Anyone ever ran a old K or L on neon electronics with a 2.0/2.4?

[ShadowFromHell]

In the future Im going to have a "spare" 2.0 DOHC motor. I also have a beat up rampage with a bad motor. I talked to a friend of mine who is really good with the stock electronics and he thought it would be possible to combine a early harness with a 95 neon harness since the 95 is non OBD2. I think it would make for a great little car, as a DOHC neon isnt the fastest but fun to drive. Swap that combo into a light rampage and youd have a rig you could haul stuff in the back, get 35mpg's and with and it might even break into the 14's. I know MS would probably make more sense and be easier (for some) but it would be nice to have it run like a factory car. Anyone ever attempted this?

[BadAssPerformance]

There are a few 2.0L or 2.4L turbos running around on 88/89 SMEC epectronics and the distributor mounted on end of intake cam.

Full neon wiring in an L body? not sure about that one... dash would be hardest to merge, depends on if you want to use the neon guage cluster, etc.

[turbovanman²]

That's a shittload of work, just put the dizzy on the intake cam ala "rbryant", run a smec and tune using MPtune, way simpler than wiring in a Neon harness.

[ShadowFromHell]

Im thinking of joining the harness at the firewall if possible. Maybe the best way to go about it would be to figure out if the neon harness could be stripped down to just run the motor, and then leave the stock hanress alone. If thats even possible. Using a turbo smec would work, that though hadn't crossed my mind. Not sure how well that would work because I was wanting to keep it NA. But with the turbo smec would make it easy to turbo... all though I have a BAD habit of things like that snowballing out of control and projects sitting due to $$$.

[turbovanman²]

Not sure why you would want to splice? the SMEC harness literally plugs up, then reprogram for n/a.

[cordes]

It wouldn't be too bad to do IMO, but I wouldn't actually do it. There is so much more support and freeness with our ECUs it doesn't make sense to run the later stuff. If anything I would go megasquirt before stock Neon electronics.

[contraption22]

I don't think the swap would be that hard, probably the best way to go if you intend to keep the engine N/A.
It was one of the many scenarios I had in my head for my Rampage. I'd like a SOHC 5-speed 40mpg highway trucklet. :)

[ShelGame]

In the future Im going to have a "spare" 2.0 DOHC motor. I also have a beat up rampage with a bad motor. I talked to a friend of mine who is really good with the stock electronics and he thought it would be possible to combine a early harness with a 95 neon harness since the 95 is non OBD2. I think it would make for a great little car, as a DOHC neon isnt the fastest but fun to drive. Swap that combo into a light rampage and youd have a rig you could haul stuff in the back, get 35mpg's and with and it might even break into the 14's. I know MS would probably make more sense and be easier (for some) but it would be nice to have it run like a factory car. Anyone ever attempted this?

FWIW, I have the '95 Neon FCC Code nearly fully dis-assembled, certainly far enough to do the basic tuning you would want to do on an NA car - fuel, spark, rev limiter, speed limiter, etc. I still don't have the ISO Diagnostics all hashed out, but I do at least know where it is. I have a file for MP Tune that will show some of the basic tables, but it's not ready for prime time yet.

The fuel and spark lookups and calculations are essentially the same as the '92 T1 and '93 FFV code. That's what made it so easy to dis-assemble.

The big holdup is I'm trying to figure out how to re-flash it using MP Tune. No luck so far, but I haven't worked on it in the past few of weeks.

[Ondonti]

I would think there are some public neon MS tunes that drive quite well...

[ShadowFromHell]

I know MS would work, but MS costs $$$. I could probably pick up a 95 harness and ECU from a JY for under $50. For me, there is just something about having a factory tune, for driveabilty and MPG's. Chrysler spent a TON of money on making that tune. I just dont think anything I could make with MS or by tuning a SMEC would be as good. Close, but just not as good. Thats why I was asking about using a neon ECU/harness. The other problem with MS or a SMEC is turboing it would be WAY to tempting and the idea was a truckelt that was quick, fun to drive and got really good MPG's. If I wanted to make it go fast I would use a 3.0/auto just because Ive always wanted to build one.

