4g63 in a rx7
12-28-06, 12:44 PM
#176
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you guys keep comparing N/A DSMs to N/A rotaries???
That's the whole point of the 4g63: easy boost. Like, 20 psi daily on pump for 70000 very hard miles on the original factory head gasket. Show me a rotary that'll do that.
That's the whole point of the 4g63: easy boost. Like, 20 psi daily on pump for 70000 very hard miles on the original factory head gasket. Show me a rotary that'll do that.
12-28-06, 01:17 PM
#177
I owned a DSM for three years the motor is rock solid the stock crank can hold up to 600hp. The only problem with a DSM is the drivetrain which you wouldnt have to deal with being its in a rx7. Also to the retard who keeps refering to 4g63 N/a.... There is no such thing dumb *** the motor in the n/a eclipses is the 420a the 4g63 is the turbo motor that came it the turbo eclipses and is the same motor in the new evo, so you think if the motor was that bad they would have went back to it for a new preformance vehichle. I had a pretty rough setup on my motor and it held it down for a while, I just couldnt keep up with the drivetrain i went through constantly to keep it.
12-28-06, 01:30 PM
#178
Respecognize!
Originally Posted by twomucboost4u
I owned a DSM for three years the motor is rock solid the stock crank can hold up to 600hp. The only problem with a DSM is the drivetrain which you wouldnt have to deal with being its in a rx7. Also to the retard who keeps refering to 4g63 N/a.... There is no such thing dumb *** the motor in the n/a eclipses is the 420a the 4g63 is the turbo motor that came it the turbo eclipses and is the same motor in the new evo, so you think if the motor was that bad they would have went back to it for a new preformance vehichle. I had a pretty rough setup on my motor and it held it down for a while, I just couldnt keep up with the drivetrain i went through constantly to keep it.
wrong the first gens came in a 4g63t, a 4g63 and a 420a.
Also the motor while being called the same code number, has alot of differences between the years. You are right though, the motors are solid, its the cars themselves and supporting this like the electronics and controls that make the bastard a problem.
sounds kinda like an FC now doesnt it?
12-28-06, 02:28 PM
#180
Respecognize!
right how my DD talon (tsi awd) has been much more of a pain in my *** than my sevens. Granted if we compared my turbo II to my dsm, the only issues i see the dsm superior is the motor. stupid crap seems to ALWAYS break on it.
case in point this weekend i have to do the following
-replace the window regulator,
-replace the u-joints
-find out why the car wants to stall at low speed when i let off the throttle (car is automatic) and cant catch the idle
i love the car still though. the 7 is just built better everywhere else.
case in point this weekend i have to do the following
-replace the window regulator,
-replace the u-joints
-find out why the car wants to stall at low speed when i let off the throttle (car is automatic) and cant catch the idle
i love the car still though. the 7 is just built better everywhere else.
12-28-06, 02:43 PM
#181
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the first gens never had the 420A, they had a SOHC 1.8L, the 2.0L N/A 4g63, and the 4g63 turbo. They were all Mitsubishi engines. A friend of mine had the 1.8L versus my second gen GSX, and I couldn't believe how slow the thing was. The worst part was the fact that anything above 1/4 throttle had no impact on the vehicle's acceleration.
And Low Impedance is right, while the code is the same, there's a lot of differences. Differences between the 1g and 2g engines are big, though negligible compared to the differences between the EVO engines.
The EVO's I-III used what is essentially the 2g Eclipse engine, with smaller, raised intake ports and different manifolds, etc. The EVO IV and later used a similar engine, but it's rotated 180 degrees and spins the opposite way, a huge difference considering a lot of parts are now no longer interchangeable (camshafts, for instance). I believe the intake ports got a little larger on the EVO VIII.
Another difference between the 1g, 2g, and EVO VIII engines are the rods and pistons. I think the 1g "big" rods are probably the strongest, but the 1g engines used 7.8:1 CR pistons, while the 2g and EVO VII used 8.5:1 and 8.7:1, respectively. Rod dimensions are ever-so slightly different, but enough that you're not going to fit a 1g rod on a 2g piston without machining it.
