The 4g64 Hype

Iceman · 12-04-2003

Okay so latly i have been hearing a lot about the 4g64 swap and how it sppols turbos better. Okay thats all nice and good but im wondering what would be so nice about that? I mean you can't rev it as high as say a build stock 6 bolt right? Correct me if im wrong on this.. Pros/Cons shoot away.

CVD · 12-04-2003

think of a 4G63.

now add 20% displacement.

get it?

no?

too bad.

**1ViciousGSX** · 12-04-2003

I'll let you know how it works soon.

A properly built 2.4L will turn 9500rpm with no problems. The hp goes up a little, but the torque goes up alot. Most DSM trannys don't like to shift above 8500rpm anyway. So why not make as much power as you can in the rpm range that works the best for our cars, especially a street car. Imagine having a .60 trim turbo hitting full boost at 3000rpm. On average a 2.4L will spool a turbo up 1000rpm sooner. And think about how much better just the normal, non-boost driving will be on the street.

As CVD said, add 20% to a current 2.0L 4g63 making 500hp. The 4g64 would see a increase of power up to 600hp just based on the increase in displacement if the set-up allows for the additional air/fuel/exhaust flow. But the torque would increase at a higher ratio.

Jakey · 12-04-2003

Could someone list out the different components used to build a 4G64? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there both 6 bolt and 7 bolt 4G64s?

**Goat Blower** · 12-04-2003

There's a ton of info out on the 2.4's, you're best off to read up on the NABR archives, nobody wants to write it all out again. Here's the basics though:

20% more displacement, that's always good. The rod ratio is worse, but they've been tested to at least 8500 rpms with no problems. They won't rev as high as a comparable 2.0 liter, but they don't necessarily have to because of the extra power and torque at lower rpms. The 6-bolt variants use almost all stock Mitsu parts so the engineering is already done. Pistons and rods are readily available and no clearancing of the block is needed. And best of all, they allow you to use a larger turbo which decreases exhaust backpressure and ultimately makes a more efficient engine with a lot of power.

A//// Guy · 12-04-2003

So you use stock internals from a 150hp 2.4 motor and can run 500+ horses just fine without breaking things.

CVD · 12-04-2003

the internals are pretty similar. you can make the same amount of power as a 4G63, its just easier to do.

But you need to put a 4G63 head on it. that is what makes it different from cranking out that kind of power on a spyder or some such.

**JET** · 12-04-2003

He said that pistons and rods were readily available, he said nothing about using the stock ones. The 6 bolts do come with big rods though. From the people I have talked to, you will see a 10% increase in HP and a 20-25% increase in torque.

Like Steve said, they will spin up to 8.5k with the normal rods, or 9.5k with the long rods like Vicious has. What do you care anyway, Peter? Don't you shift at 5k at the track? :stick:

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 12-04-2003

I don't think anyone is reving a 2.4 to 9500 RPMs, the rod ratio and piston speeds are quite bad. Running a 2.4 at 8000RPMs is like running a 2.0 at over 9000RPMs. Marco supposedly runs his 2.4s out to 8500. You won't necessarily get more power from the 2.4 versus a 2.0. You have a have a turbo big enough that the 2.0 isn't taking full advantage of it in the first place. No can't make more horsepower than the turbo supports not matter how big the motor is. For example, if you stuck a T25 that flows around 245cfms on a V8 that flow 500cfm in NA form, the T25 isn't going to do anything.

And no the 150hp internals of the stock 2.4s will not do. You need to replace the rods and pistons. And put a 4G63 head on it.

The biggest gain is in spoolup. You can run a larger turbo and make more power without having to rev it to the moon. Spool a 60-1 like it's a 20G...

FORSFED · 12-04-2003

In what cars do you find the 4g63?

ACRucrazy · 12-05-2003

Ruh Roh! :bounce:

A//// Guy · 12-05-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by JET@Dec 4 2003, 11:04 PM
Like Steve said, they will spin up to 8.5k with the normal rods, or 9.5k with the long rods like Vicious has. What do you care anyway, Peter? Don't you shift at 5k at the track? :stick:

Uhh.. no I go up to 6... theres no power after that anyway... on my car.

I dont launch hard if thats what you were getting at. :razz2: Ill launch hard when i have a 4 bolt and its not my daily driver... back off.

**JET** · 12-05-2003

Chill out! I was just giving you shit. Notice the little guy poking the other one with a stick!

AJ · 12-05-2003

LOL, You ladies need a time out card. HAHAHAHA

**Goat Blower** · 12-05-2003

Even with the long rods, the rod ratio is still in the 1.5's, the difference is so slight, I'm not even going to bother. I've never heard of anybody going higher than 8500. I'm building one because I still want a streetable car, so spool is a concern, running 9's is not.

TheBlizzard · 12-05-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Goat Blower@Dec 5 2003, 11:40 AM
Even with the long rods, the rod ratio is still in the 1.5's, the difference is so slight, I'm not even going to bother. I've never heard of anybody going higher than 8500. I'm building one because I still want a streetable car, so spool is a concern, running 9's is not.

Steve, are you keeping your 60-1 or going with something different? What does that turbo spool at with the 2.0? With a 2.4 it should spool something like a 50 trim right?

**Goat Blower** · 12-05-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by CUSTOMDSM+Dec 5 2003, 12:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CUSTOMDSM @ Dec 5 2003, 12:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Goat Blower@Dec 5 2003, 11:40 AM
Even with the long rods, the rod ratio is still in the 1.5's, the difference is so slight, I'm not even going to bother. I've never heard of anybody going higher than 8500. I'm building one because I still want a streetable car, so spool is a concern, running 9's is not.

Steve, are you keeping your 60-1 or going with something different? What does that turbo spool at with the 2.0? With a 2.4 it should spool something like a 50 trim right? [/b][/quote]
For now at least, although I'd switch to the 8cm exhaust housing once I got the car tuned right. I was hitting 30 psi by about 4000 rpms.

TheBlizzard · 12-05-2003

I see, I am anxious to see how that 2.4 spools that big GT 56 trim that Jet has. My god that turbo is a big bastard, he showed me that turbo last night and it was actually scary looking....

So much for his 3" buschur cold air intake since that turbo has a 4" inlet!!!!!! Time to just throw a filter right on the turbo and call it good huh?

**v8klla** · 12-05-2003

A little info on the 7 bolt 4g64...2.4 liters, found in 94-98 galants is SOHC form. It uses all 2G parts, front cover, etc. except for the cam gears and timing belt which are replaced by '94 galant DOHC components. 5 cooling holes need to be plugged on the block. Rods are the same as 2G rods. Only one case of crankwalk I have seen, and that was due to a build error. There are no oil squirters, but according to Magnus they are not needed...

This is a good way for 2G guys to get away from crankwalk, gain .4 liters, fast spoolup, and massive torque all without doing a 6 bolt swap.

And it'll be fun to beat some of the 1G guys and tell them you are still running a 7 bolt

I do have one question, assuming your turbo was large enough, wouldn't the same boost yield a much higher airflow, and therefore a substancial increase in HP while keeping knock and EGT's at a minimum?

BTW, I have heard of a few people hitting 8k+ on the 2.3/2.4s with the stock valve train...

Chris

CVD · 12-05-2003

I wouldnt know, but i would think that running the same boost on a 4G64 would require slightly more airflow, which could put the turbo outside of its efficiency range and create more knock, if anything at all.