a lot of succesful turbo kits installed on 2.0 neons, reliable to prob 350ish, swap out pistons and rods, and who knows... the thing l-bodys dont need is torque (imo), i think a longer powerband in the higher rpms is much more favorable, instead of running out of steam at 6200 rpms...

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 07:08 PM
See that is what I was thinking. Less torque and more of a power band in the higher RPM's. Plus higher revving. Gonna look at pistons and rod and see what comes up.

Khajjathefang
11-12-2012, 07:10 PM
why not go hybrid?

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 07:11 PM
2.0 Neon might also be a good home for a Mitsu turbo, too. If you're not looking for big power with basically stock internals...

Yea I agree. But I don't want a neon lol. I have to many cars as it is. Wanna get a project going and actually finish it.

Now our 2.0 aren't the same as the 4g63 blocks are they. Last thing I need is to do a conversion and get some power and end up with the ever common and fatal crank walk.

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 08:10 PM
why not go hybrid?

No offense but way to much work with the coolant and drain back lines. Plus I would lose the chance for A/C. I am a sucker for A/C.

ShelGame
11-12-2012, 09:23 PM
Yea I agree. But I don't want a neon lol. I have to many cars as it is. Wanna get a project going and actually finish it.

Now our 2.0 aren't the same as the 4g63 blocks are they. Last thing I need is to do a conversion and get some power and end up with the ever common and fatal crank walk.

Sorry, I meant Neon motor, not car...

Force Fed Mopar
11-12-2012, 09:46 PM
2.0 is a different block completely - shorter deck, smaller mains and rod bearings, piston pin, etc. The 2.4 is very similar to the common block engines in terms of those basic dimensions, but the 2.0L only shares the bore and bore spacing, making the head interchangeable.

On the other hand, it's a lighter, more efficient engine than a 2.2 due to the shorter deck and smaller parts. I think a 2.0 turbo would be a good choice for an L-Body, actually. The thing is, it's no more easy to swap in a 2.0 than a 2.4.

Yeah I meant the main difference between swapping a 2.4 and a 2.0.


Rear oil drain? Can you explain please. And pm me on the mount. I might be interested regardless.

Rob,
That is why I was wanting to do the 2.0. I think that it would be a nice combo for an omni. Due to the less torque and higher power band and higher revs. Any more insight that you guys might have.

The rear oil drain galley for the oil returns from the head. More accurately, the one closest to the bellhousing. I'll PM you in a bit.

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 09:56 PM
Sorry, I meant Neon motor, not car...

That is what I was planning on doing. Dodge 2.0. That is different than the 4g63 motors right?

Vigo
11-12-2012, 10:58 PM
Yes, they are completely different.

I think a 2.0 in an omni is a good idea.

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 11:09 PM
Yeah I meant the main difference between swapping a 2.4 and a 2.0.



The rear oil drain galley for the oil returns from the head. More accurately, the one closest to the bellhousing. I'll PM you in a bit.

Ahh i get what your saying. Hmmmm I wonder. If I blocked it off and did a oil drain for the head / oil return for the turno and sorta knock to birds out with 1 stone. I have been doing research on the pistons and it seems to me but I could be wrong that the pistons are the same inbetween 2.0 and 2.4's. So if I am right I could get SRT pistons with some H beam rods for a 2.0. I would probably leave the crank alone. Most HP I will most likely see is 350 to 400 WHP. Just the reason why I am somewhat stuck on a 2.0 is to move the powerband up to possinly help with traction.

ShelGame
11-12-2012, 11:13 PM
Ahh i get what your saying. Hmmmm I wonder. If I blocked it off and did a oil drain for the head / oil return for the turno and sorta knock to birds out with 1 stone. I have been doing research on the pistons and it seems to me but I could be wrong that the pistons are the same inbetween 2.0 and 2.4's. So if I am right I could get SRT pistons with some H beam rods for a 2.0. I would probably leave the crank alone. Most HP I will most likely see is 350 to 400 WHP. Just the reason why I am somewhat stuck on a 2.0 is to move the powerband up to possinly help with traction.

The pistons are definitely not the same. They have different pin sizes and different pin heights. They might use the same ring pack...