And Low Impedance is right, while the code is the same, there's a lot of differences. Differences between the 1g and 2g engines are big, though negligible compared to the differences between the EVO engines.
The EVO's I-III used what is essentially the 2g Eclipse engine, with smaller, raised intake ports and different manifolds, etc. The EVO IV and later used a similar engine, but it's rotated 180 degrees and spins the opposite way, a huge difference considering a lot of parts are now no longer interchangeable (camshafts, for instance). I believe the intake ports got a little larger on the EVO VIII.
Another difference between the 1g, 2g, and EVO VIII engines are the rods and pistons. I think the 1g "big" rods are probably the strongest, but the 1g engines used 7.8:1 CR pistons, while the 2g and EVO VII used 8.5:1 and 8.7:1, respectively. Rod dimensions are ever-so slightly different, but enough that you're not going to fit a 1g rod on a 2g piston without machining it.
12-28-06, 02:45 PM
#182
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I hear you guys complaining about the nickel and diming of the DSM. It's the little ****. Luckily my car hasn't had much of it (though I did spend almost 3 grand replacing the tranny) but you can't fault the engine for the rest of the car's shoddiness.
12-28-06, 02:52 PM
#183
Respecognize!
im not faulting the engine...well...except the nickel and diming the engine controls are doing to me...but the rest of the car could have been built better.
12-28-06, 03:27 PM
#185
Respecognize!
it is recirculated. ive checked it twice since to make sure its decent. ive also put the ARC BOV which has a good thing going for recirculating and not leaking boost...
i think there is an idle stabilizer dodad going bad but the onboard diagonostics are seeing it.
i think there is an idle stabilizer dodad going bad but the onboard diagonostics are seeing it.
12-28-06, 04:15 PM
#186
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a first gen, right? Are you dealing with leaky caps?
Engine management is one thing I've been pretty pleased with from the factory. Not only are the 2g ignition and timing maps pretty damn good, but the fact that I was able to buy a '95 EPROM ECU and put DSMLink on it has been the most pleasantly surprising and effective mod that I've done to the car. Miles better than an S-AFC.
I didn't mean to insinuate that you were faulting the engine for the car. The reason I made the general statement is that it seems some people are transferring the questionable build quality of the car over to the engine and deeming it an unreliable piece of crap. Now personally, as I said before, I haven't had many problems with my car at all, and aside from a few interior rattles (which were promptly cured once the interior got ripped out), I've been quite satisfied with it's build quality. And actually, while this might be due to my lack of experience back then, I actually felt like the interior of the car was fairly high quality when it was new.
Of course, the cars themselves really don't seem to hold up too well over time. New the car had rattles. Years later, those rattles would probably have translated into panels loosening and other such things. My passenger door panel is in a sad state, though that's partially because I screwed with it a while back, but in general, they just don't seem to age too well.
Anyway, the point is, the RX-7 is a good chassis and the 4g63 is a good engine so putting them together is almost like a "best of both worlds" thing.
Engine management is one thing I've been pretty pleased with from the factory. Not only are the 2g ignition and timing maps pretty damn good, but the fact that I was able to buy a '95 EPROM ECU and put DSMLink on it has been the most pleasantly surprising and effective mod that I've done to the car. Miles better than an S-AFC.
I didn't mean to insinuate that you were faulting the engine for the car. The reason I made the general statement is that it seems some people are transferring the questionable build quality of the car over to the engine and deeming it an unreliable piece of crap. Now personally, as I said before, I haven't had many problems with my car at all, and aside from a few interior rattles (which were promptly cured once the interior got ripped out), I've been quite satisfied with it's build quality. And actually, while this might be due to my lack of experience back then, I actually felt like the interior of the car was fairly high quality when it was new.
