2.6 into a starion

[mrb1]

believe it or not my sigma has not got an understeer problem and never has
I had over steer problems when it was put on the track in 1999
the rear end was way to tight
mostly my doing I fitted noalthane bushes and a small rear bar
so the bar had to go as did the hard bushes and the 2 inner lat supports also went I fitted a heavier front bar and upped the spring rate in the front
cheater

I'm not saying you won't get it to handle however I still maintain it would be better with the 4G63. The initial "turn in" is way better, you can carry more speed into the corner. The car just changes direction a whole lot better.
If you are relocating the engine well that's going to change it all anyway.

This all may seem strange to you but when you can get out of one car into another and drive you can feel it. Also a few guys in the US that have done the 4G63 DOHC conversion said the same thing to me the car is far more balanced.
The funny thing is they said nobody specifically complains about the balance of the 2.6 Starion but when you fit the 4G63 it's amazing how much better it is!

[cheaterparts]

I would say you are correct. You know your stuff as i have run similar figures in top race cars that you have quoted. I dont see that amount of toe-in necessary tho unless there is a bump steer issue or you have purposely dialed in bump steer to avoid other handling issues. But as far as the 2.6 goes...i have had some mostrous power from them in the early days when turbos became big in the early 80's. And as the weight issue..well your on the money on that one too.

my car didn't always run this much toe but with time you get to learn what you like and suits your driving
and I like a crisp turn in this much toe works for me

the car was built to do hillclimb and has been quite successfull
best time at morwell being a 35.87 at the aust hillclimb champs in 2004 which was the winning time for over 2 Lt improved production by 1.1 sec

and still does ok at curcuits

as far as power goes I think there is a lot to work towards even in N/A there is good power but the range of torque is fantastic
my N/A motor is being rebuilt atm and I'm aimimg for 160 + rear wheel hp this time
and turboed a 2.6 should double that

its all just to much fun
cheater

[cheaterparts]

I'm not saying you won't get it to handle however I still maintain it would be better with the 4G63. The initial "turn in" is way better, you can carry more speed into the corner. The car just changes direction a whole lot better.
If you are relocating the engine well that's going to change it all anyway.

there is also the cost factor for me

I have 4 or 5 2.6 motors for spares also spare a lightened crank, spare rods and magna heads a couple of magna EFI manifolds
and drawings for all my 2.6 parts that I machine including billet flywheels
although this needs to be redrawn for my new clutch
I wil use a twin plate 7 1/4 quartermaster ( tilton )

the only belt drive cam engine I have is a 1850 twin cam that I thought about using but the cost of doing the head up would cost more that building a complete 2.6

cheater

[flav]

Well thats the thing really...when the cost gets outa hand, the fun is not fun anymore.

[linx]

no its the fat block to bolt up to starion box

"my quote was at the flywheel. And Im not entirely sure of that figure."
your quote is prob a little high at 180 hp I would say more like less than 100 hp try it on a dyno

cheater

Points to the word FLYWHEEL.

I agree on a chassi dyno it will be about 100hp... hopefully a little more with EFI and balance shaft removal.

I just looked up on the net of a CA's power output It is 173 hp. The have a 4.1x to 1 diff. Hence my guess at 180 hp at the flywheel.

Off that for a tick... Are there any hurdles to expect with hooking up the aircon and powersteering? I am not overly phased about the aircon (its what the windows are for) but incase of steering if there are issue with the power steering pump... Is there a alternative? does the rack from a sigma fit or another Mitsi fit ?

Again apreciate the help

And anothe quick note... I am going with the 2.6 because

1. I already have it and already has enough hp for the moment
2. I am not a fan of turbo's and prefer the instant response of a NA car.
3. I believe there is a thing as too much power
4. 2.6 has the low down torque to pull out of the corners cleanly.
5. I am used to a sigma, Starion with 2.6 is going to be an improvement as it is. (Don't spoil me now)
6. Tuning the suspension to handle the weight difference of the 2.6 will solve the turn in issue in due time.
7. I am poor and I already have the sigma motor.... eh

[cheaterparts]

I agree on a chassi dyno it will be about 100hp... hopefully a little more with EFI and balance shaft removal.

I just looked up on the net of a CA's power output It is 173 hp. The have a 4.1x to 1 diff. Hence my guess at 180 hp at the flywheel.

Off that for a tick... Are there any hurdles to expect with hooking up the aircon and powersteering?

1. I already have it and already has enough hp for the moment
2. I am not a fan of turbo's and prefer the instant response of a NA car.
3. I believe there is a thing as too much power
4. 2.6 has the low down torque to pull out of the corners cleanly.
5. I am used to a sigma, Starion with 2.6 is going to be an improvement as it is. (Don't spoil me now)
6. Tuning the suspension to handle the weight difference of the 2.6 will solve the turn in issue in due time.
7. I am poor and I already have the sigma motor.... eh

a better guide to how much power your engine has than draging your mate car is what is its top speed in top gear
hard to check on the road
my N/A 2.6 will run to 7000 in 5th at phillip island front straight with a 3.9 diff and 205/60 13 yokkys
now by my gear calc that 230 Ks and that with about 140 rwhp
so thats flywheel 170 -180 maybe and as you have said enough on that

I would say some bracket making will be in order to fit up p/steer pump and a/con compressor it is easy to get ganged pulleys for astrons that run a/con
myself I dont see problems as nether will be fitted