85boostbox
11-12-2012, 11:54 PM
OK just found out that the 2.0 SOHC magnum rods are made of HS170. This is straight from allpar on this quote.


All 2001-05 Magnum SOHC and SRT are made from HS170. (The 6.1 and 6.4 SRT Hemi also have HS170 rods)

---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

They also say that the magnum rods are the strongest for the 2.0 in stock form. Time for me to hit up junkyards and find a magnum 2.0.

black86glhs
11-13-2012, 01:52 AM
What about building a DOHC 2.0 for it. Lower torque in the basement, but HP upstairs.

rbryant
11-13-2012, 03:40 AM
The 2.0l head is also an open deck design where the 2.4 is closed.

http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=385758

1Gen 2.0l fully open:
42371

2Gen 2.0l semi closed:
42372

2.4l (from: http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?t=294297)
42374

The 2.0l appears to have an oil return similar to the SRT4 block. I had to modify the starter to fit my 2.4l block but it wasn't a huge deal (There is a KC article on how to do it in the drivetrain section).

Picture of the back side of a 2.0l block:

42370


Also the 2002 and later 2.4l heads are not compatible with the 2.0l blocks as you can see in the above pictures (compare the upper left of the 1Gen 2.0l and 2.4l blocks) the front oil return is shifted slightly and would extend over the front of the 2.0l block.

-Rich

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 07:36 AM
What about building a DOHC 2.0 for it. Lower torque in the basement, but HP upstairs.

That is what I'm planning on doing with it. That is my point in doing the 2.0 over the 2.4. Or the idea of it. Less torque and power than the 2.4 but good amount up top.

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 07:37 AM
The 2.0l head is also an open deck design where the 2.4 is closed.

http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=385758

1Gen 2.0l fully open:
42371

2Gen 2.0l semi closed:
42372

2.4l (from: http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?t=294297)
42374

The 2.0l appears to have an oil return similar to the SRT4 block. I had to modify the starter to fit my 2.4l block but it wasn't a huge deal (There is a KC article on how to do it in the drivetrain section).

Picture of the back side of a 2.0l block:

42370


Also the 2002 and later 2.4l heads are not compatible with the 2.0l blocks as you can see in the above pictures (compare the upper left of the 1Gen 2.0l and 2.4l blocks) the front oil return is shifted slightly and would extend over the front of the 2.0l block.

-Rich

Rich thanks for the info. I was planning on just yanking a complete 2.0 DOHC from a neon. Make it easier so there is no mix and match.

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 07:41 AM
So would this also mean that the 1st gen block would have better cooling capabilities in a turbo application due to the open block design? Am i looking at this right?

thedon809
11-13-2012, 10:06 AM
I have heard the open deck design could be more prone to blowing head gaskets at really high power levels.

ShelGame
11-13-2012, 10:08 AM
It's really only a partially open block. It's not like a Honda with no cylinder support at all. At least the 2.0 block is tied to the outer cylinder block in the thrust direction (front/rear).

Usually the problem with boosting an open-deck block is keeping the head gasket sealed due to movement of the cylinder walls against the head. I don't think that's as much of a concern with the 2.0 block. It's not as robust as a 2.4 or CB, but it's not nearly as bad as a fully open-deck design either.

This is a true open-deck design:
http://www.team-integra.net/sections/members/images/1c864579-9887-4687-9455-c0933144af96.jpg

thedon809
11-13-2012, 10:30 AM
If I am remembering right. A guy named matt Monday was having HG problems but he was making 600+whp.

moparman76_69
11-13-2012, 10:40 AM
If I am remembering right. A guy named matt Monday was having HG problems but he was making 600+whp.

Monday is local to us. 3bar knows him better than me but iirc he was running well into the 10s.

For the op, if you run the neon t-350 you don't need to worry about the block drain starter interference and can run an obx with no modifications.

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 11:10 AM
I was planning on running a 520 that I have laying around. So the drain back would be a issue. But I think I can easily overcome if I end up doing the 2.0 and not the 2.4. My idea is if I HAVE to block it off and run a drain line for the head that would give me the opportunity to plumb in the drain line for the turbo as well. All in one unit more or less. I was planning on running a smaller holset (he341) or something along that effect. So would not have to run coolant lines for the turbo.