Of course, the cars themselves really don't seem to hold up too well over time. New the car had rattles. Years later, those rattles would probably have translated into panels loosening and other such things. My passenger door panel is in a sad state, though that's partially because I screwed with it a while back, but in general, they just don't seem to age too well.
Anyway, the point is, the RX-7 is a good chassis and the 4g63 is a good engine so putting them together is almost like a "best of both worlds" thing.
12-28-06, 04:22 PM
#187
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Low Impedance
i think there is an idle stabilizer dodad going bad but the onboard diagonostics are seeing it.
Alternatively, you could take it out and use a multimeter to check if it's bad, I believe. I was about to tell you to check the VFAQs but I went ahead and did it myself (which was good because it wasn't where I'd expect it to be), here it is. I would suggest if it's bad just going to a junkyard and getting another one, or you might be able to find one off ebay.
If you've got DSMLink or a datalogger that can show you position of the ISC, then it's really easy to set the idle. The problem is, if you adjust the BISS (Base Idle Set Screw) then the ECU will adjust the ISC to compensate. Ideally, you'll have the BISS set so that, when the engine is idling at the right rpm, the ISC will be near the center of it's range of movement. If you just go adjusting the BISS, you can end up with the ISC at the limit of it's range. So the ECU will try adjusting it further and it won't be able to move. That's when you start running into idling problems.
12-28-06, 04:28 PM
#188
Just for reference on the motors capability this is what I ran.
Stock crank
1g rods w/2g pistons
titanium valves and springs
HKS cams
2g manifold ported with t3 adapter
gt35r
all supporting mods
made 482AWHP at 18lbs on pump gas daily
When i finally had everything the way i wanted it i had gone through 2 rear ends, 4 transfer cases, 2 drivelines, 3 clutches, 2 sets of master and slave cylinders, 7 trannies, 3 shift linkage brackets, 2 ECU. The only reason I had to change the motor is becasue I had everything so solid by the end the only way it had left to break was by pulling the whole tranny off of the motor and breaking the bell housing because it had broke off one of the tabs on the CAST block that held the tranny on. That was when i finally gave up!!!
Stock crank
1g rods w/2g pistons
titanium valves and springs
HKS cams
2g manifold ported with t3 adapter
gt35r
all supporting mods
made 482AWHP at 18lbs on pump gas daily
When i finally had everything the way i wanted it i had gone through 2 rear ends, 4 transfer cases, 2 drivelines, 3 clutches, 2 sets of master and slave cylinders, 7 trannies, 3 shift linkage brackets, 2 ECU. The only reason I had to change the motor is becasue I had everything so solid by the end the only way it had left to break was by pulling the whole tranny off of the motor and breaking the bell housing because it had broke off one of the tabs on the CAST block that held the tranny on. That was when i finally gave up!!!
12-28-06, 04:32 PM
#189
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more thing, relating to the 4g63 (sorry, I'm not trying to jack the thread, but since we're discussing general DSM things...).
There was a rumor a while back that HKS developed the DOHC head on the 4g63. I don't know how true that is, but it IS a really good head. However, what I find more interesting is the fact that this engine was jointly developed by Mitsu, Chrysler, and Hyundai (which is obvious, seeing as how many cars use either the 4g63 or a 4g variant, in all three companies' cars). I mean, this was a really good engine when it was new.
And now the three are working again on a new engine, that will end up in the EVO X, among other cars. Each company will be using their own variations on the basic engine, but it does seem pretty promising that Chrysler's version is making some 170+ horsepower in naturally-aspirated form in the Dodge Calibur. It should be interesting to see how good this particular engine is since it's a sort of spiritual successor to the 4g63.
Alright, sorry for the OT talk.
There was a rumor a while back that HKS developed the DOHC head on the 4g63. I don't know how true that is, but it IS a really good head. However, what I find more interesting is the fact that this engine was jointly developed by Mitsu, Chrysler, and Hyundai (which is obvious, seeing as how many cars use either the 4g63 or a 4g variant, in all three companies' cars). I mean, this was a really good engine when it was new.
