Starion 4g63 > 4g54 2.6

Radek · Post by **Radek** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:57 pm

talking from experience, i first went the route of modding the 2l - MPI, t3 turbo, vr4 cooler, 3" exhaust etc. In the end it went OK but nothing spectacular. Then I put in the 2.6l and things just went unreal. the t3 was on full boost about 2,500 not 3,800, launching the car at 2000rpm meant doing a burnout while in the 2l I used to drop the clutch at 5500 with a shortish chirp. The performance advantage over the 2l was uncomparable. don't get me wrong, you can get a 2l to go hard, but given the level of investment for the 2.6l setup relative to how much must be spent on the 2l to go the same speed with less bottom-end torque, it was an easy choice. The only disadvantage was that the 2.6l could no longer be supported by the standard clutch ;)

Anyway, I was pretty sure that I had to use a late-model sigma auto block in order to bolt up to the starion manual box (don't blame me if I'm wrong, it was a while ago now). Engine mounts all ine up perfectly. Only pain-in-the-butt bits were modifying the power steering bracket and power steering resibvior bracket, cutting and welding the t/b from one end of the mpi to the other, having to run an ultra long water hose from the radiator to the thermostat housing and just working out how to run belts to all the stuff like the A/C (this meant adding a pulley to the crank pulleys)

4g6beat · Post by **4g6beat** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:40 pm

sr20 det?

cmon be serious the 4g63twincam absolutely mops the floor with it! but i'm biased :D

i think it's all down to personal choice, having sampled both high reving blown and na fours and monsterous low reving high turbo and na torquey engines i can say they both have their advantages disadvantages mechanically it makes a lot more sense to extract the same power at lower revs, however who can argue that the rush you get from a high reving turbo or na engine is much more satisying than shifting at 5000 rpm.

It's horses for courses can't we all just get along :D

karl_2ltgc · Post by **karl_2ltgc** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:47 pm

Alspos wrote:Where the f**k do you get a magna head for $40

My wrecker :)
Wrex r us
Speedwell st summerville

As for the rest of you guys there are 3 types of 2.6 block
Sigma narrow block > has auto behind it
Magna(all narrow blocks)
Sigma wide block > has jap 5spd behind it, this one matches perfectly to starion gearbox. Starion flywheel will bolt to sigma motor.

Anywho the reason i am going for 2.6 is:
Its Faster :D
Its Cheaper ;)
Parts avaible at any wrecker for bugger all

If i go break a 2.6 its no big deal... if i break a 2ltr, well thats a different more expensive story.

quest · Post by **quest** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:02 am

sr20det is a good motor, but nothing more than an "also ran". I've own an moded these motors I speak of, so it comes from experience.
I'd never replace any mitsu 4 with an sr20. Mitsus easier to work on, parts alot cheaper, with balance shafts intact the mitsus are smoother than any nissan 4, performance..etc. SRs get eaten alive on the regular, around these parts - never lives up to the 'hype'.
Nissans own stable mates are far better choices. ka24de 2.4L dohc "truck motor" has put down 465 and 487 ft-lbs to the wheels - head, cams, intake, 9.5:1 pistons ALL STOCK. SR that :)
Dirt cheap VG30ET (NOT the v6tt z32 motor) are more rugged, don't have the rod bearing problems like the sr20 and ca18. Waaayyy smoother. 450-500 ft-lbs of torque to the wheels capable in street trim on STOCK original bottom end. Add to that it can take a 150 shot of spray. Totally beyond sr capabilities. Far le$$$$$
A 2.6 recently ran 12.9s on a completely stock motor, tbi and 17C turbo. SRs torque not all that well suited to 3000+ pound cars, and I very much doubt it would see 12s on a tbi fuel system and 17c turbo in the same hull... just to compare

dirty sanchez · Post by **dirty sanchez** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:54 am

quest wrote:SRs get eaten alive on the regular, around these parts - never lives up to the 'hype'.
Nissans own stable mates are far better choices. ka24de 2.4L dohc "truck motor" has put down 465 and 487 ft-lbs to the wheels - head, cams, intake, 9.5:1 pistons ALL STOCK. SR that :)

Are you on drugs!?! Now tell the truth..... you are, aren't you?

ka24de is an embarrassing lump of crap. When people want performance out of their 240SX they rip it out and drop in an SR20DET.

Take one black top SR20DET, stir in a FMIC, add the 3 inch exhaust and add boost to taste (about 13psi) and bake for 180kw ATRW. Not enough to satisfy your hunger? Add a HKS turbo, fuel pump, injectors, and management for ane easy (and reliable) 280kw ATRW - all without so much as opening the tappet cover!

If there was any doubt, the ease of installation is the clincher. The SR20 drops onto the factory engine mounts, all you need to do is drill out 2 holes for the gearbox crossmember (2 of the 4 holes line up already). It fits in the engine bay better than the factory engine! On top of this the SR20 comes with a bullet proof gearbox to match the starion's bullet proof diff. And SR20 parts in Oz are dirt cheap (I almost cried when I saw the prices of gearboxes and LSDs)

I've seen a few SRs get beaten, but I've never seen one get 'eaten alive', it's always been a real close call.

