dohc for the 2.6

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:43 pm

I wish the hell Adrian would finish his 2.4 litre twincam staz, so we can see what thats like. the torque should be impressive, to say the least :D

cheaterparts · Post by **cheaterparts** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:55 pm

mrb1 wrote:
Glenjo wrote:
But hey thats just me, I love throwing my cars into corners and being able to TURN.

I would agree with Glenjo the 2.6 feels lazy it has no engine acceleration (compared to the 2.0). However with the big turbo it now actually revs no problem, however it is a much harsher engine than the Sirius motor.
HOWEVER I have no idea what's inside until I do a rebuild next year. I know the stock flywheel is way too heavy so there is possibly potential for a big improvement with some better bits used.
My JA 2.0 has MPI which gives a punch down low while the 2.6 has TBI which always take a bit to get going.
I will reserve my final opinion until I fit the Magna MPI (soon) so I can do a fair comparison.

Around Eastern Creek the 2.6 tended to understeer on the tight slow corners (fast sweepers were fine), the 2.0 does not do that. There is a lot more weight over the front wheels with the 2.6.

The 2.6 will make good power fairly cheaply, I am making around 300HP (at the engine) with 13psi!

Anyhow these are my observations rather than criticisms :roll:

I read with interest your comments as my JA is getting the 2.6 treatment
under steer slow corners ? how do you have your F/E set up the reason I ask is that my sigma has starion F/E and sticks like glue there would not be a lot of differance in F/E weight and the track would be the same
I use 5.5 deg neg camber around 6 deg pos caster and about 4 mm toe out more at tight tracks

as for the flywheel weight I run a 10 1/2" steel flywheel that weighs 5 Kg
I think the standard 12" cast flywheel was 17 or 18 Kg and this makes shit loads of differance on a N/A 2.6 and would work well with pumped up motors

there is one other option I have been looking at fitting a 2000 crank (4g52) I picked up some pistons that would work they have the same piston height as the 2000 but are 93 mm
bore 93 x 90 stroke I think would be safe to 7500

stephen

MrBishi · Post by **MrBishi** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:14 pm

I tend to agree with most comments here. Remember that it is difficult to compare apples to apples in this case (I know my 2 cars are unfair to compare directly). Not many people have the $$ to do similar mods to both motors in similar cars to do a direct comparison. When my G63 gets pulled for a rebuild I will be interested to see the weight difference between long motors - I am wary of comments about huge weight differences between motors (I suspect this is due to flywheel or heavy cast manifolds etc.)

Either way you look at it - spend enough money on either engine & you make HP & go fast.
If this was a comparison between an SR20 & a starfire the differences are much more obvious & clear cut (stafire is a clear winnah)

mrb1 · Post by **mrb1** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:39 pm

MrBishi wrote: When my G63 gets pulled for a rebuild I will be interested to see the weight difference between long motors - I am wary of comments about huge weight differences between motors (I suspect this is due to flywheel or heavy cast manifolds etc.)

Yes that will be interesting. I have an in house Mitsubishi training manual that says the 4G63 SOHC is 20kg lighter than a 4G52 (2.0 litre). The 4G63 also has 5-10% less friction at high RPM.
The cylinder pitch in the 4G52(4G54) is 101mm while the 4G63 is 93mm, plus the engine is approx 65mm shorter so there is a LOT more metal in the block itself.

The Sirius engines were designed to be lighter, more efficient, more compact and quieter than the Astron family. Exactly what a replacement engine family should be.

So yes please weight them both so we can get an accurate weight. Maybe you could weigh them fully dressed as they come out of the car as well?

quest · Post by **quest** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:01 am

I've owned both the 2.0 and 2.6 at the same time. A healthy US model, burdened down with saftey equipment and emissions is not too bad with a mid 15sec 1/4. Once you provoke a 2.6, you won't believe its the same motor. Look at the ETs I posted, and realize NONE of those cars run any serious boost or no where near maxed out. How fast are you looking to go. That kinda acceleration is scary, and among the best of street cars. I don't know anything about road course cars.

There are quite a few 2.4L twin cam motors in the u.s. that have put out over 600hp and ~550 ft-lbs tq to the ground, and posted 10sec 1/4s. Impressive for a heavy 4cyl street car(dsm) and such a small package.

I have a 2.4sohc(wide bell pattern) mpi motor and looking to pick up a 2.4L fwd(narrow pattern). The latter will be dohc/rwd. Both will replace the 2.0L versions in my rwd corollas. The 2.6 in the staz is too hairy a beast to replace with any other 4. Torque is what that porky hull needs

GADGET · Post by **GADGET** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:12 pm

I had a stock 2litre so power cant be compared to the 2.6L I now posses but the difference in handling was huge! driving down the adelaide hills decoy and junkie left me for dead. It was a real pig and felt unsafe. uphill was another story tho. (thats the 2.6) when i had the 2litre i felt like i could throw it around corners something fierce!