And now the three are working again on a new engine, that will end up in the EVO X, among other cars. Each company will be using their own variations on the basic engine, but it does seem pretty promising that Chrysler's version is making some 170+ horsepower in naturally-aspirated form in the Dodge Calibur. It should be interesting to see how good this particular engine is since it's a sort of spiritual successor to the 4g63.
Alright, sorry for the OT talk.
01-18-07, 08:45 PM
#190
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey fellas. I'm new to the site and I'm actually in the process of putting a 4g63 in a FD. I've kinda been reading the posts on this topic and I hear all these different opinions. Hey my project is going so smoothly it seems like the motor was meant to be in there. Actually it might be....Mitsu did have a lot of dealings with Mazda back in the '70's (thats gonna **** off some of you rotary guys, sorry). Anyway, any questions you guys wanna ask, fire away. I think I know a great deal about putting a 4G63 in RWD format. Thanks.
01-19-07, 07:03 PM
#193
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im actually gonna be doing this swap as well but i dont care if im first. i have a 94 and am really excited about the swap. ive thought about it for the longest time. i love rx7s but i work at a dsm shop so the concept of the swap has been on my mind for a while. do u guys have any tips or anything that will help me out when it comes around. do you guys have any pictures of the swap so far other then the ones at the beginning at the thread?
01-20-07, 12:12 AM
#195
Serbian
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: phoenix
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by coltboostin
I am sorry you had bad luck with the 1G. As for the 2G-I would not buy one either, at least with the 7 bolt in it. Crankwalk is an issue with those motors. That is what mitsu gets for letting Chrysler do most of the work on that motor.
As for what I want out of the car-I will say this;If the car does not go 10's on low boost and pump gas I will be doing something wrong.
No rotor-Thanks. All systems go so far.
As for what I want out of the car-I will say this;If the car does not go 10's on low boost and pump gas I will be doing something wrong.
No rotor-Thanks. All systems go so far.
01-20-07, 01:12 AM
#196
Serbian
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: phoenix
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry guys to jump in like this but i heard some stuff here that made me really angry.
I had 98 eclipse for 2 years no problem ( i cared about the car a lot). It had good power about 360WHP. Some guys here are talking like 500WHP 4g63 is so easy to accomplish....On pump gas is freaking imposible... WTF ITs not that easy plus its lagy , its not drivable. Not fun at all. That guy that sold some stuff from his old car was funny to me. turbo timer used $100 SAFC $200 etc bla bla ....lie lie .. dont trust anything you say anymore.
I would liek to see the fool that bought that stuff from you. Nice colt, but touch the ground once in the while. 700WHP dayly driven reliable on 2.0l and pump gas .... Where do I live man...
I liked eclipse and i hated at the same time..
Why liked: because it was freaking pretty and OK fast
what I didnt like: it was tranny...F**k, couldnt shift then it would break etc
I'll come back on the subject, now i got to run...
I had 98 eclipse for 2 years no problem ( i cared about the car a lot). It had good power about 360WHP. Some guys here are talking like 500WHP 4g63 is so easy to accomplish....On pump gas is freaking imposible... WTF ITs not that easy plus its lagy , its not drivable. Not fun at all. That guy that sold some stuff from his old car was funny to me. turbo timer used $100 SAFC $200 etc bla bla ....lie lie .. dont trust anything you say anymore.
I would liek to see the fool that bought that stuff from you. Nice colt, but touch the ground once in the while. 700WHP dayly driven reliable on 2.0l and pump gas .... Where do I live man...
I liked eclipse and i hated at the same time..
Why liked: because it was freaking pretty and OK fast
what I didnt like: it was tranny...F**k, couldnt shift then it would break etc
I'll come back on the subject, now i got to run...