1. a reason that is as good as any
2. as a hillclimb car turbos are not as good as N/A maybe but on a curcuit what a hoot to have some hp
3.cant agree there is never enough hp
4.even with a mongrel cam they still pull well under it and I beleve that they spool early as well
5.well we hope there an improvement
6.well I see the rear being a bigger advantage being able to dail some camber may hook up a little better
7.we can all relate to poor and some of us are hopeless and motor sports dont help, try to strech your money around more that 1 car
my projects atm rebuilding the sigma engine and trans
it should have more hp this time
building a XU1 historic touring car - building the starion

cheater

[mrb1]

I'm not saying you won't get it to handle however I still maintain it would be better with the 4G63. The initial "turn in" is way better, you can carry more speed into the corner. The car just changes direction a whole lot better.
If you are relocating the engine well that's going to change it all anyway.

there is also the cost factor for me

I have 4 or 5 2.6 motors for spares also spare a lightened crank, spare rods and magna heads a couple of magna EFI manifolds
and drawings for all my 2.6 parts that I machine including billet flywheels
although this needs to be redrawn for my new clutch
I wil use a twin plate 7 1/4 quartermaster ( tilton )

the only belt drive cam engine I have is a 1850 twin cam that I thought about using but the cost of doing the head up would cost more that building a complete 2.6

cheater

For sure the 2.6 is cheap horsepower. Hard to beat in that respect. To make more power than the 2.6 with a 2.0 4G63 N/A you would have to go twin cam and that's plenty $$$$ for the good bits.

I guess I should be arguing for a 4G64 2.4 N/A compared to the 4G54 2.6 N/A then there's only 200cc difference :)
It would be interesting to see how the L300 4G64 head flows compared to the 4G54 2.6 head?
I have a document somewhere from Mitsubishi comparing the engines because the 4G6X family basically replaced the 4G5X family.
There is a graph showing the 4G6X Sirus family engines have 5-10% lower friction.

[cheaterparts]

I guess I should be arguing for a 4G64 2.4 N/A compared to the 4G54 2.6 N/A then there's only 200cc difference :)
It would be interesting to see how the L300 4G64 head flows compared to the 4G54 2.6 head?
I have a document somewhere from Mitsubishi comparing the engines because the 4G6X family basically replaced the 4G5X family.
There is a graph showing the 4G6X Sirus family engines have 5-10% lower friction.

I think its less that 200 cc a 2.6 being a 2555cc and the 2.6 has a shorter stroke than a 4g64 and also a better rod stroke ratio

but I dont think there is a sohc 4g63/64 that flows near as much as the M6 magna head
mistsub did replace the 4g5s for 4g6s and made them more compact but this did mean that the bore sizes had to be reduced and so did the valve sizes as did the ports

by the way I'm not knocking a 4G63/64 as they have proved them selfs
but as I have said cost is in my favour
also having run 4g54s for some time now in N/A and have learnt how they tick and what makes improvements cheaply
we have even had a cam ground up and will be tried out soon
in a 2.6 turbo 290 deg adv 244 deg at 0.050 114 lobe sep and 0.458 valve lift which could be to big we will see on that

cams for turbos look so tame when you think that N/A cams easy use 20 deg more timing and a lot less lobe sep

cheater

[flav]

ahhhh...yes, totally tame..but theres a good reson for that! Even the big HKS cams are not really much on the STD VR4 stuff. I went to Wade to get some grinds made up for a client here in something i thought was going to be a huge change, but when spun up and dialed the difference was not huge at all. Big difference to when i was building GRP A engines for HRT.

[linx]

Sorry to be a bother again.

If I can help it I would prefer not to run power steering. (Better feel, no power loss, less problems and gettinga workout wile you drive).

Is there an issue with running a power steering rack without the pump. Or does a sigma rack fit inplace of a starions.

Airconditioning... I dont really care about, If its an issue I will just toss it aside. Steering failure , however is (I hope this would be obvious)

I could probably find out for myself when the car gets to me, but... saving time and effort is always a help.

[cheaterparts]

If I can help it I would prefer not to run power steering. (Better feel, no power loss, less problems and gettinga workout wile you drive).

Is there an issue with running a power steering rack without the pump. Or does a sigma rack fit inplace of a starions.

if you are running on the road I would mount up the power steer pump
it wouldn't be hard and the power steer will make it nicer as a road car

and yes the steering would be quite heavy without the pump
lastly I haven't bolted one up as yet but a quick run over the mount bolts
it looks like a sigma box is close
and is the way I was going with mine but that is track only
if it was on the road I would leave it in


cheater

[flav]

Its a pig without the pump. Just keep it.

[linx]

I finally went and had a look at the car I was getting.... turns out it was a scorpian and not a starion.... rofl.

The funniest bit is that it was a mechanic who was pointing me in the direction of the car. And he didn't know the difference from a starion - scorpian.

Silly nissan mechanic.

I will still get it though. Getting it for a $100 dollars.. so why the hell not.

[flav]

We get alot of simpletons walk in here calling the staz's cordial's....they even think they look the same.. :x

[woops]

I know that this thread is pretty much over but does anyone know how much lighter the 4g63 is from the 4g54.

I've changed over from the 4g54 in the sigma to the 4g63 with multipoint. I'd be interesting to know how much lighter it is with the 4g63 and if there would be that great a deal of change in the handling dynamics of the car. Unfortunately it's a wagon so the handling won't be the best due to the shape but everything can always be made better. The shape is something different.