[contraption22]

I know MS would work, but MS costs $$$. I could probably pick up a 95 harness and ECU from a JY for under $50. For me, there is just something about having a factory tune, for driveabilty and MPG's. Chrysler spent a TON of money on making that tune. I just dont think anything I could make with MS or by tuning a SMEC would be as good. Close, but just not as good. Thats why I was asking about using a neon ECU/harness. The other problem with MS or a SMEC is turboing it would be WAY to tempting and the idea was a truckelt that was quick, fun to drive and got really good MPG's.

Totally agree.

And 1st gen Neons aren't really all that much more complex than K based cars as far as wiring. I say go for it.

[turbovanman²]

I know MS would work, but MS costs $$$. I could probably pick up a 95 harness and ECU from a JY for under $50. For me, there is just something about having a factory tune, for driveabilty and MPG's. Chrysler spent a TON of money on making that tune. I just dont think anything I could make with MS or by tuning a SMEC would be as good. Close, but just not as good. Thats why I was asking about using a neon ECU/harness. The other problem with MS or a SMEC is turboing it would be WAY to tempting and the idea was a truckelt that was quick, fun to drive and got really good MPG's. If I wanted to make it go fast I would use a 3.0/auto just because Ive always wanted to build one.

So going SMEC you'd want to turbo it? IF you have such low will power, better not go shopping otherwise you'd by all the sweets and ice cream, :confused: :D

Turbo L body's get 40+ mpg so not sure why an 2.4 even running a turbo cal wouldn't get that or better.

KISS otherwise another project gets junked due to getting in too deep, :(

[contraption22]

Turbo L body's get 40+ mpg so not sure why an 2.4 even running a turbo cal wouldn't get that or better.

I would venture to say because my SRT-4 with better aero than any L-body doesn't get nearly that highway MPG....

I don't even think Angelo can claim 40+ MPG from a 2.4 turbo.

[turbovanman²]

I would venture to say because my SRT-4 with better aero than any L-body doesn't get nearly that highway MPG....

I don't even think Angelo can claim 40+ MPG from a 2.4 turbo.

Sorry, I thought he said 2.4 but it still stands, why bother with a swap to a 2.0L n/a engine if he can get 40+ mpg using a turbo 2.2?

[contraption22]

Sorry, I thought he said 2.4 but it still stands, why bother with a swap to a 2.0L n/a engine if he can get 40+ mpg using a turbo 2.2?

I'd agree with you, but I don't think it's very easy to get that kind of MPG out of a 2.2 turbo.

[turbovanman²]

I'd agree with you, but I don't think it's very easy to get that kind of MPG out of a 2.2 turbo.

You guys brag about it all the time, even g body and AA owners say they get mid 30's on trips. lol.

[contraption22]

You guys brag about it all the time, even g body and AA owners say they get mid 30's on trips. lol.

Not me... i live in the real world.

[OmniLuvr]

In the future Im going to have a "spare" 2.0 DOHC motor

thats why he is going 2.0, plus they get way better mileage than the 2.4 imo...


Not me... i live in the real world.

i got 32 mpg in my s-60 turbo sc running on e-85?

[ShadowFromHell]

So going SMEC you'd want to turbo it? IF you have such low will power, better not go shopping otherwise you'd by all the sweets and ice cream, :confused: :D

Turbo L body's get 40+ mpg so not sure why an 2.4 even running a turbo cal wouldn't get that or better.

KISS otherwise another project gets junked due to getting in too deep, :(

Its just that things snowball for me, as they probably do for everyone. Well since I have it apart I might as well... You know the drill. My 88 shadow hasn't had a engine for 8 years because I wanted it to run 11's or not run when I put it back together. Then life gets in the way and the project sits.


Sorry, I thought he said 2.4 but it still stands, why bother with a swap to a 2.0L n/a engine if he can get 40+ mpg using a turbo 2.2?

You really cant compare the turbo 2.2 to a DOHC 2.0. Stock to stock, no mods Id take the DOHC any day. Its just more fun, no turbo lag and more or less the same power. Dont forget the 2.2 runs out of power around 5200-5500 and the DOHC motor revs to 7k easy. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE my 2.2 cars but at 150hp Ive got to give the nod to the DOHC. That motor is a large part of what gives 1gen neon their charm. The other side of it is reliability. My 97 DOHC neon has a ton of miles on it and hasnt had a issue since I bought it 5 years ago. With a turbo motor there is just more to go wrong.

[cordes]

I'd agree with you, but I don't think it's very easy to get that kind of MPG out of a 2.2 turbo.