I am trying to make this a somewhat easy install. So I could possibly in the future do a decent write up on the install. I want to keep a older style trans so the only custom mounts I would have to do is the front and passenger side. And leave the tyranny one alone and bobble as a good starting point for leveling and centering. Make sense.

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 11:14 AM
Plus I have seen a lot of 2.4 swaps but not a lot of 2.0. And there have been a few but no good info or write ups on how and what was involved. I think it would be a good thing for the community to possibly have both newer DOHC options and pick which one will better suit them.

Plus as stated the reason why I am so stuck on a 2.0 is power wise in an omni. Let's face it the omni is light and hard to get traction cause of low end torque. If we could come up with something to be reliable and move the power band up why not.

rbryant
11-13-2012, 09:08 PM
Plus I have seen a lot of 2.4 swaps but not a lot of 2.0. And there have been a few but no good info or write ups on how and what was involved. I think it would be a good thing for the community to possibly have both newer DOHC options and pick which one will better suit them.

Plus as stated the reason why I am so stuck on a 2.0 is power wise in an omni. Let's face it the omni is light and hard to get traction cause of low end torque. If we could come up with something to be reliable and move the power band up why not.

The main reason you see more 2.4l swaps is probably because you can get strong 2.4l rods cheaply.

If you consider the cost of having to go with aftermarket rods and pistons with the 2.0l. On the 2.4l you can use SRT4 rods and custom pistons or even SRT4 rods with stock SRT4 pistons for a much lower price. We are a fickle bunch. :)

The cheapest option for JE and eagle rods is about $820 for the 2.0l. I got my whole SRT4 engine for around $1100 with 900 miles on it from a wrecked PT turbo.

Who knows, if I ever build a new engine from scratch for my GLHS I might consider a 2.0l but I doubt it. If only they had a 2.2l crank for the 2.4l block.... They have one for the 2.0l block but it is expensive and I would rather have the stronger 2.4l block.

-Rich

85boostbox
11-13-2012, 10:12 PM
I agree. But with research I have come to find out that 2.0 magnum rods are just as strong as SRT rods. That is from ballpark. How true it is I don't know. I will continue doing research.

black86glhs
11-13-2012, 10:32 PM
That is what I'm planning on doing with it. That is my point in doing the 2.0 over the 2.4. Or the idea of it. Less torque and power than the 2.4 but good amount up top.I meant non turbo, though.

85boostbox
11-14-2012, 12:06 AM
I have just decided to do a 2.4. Not enough resources on the 2.0.

wallace
11-14-2012, 08:38 AM
The 2.0 crank will go in the 2.4 block correct?

Force Fed Mopar
11-14-2012, 08:53 AM
The 2.0 crank will go in the 2.4 block correct?

Nope.

85boostbox
11-14-2012, 10:01 AM
No there is different webbing and I believe there is a extra main in the 2.4 as well.

85boostbox
11-14-2012, 10:04 AM
As stated I'm just going to go with a 2.4. I will just have to build the car for traction around the torque.

moparman76_69
11-14-2012, 11:27 AM
You know cam selection plays a big role in torque. You can use a cam that shifts the torque peak higher so you can make better use of it.

85boostbox
11-14-2012, 12:06 PM
Yea. That is true too. Doesn't the 2.0 cams move the power band up in a 2.4. Or pull harder in the higher rpms. Something of that nature. Going to have to do some research. I'm not looking to just drop in a srt power plant and go from there. I want a good all around car. My buddy has a 2.4 early block in his shadow. It has a lot of power but sort of falls on its face at around 5500. I don't want that. Especially in a l body. Just trying to move the power up a bit so traction won't be a complete issue. I am expecting it no matter what though.

rbryant
11-14-2012, 02:46 PM
Yea. That is true too. Doesn't the 2.0 cams move the power band up in a 2.4. Or pull harder in the higher rpms. Something of that nature. Going to have to do some research. I'm not looking to just drop in a srt power plant and go from there. I want a good all around car. My buddy has a 2.4 early block in his shadow. It has a lot of power but sort of falls on its face at around 5500. I don't want that. Especially in a l body. Just trying to move the power up a bit so traction won't be a complete issue. I am expecting it no matter what though.