01-20-07, 01:36 AM
#197
Originally Posted by hiboost
I'm sorry guys to jump in like this but i heard some stuff here that made me really angry.
I had 98 eclipse for 2 years no problem ( i cared about the car a lot). It had good power about 360WHP. Some guys here are talking like 500WHP 4g63 is so easy to accomplish....On pump gas is freaking imposible... WTF ITs not that easy plus its lagy , its not drivable. Not fun at all. That guy that sold some stuff from his old car was funny to me. turbo timer used $100 SAFC $200 etc bla bla ....lie lie .. dont trust anything you say anymore.
I would liek to see the fool that bought that stuff from you. Nice colt, but touch the ground once in the while. 700WHP dayly driven reliable on 2.0l and pump gas .... Where do I live man...
I liked eclipse and i hated at the same time..
Why liked: because it was freaking pretty and OK fast
what I didnt like: it was tranny...F**k, couldnt shift then it would break etc
I'll come back on the subject, now i got to run...
I had 98 eclipse for 2 years no problem ( i cared about the car a lot). It had good power about 360WHP. Some guys here are talking like 500WHP 4g63 is so easy to accomplish....On pump gas is freaking imposible... WTF ITs not that easy plus its lagy , its not drivable. Not fun at all. That guy that sold some stuff from his old car was funny to me. turbo timer used $100 SAFC $200 etc bla bla ....lie lie .. dont trust anything you say anymore.
I would liek to see the fool that bought that stuff from you. Nice colt, but touch the ground once in the while. 700WHP dayly driven reliable on 2.0l and pump gas .... Where do I live man...
I liked eclipse and i hated at the same time..
Why liked: because it was freaking pretty and OK fast
what I didnt like: it was tranny...F**k, couldnt shift then it would break etc
I'll come back on the subject, now i got to run...
WTF?
There are turbo timers for less than 100$ NEW?!?
And, if you pay any more than 200$ for an AFC II, your an ***-and hell that was an over estimate since I had an AFC 1!!
There is always hate-that is to be expected, but if you think you cant make 500whp on pump gas, you being ignorant. A 2 second search will net you dyno videos of several cars putting 500+to all 4 tires on straight pump with no meth. Hell a 2g at the DSM shootout (happens to be a customer of ours) went 10.2@137 of STRAIGHT 94 oct.
Its not my fault if you cant handle the truth. Educate yourself, try this site out and see what you find- www.google.com
01-20-07, 03:00 PM
#199
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Coltboostin I'm not a thief, lol, I was actually planning of doing this for like 2 years and when I'm done we'll race and see who's faster. As far as how far along, I got the motor (fully built) bolted to the built T5 I'm using, tossing up if i should make a new crossmember or modify the FD's. Got most parts (FMIC,Fuel system etc), just bought the TEC 3R. No pics yet 89FCVert, i'll take some soon. And i'm not that smart hiboost, this motor is so easy to properly make RWD with just the stuff on the market, its a wonder not that much people run them RWD.
01-20-07, 03:16 PM
#200
Originally Posted by 4G63FD
Hey Coltboostin I'm not a thief, lol, I was actually planning of doing this for like 2 years and when I'm done we'll race and see who's faster. As far as how far along, I got the motor (fully built) bolted to the built T5 I'm using, tossing up if i should make a new crossmember or modify the FD's. Got most parts (FMIC,Fuel system etc), just bought the TEC 3R. No pics yet 89FCVert, i'll take some soon. And i'm not that smart hiboost, this motor is so easy to properly make RWD with just the stuff on the market, its a wonder not that much people run them RWD.
I was just messing with you. My pile would have been running next week if I didnt botch my main clearances today! Fcukin junk.
Since you are in Florida-unless I bring this thing down to the GR Shootout, we would not be able to line up. We will just have to compare slips.
Depending on weight-I fully expect this thing to go 10.XX@13X on pump gas and street tires. It will make 8XX on C16, so we will see what I can pull out of it with soft lauches to keep the driveline intact.