The limiting factor for most guys in an L body is gear ratio and tire size. I got 33mpgs on the way to Jon Trotter's place a couple of years ago in my black Omni at 70+mph with a 3.85FD and a 205/50r15 tire.

Don't forget that neons have comparably small brakes and lighter wheels/tires than most turbo L bodys do. That's good for an mpg or two.

[BadAssPerformance]

I'd agree with you, but I don't think it's very easy to get that kind of MPG out of a 2.2 turbo.


You guys brag about it all the time, even g body and AA owners say they get mid 30's on trips. lol.


Not me... i live in the real world.

Its difficult, but can be done... gotta keep your foot out of boost.

Blew up the turbo in the Z first pass at Milan during SDAC-7... Fuuuuuuu :( Put the air filter on the TB, disconnected oil supply to turbo (was like spy hunter smoke screen!) and hooked a hose clamp in the comp wheel to hold it from spinning (thinking that might make less carnage in the long run, LOL) making an exhaust restriction... MP Stage II LM, MP big valve head, 3" MSB exhaust, 42pph injectors... 65mph... 40 mpg on 93

In my T2 Shadow drove from O'Hare to Belvidere and the needle didn't move off "full" .. 100 octane, 70-75mph, in vacuum... had to be mid 30's or better mpg, but then cruising between the cruise night, hotel, mopar show, etc used 1/2 tank LOL!

HOWEVER... My SOHC 2.0L neon DD has never gotten less than 25mpg, hard to beat that :nod:

[4 l-bodies]

You guys brag about it all the time, even g body and AA owners say they get mid 30's on trips. lol.


Not me... i live in the real world.

That is hilarious! LMAO:clap::thumb:

[turbovanman²]

Its just that things snowball for me, as they probably do for everyone. Well since I have it apart I might as well... You know the drill. My 88 shadow hasn't had a engine for 8 years because I wanted it to run 11's or not run when I put it back together. Then life gets in the way and the project sits.

This is why I am saying KISS, otherwise you'll get in too deep and it won't get finished.




You really cant compare the turbo 2.2 to a DOHC 2.0. Stock to stock, no mods Id take the DOHC any day. Its just more fun, no turbo lag and more or less the same power. Dont forget the 2.2 runs out of power around 5200-5500 and the DOHC motor revs to 7k easy. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE my 2.2 cars but at 150hp Ive got to give the nod to the DOHC. That motor is a large part of what gives 1gen neon their charm. The other side of it is reliability. My 97 DOHC neon has a ton of miles on it and hasnt had a issue since I bought it 5 years ago. With a turbo motor there is just more to go wrong.

I'll take a blow thru turbo 2.2 any day over a 2.0 DOHC engine, down low no comparison, 2.2 has torque to spare. Sure you can't spin it to 7K without mods but you don't need to, stockish they easily pull to 6K and your going to fast to worry about revving anyhow, :p

Not saying a 2.0L L body wont' be fun, but for the work involved and don't you have a bad back? its a lot of work to get little or no gain in the MPG department.

[moparman76_69]

This is why I am saying KISS, otherwise you'll get in too deep and it won't get finished.




I'll take a blow thru turbo 2.2 any day over a 2.0 DOHC engine, down low no comparison, 2.2 has torque to spare. Sure you can't spin it to 7K without mods but you don't need to, stockish they easily pull to 6K and your going to fast to worry about revving anyhow, :p

Not saying a 2.0L L body wont' be fun, but for the work involved and don't you have a bad back? its a lot of work to get little or no gain in the MPG department.

I could run mid 12s with an 8V in a van, but neither of us chose that route. I think it isn't a half bad idea, since the engine is there and the trucklet is there, why not? No sense in buying another engine and other bits when you can use what is already sitting in the corner.

[turbovanman²]

I could run mid 12s with an 8V in a van, but neither of us chose that route. I think it isn't a half bad idea, since the engine is there and the trucklet is there, why not? No sense in buying another engine and other bits when you can use what is already sitting in the corner.

Like I said, not a bad idea BUT doing it for MPG probably isn't really a good reason but its his truck, so he can do what he wants, :D

[ATaylorRacing]

I would venture to say because my SRT-4 with better aero than any L-body doesn't get nearly that highway MPG....