Interesting info on the 2.0 magnum rods.

The 2.0l exhaust cam has more lift and duration than the 2.4l cams (turbo and non are the same except for the cam sensor hole machining).

I put the 2.0l cams in my SRT4 engine but I bought a new house and haven't touched my car much in the past year and haven't even started it...

There were supposedly a couple of different versions of the 2.0l cams. IIRC the early 95 RT DOHC cams are the ones that were the most aggressive.

I am not concerned about shift points or where the power is made, I am only interested in the power under the curve from shift to shift! Plus the stress on the rods increases exponentially with RPM so with all things equal lower RPM engines are less prone to failures. That is why I am not really concerned about shifting my RPMs upward much on the 2.4l.

That being said, the 2.0l engine has a much shorter stroke so it can handle more RPMs than the 2.4l.

2.0 vs 2.4 is a classic argument and it really depends on what you are doing with the car. In most applications both are fine so I just chose the cheaper option of a low mileage factory 2.4l turbo engine from a wreck...

-Rich

Vigo
11-14-2012, 09:48 PM
so with all things equal lower RPM engines are less prone to failures.

If all other things equal means taking the SAME engine and revving it lower, than sure.

But if you have a performance goal that includes making a certain amount of power, the less rpm you use, the more torque you need to use to make the same power at that low rpm, and that torque comes with higher heat and pressure. Basically, trying to make the same amount of power with more torque at a lower rpm means you are closer to detonating.

85boostbox
11-14-2012, 10:16 PM
I completely agree Rich. I want this car to be a good all around car. Meaning street, drag and autox. That is why I was debating a 2.0. In autox going around a corner you don't want to shift. And if you do not so often. Plus what I am worried about going let's say around a corner and get into it I don't want to blister the tires off of it cause of too much torque. Makes sense. That is why I figured a 2.0 would be a better choice. Make sense or no.

rbryant
11-15-2012, 02:18 PM
If all other things equal means taking the SAME engine and revving it lower, than sure.

But if you have a performance goal that includes making a certain amount of power, the less rpm you use, the more torque you need to use to make the same power at that low rpm, and that torque comes with higher heat and pressure. Basically, trying to make the same amount of power with more torque at a lower rpm means you are closer to detonating.

Good points. Detonation is obviously bad for engine components and high RPM is also bad for components.


As you stated, I did mean same bore/stroke when I said all things being equal but I wasn't really explicit with that.

I actually like the 2.2 better than the 2.5 so making a 2.4>2.0 argument isn't really what I am trying to do. I am basically saying that both will work fine in most cases.

I would prefer a square engine rather than the oversquare 2.0l and undersquare 2.4l but hey you work with what you have. :)

On the street the underquare engine's torque can actually be nice.

-Rich

contraption22
11-15-2012, 02:34 PM
There were supposedly a couple of different versions of the 2.0l cams. IIRC the early 95 RT DOHC cams are the ones that were the most aggressive.
-Rich

DOHC R/T's were only in 1998 and 1999 model years.

rbryant
11-15-2012, 02:45 PM
DOHC R/T's were only in 1998 and 1999 model years.

Ok well 95-96 DOHC. :)

-Rich

85boostbox
11-15-2012, 03:38 PM
Ok my plan as of right now is, is to find a early 2.4 head and all and put srt internals in it. Then hook the 520 up to it and build from there. This will be ran off of "stock" electronics.

So in other words, Rich I will be contacting you in the near future for the distributor mod for the DOHC :D

rbryant
11-16-2012, 04:19 PM
Ok my plan as of right now is, is to find a early 2.4 head and all and put srt internals in it. Then hook the 520 up to it and build from there. This will be ran off of "stock" electronics.

So in other words, Rich I will be contacting you in the near future for the distributor mod for the DOHC :D

Sounds good.

Everything is in stock except the custom wires which I make when they are ordered.

-Rich