Having said all of the above, if you've got the bits for the 2.6 turbo, go for it. I had always been told that the Sigma turbo was a peice of crap, but then a few years ago I had the chance to drive one and I came away very suprised and very impressed.

Cookiemonster · Post by **Cookiemonster** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:04 am

It's a good 'ole 3-way 2.0/2.6/SR20 muscle flexing session!

Hmmmm... nice abs! :drool:

mrb1 · Post by **mrb1** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:46 am

dirty sanchez wrote: Having said all of the above, if you've got the bits for the 2.6 turbo, go for it. I had always been told that the Sigma turbo was a peice of crap, but then a few years ago I had the chance to drive one and I came away very suprised and very impressed.

Mitsubishi Australia Factory Sigma turbo used the Astron 2.0 litre not Astron 2.6. For some reason people assume it used the 2.6?
Peter Wherrett Sigma used the 2.6 n/a.
Also these were different cars.

It had a suck through carby mounted on the turbo inlet (quite common back then). It used a Garrett Australia developed split pulse T3 system that was available later to the aftermarket.
It was alright for what it was back then. There were hardly any factory turbo cars you could buy. Good on Mitsubishi Australia for giving it a go. The car was totally developed in OZ.

4g6beat · Post by **4g6beat** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:57 am

280kw atrw reliably in an sr20? without opening the tappet cover?

Wow someone must've lucked out on that engine or are living on borowed time as there are quite a few issues affecting stock sr20's hanging together at those power levels.

I agree that the sr20 is indeed a fine engine and is inherently more sensible price wise when looking for a solution for a staz as you don't have to go mixing and matching boxes heads efi etc

however since they were designed as a cheaper unit for nissan the inherent tradeoffs for this reduce manufactured cost mean that this engines limits and abilities stock, are below that of the more expensive and better engineered oferings from mitsubishi,toyota.

do not assume because of their popularity and aftermarket support that they are indeeed the best engine. Ask any engine builder to point out the diference between an fj20 (quite possibly the toughest jap 4 ever made)and sr20 and you'll quickly see what i mean. However at moderate power levels i have no problems in recomending the sr20 as the most sensible choice due to availability and afternarket performance support.

how's that for muscle flexing cookie? :D

dirty sanchez · Post by **dirty sanchez** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:58 pm

There's plenty of examples of SR20s making far, far more than 280kw without opening the engine. Of course how long the engine survived is another kettle of fish.

I don't mean to imply that the SR20 is the be all and end all of 4 cyl engines, but in the power v's $ stakes it's got to be a pretty attractive option for a staz owner with a blown engine.

The Sigma turbo I drove had the 2.0 replaced with a 2.6 engine, I don't recall what the carby arrangement was but it certainly wasn't EFI. I remember thinking that it was actually a deceptively fast car and certainly one of the better non-EFI turbos that were around at the time.

scum · Post by **scum** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:24 pm

scuze me, but arnt the 2.6L blocks chain drive? if so how do you get the 2.0L belt drive head on that? i have looked a some here and there and i havent seen any with a belt.

quest · Post by **quest** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:14 pm

sanchez,
you're obviously one of the 100s of sr groupies that speak with emotion rather than common sense.

Go here, educate yourself;
http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads ... ed&sb=5&o=
Let them know what a lump of crap the ka24de is. Lots of modified SR owners have been eating such foolish statements. Oh, by the way, the fastest 3000+ pound s14 there ran 10.8 seconds FULL STREET trim... bone stock intake, cam & heads. Yep, ka24 power. No *same weight* sr has come close. Ever.

Want to talk recipee ? Take one redtop t25, hack an sr header to fit ka ports, sr 370cc, fmic, 3" exh. Result; 274whp/310wtq @13psi on bone stock KA 'lump of crap'. Proven. Have you seen any stock sr match those numbers, same mods? No.

Do you follow u.s. import drag racing ? Have you ever seen an sr powered car win anything in their years of trying? Never.
SR is not some 'extrordinary' motor as many would like to believe.

SIRIUS · Post by **SIRIUS** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:58 pm

torque is definatly alot better than high rpm...unless you can have both... you can chuck nice tall gearing behind a torquie engine an will be like a rubber band...itll just keep on pullin...an pulling...an pulling...an pulling...an pulling...an u get the picture...

i have one word for everyone here....

426HEMI

SIRIUS · Post by **SIRIUS** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:14 pm

best engine ever built and has been proven time....an time......an time......an time....an time.....an time....an time.....an time....an time....an time....an time....an time....an time...an time.... an time.... an time....again... :drool: an would like one in my valiant if i could afford to get one for my car...last stock 68model one went for 25G bangas....

has anyone seen that 5litre 4banga under a honda funny car shell... it was suppose to have 5500kw, an suppose to cover the quarter in 5.5secs... had pair of bloody mother farkin mother farkin mother farkin giganticly huge farkin turbos on it...

scum · Post by **scum** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:34 pm

how farkin big? can it suck my head into the inlet? anyway, back to ME! how does one stick a belt drive 2.0L head on the wideblock 2.6L?

Steve E · Post by **Steve E** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:11 pm

It warms an oldphart's heart to see healthy debate-debaiti-debatin-talk. :D

Austarion

Starion 4g63 > 4g54 2.6

2l vs 2.6l

Who is online