I really love the power and its delivery at 10psi.

Check out the sigma turbo article in the new fast fours 2.6L 245rwkw at 20-27psi using lpg :drool: :drool: :drool:

mrb1 · Post by **mrb1** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:25 pm

GADGET wrote:I had a stock 2litre so power cant be compared to the 2.6L I now posses but the difference in handling was huge! driving down the adelaide hills decoy and junkie left me for dead. It was a real pig and felt unsafe. uphill was another story tho. (thats the 2.6) when i had the 2litre i felt like i could throw it around corners something fierce!

I really love the power and its delivery at 10psi.

Hey Glenjo looks like we were not dreaming after all with this 2.6 handling thing :beer
Hey do you have any idea about the difference in weight between the engines? The front of the engine sits further forward because it is longer so the weight ahead of the axle would be more as well.

Website · Post by **WidebodyWoody** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:39 am

I did feel that the 2ltr was lighter but I think that it was the body. 2ltr straight body VS 2.6ltr widebody.

karl_2ltgc · Post by **karl_2ltgc** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:32 pm

I have a few points to make about astron v sirius debate.
Firstly, those comenting about the handling, yes, the astron is a heavier motor, so if you were to take a starion and just bung one in without heavier springs/shocks in the front YES it will handle worse.

As for the revability stuff. Well go take a starion 2ltr flywheel and a 2.6 flywheel. The starion is exectly same but the casting at the back has ALOT less material than the sigma. Also 2ltr stock cam and 2.6 stock cams are very different.

So, take a 2.6, use a starion flyhweel(or one of cheaterparts specials :) ), get a proper cam in it and appropriate turbo, sort out your front end(that you should if you wanna corner anyway) and enjoy. You will have more torque/power everywere, your bigger turbo will spool earlier, you can have that big monster cam to rev thru past 7k and still have loads more torque than a 2ltr.

Did i mention the MPFI that can be had for bugger all straight off a magna, or that magna m6 castings can still be had brand spankers for around $300-400. Super cheap to build, a head gasket is only $25 retail at autobarn.

Theres nothing wrong with a 2ltr, just that a 2.6 definatly has some serious advantages, especially in terms of cost and power, driveability ect.
Plus its easier to change headgasket/waterpump on a chain driven motor :D

Website · Post by **WidebodyWoody** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:18 pm

Well said. But I have to say one thing about the difference between the 2Lt and 2.6L

The 2.6 Litre clutch/fly wheel us so much bigger in diameter then the 2L. Which means the clutch is more efficient too. And yes, the 2.6 has so many more advantages, Except for the disadvantage of not being able ot have a DOHC.

cheaterparts · Post by **cheaterparts** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:35 am

WidebodyWoody wrote:
The 2.6 Litre clutch/fly wheel us so much bigger in diameter then the 2L. Which means the clutch is more efficient too. And yes, the 2.6 has so many more advantages, Except for the disadvantage of not being able ot have a DOHC.

WidebodyWoody wrote:
Except for the disadvantage of not being able ot have a DOHC.

Is that much of a disavantage to the average punter if so Y ?

stephen

and Karl have you got those bends yet so I can TIG up your dump pipe

Website · Post by **WidebodyWoody** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:51 am

No it isn't a disadvantage to the average punter. But to me it is because I am going all out. Once I get the multipoint injection and new cooler piping, I just have to do cam and internals. I just wish I could have a DOHC.

karl_2ltgc · Post by **karl_2ltgc** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:32 pm

erm, 2.6 wide block(ie came out in sigma with a 5spd behind it) and starion 2ltr flywheels are the same diameter/studs ect.
They are interchangable.

DOHC dont mean crap, what matters is the angle of the valves to the cylinder, combustion chamber design, port design, manifold design/flow and filling the cylinders.
Just cos its got 2 cams dosnt mean its better. And chasing pooftenths of power isnt something that will benifit a roadcar , a purely track car yes, roadcar no.

Website · Post by **WidebodyWoody** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:22 pm

The size of the clutches ARE different. I have had to change both of my JA and widebody 2.6 and they ARE different. Believe me.

NXTIME · Post by **NXTIME** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:30 am

Woody, there is plenty of torque and power to be had from the good ol' 2.6T. If you want even more revability, then consider a destroke using the 2L crank.

Austarion

dohc for the 2.6

Who is online