I don't even think Angelo can claim 40+ MPG from a 2.4 turbo.

My 05 SRT4 Neon got a best of 30 mpg when bone stock at 55 mph with 93 octane. Being cheap, the first winter I had it I thought I'd try 87 octane and stay off the loud pedal...resulting in only 26-27 mpg, so I went back to 93. When a S2 set up was stuck on it but still using the stock turbo the mpg at 55 was better at 33. When a E1 turbo was put on the mid-range power being in the right spot saw an incredible 36 mpg...which was crucified for as being a liar on the SRTforum...but true. The last change to the car was changing out the E1 for a S3 Forward Motion turbo/intake (used and priced nicely)...now we are back down to 33 mpg, but running in the 12 teens instead of high 12s...AND I have to short shift at 5200 from 1-2, then 5500 after that or it is way too lean. My slightly modded 95 SOHC Neon used to get 43 mpg at 55 but jumped up to 46 after elimination of the power steering. It was rated at 39. The 98 SOHC one I had was rated at 41, but only got that much after the stock air filter assembly was ditched for a CAI set up and the stock TB was swapped oput for a slightly larger one from an automatic equiped Neon. Keep in mind that I hypermile....follow semis at a 50 yard distance to keep everyone safe. At 55 my wifes old V6 05 Mustang would get 29, but 31 when the same distance behind semis....bone stock. Getting uncomfortably and dangerously close garnerd 33 mpg, but I was never that desperate for mpg. As an extra note here...Matchbox used to get just at 26 mpg at 55 with the tall block 2.5, then we swapped in a low mileage (with NO wrist pin slop) common block...had to be dejetted three times on the secondary jet to keep the EGTs at the sweet spot when drag racing and now gets 29.7 best! I wonder what the MB would get with my SRT4 swap in there...should run barely into the 10s if it had traction. ANY way to get my 05 SRT4 down to the 1945 lbs like the Matchbox???? Any way to get 855 lbs out of it without it snapping in two?

[shadow88]

I know MS would work, but MS costs $$$. I could probably pick up a 95 harness and ECU from a JY for under $50. For me, there is just something about having a factory tune, for driveabilty and MPG's. Chrysler spent a TON of money on making that tune. I just dont think anything I could make with MS or by tuning a SMEC would be as good. Close, but just not as good. Thats why I was asking about using a neon ECU/harness. The other problem with MS or a SMEC is turboing it would be WAY to tempting and the idea was a truckelt that was quick, fun to drive and got really good MPG's. If I wanted to make it go fast I would use a 3.0/auto just because Ive always wanted to build one.

Chrysler spent a lot of R+D making that tune emmisions compliant in every situation. There's a whole lot to be gained in a MS system in order to improve MPG's Turbo or not, I like the MS adjustability.

[cordes]

Chrysler spent a lot of R+D making that tune emmisions compliant in every situation. There's a whole lot to be gained in a MS system in order to improve MPG's Turbo or not, I like the MS adjustability.

Even the stock LM/SMEC/SBEC stuff sacrificed mileage for emissions.

[turbovanman²]

Chrysler spent a lot of R+D making that tune emmisions compliant in every situation. There's a whole lot to be gained in a MS system in order to improve MPG's Turbo or not, I like the MS adjustability.

We can tweak just like MS and retain factory options.

[Aries_Turbo]

i got a best of 39mpg in my kcar on the trip to sdac 17 and that included a race with an SRT4 and i beat him.

on the way home it was pulling a solid 36 but i was in the throttle more.

realistic everyday it gets 29 and thats some highway, some city and alot of hammering it.

worst was 22 but then i calibrated the wideband and it jumped back up to 29.

my sohc auto neon gets anywhere from 27-36mpg depending on the trip. highway? 34+ 55mph cruise? 36 best. backroad blasts and alot of 70+ on the highway? 27.

as for the 2.0L dohc swap? i would think you could use a 91 turbo SBEC harness with some simple rewiring and some matching of the 91sbec and 95 neon fcc pinouts.

both have individual circuits for the injectors, (2) 3-pin connections for the cam/crank or dizzy connections, a purge valve, a map sensor, a tps, a intake air temp etc. shouldnt be too bad to do.

you could even get some connector female counterparts and make up adapter harnesses so you dont have to cut a 91 sbec harness all up for the connections that are different lengths or connectors.

Brian