4G63 Buschur

[Prtaick]

ive been calling and checking with buschur racing for the past 8 months

and here it is

 

http://www.buschurracing.com/cgi-bin/ez-ca...y.cgi?31X376545

 

if there were somemore people who wanted to go "buschur" i would LOVE to call up and see if we could get a bulk price on parts

[Prtaick]

you got to be kidding

no one wants to go in on this?

[offalot]

Your talking upwards of around $2000 and thats not for the two main parts  motor/trans.  and than for people who want to do the swap, not everyone wants a auto trans. only if your building a serious strip car.

[Prtaick]

well yeah thats SORTA the part

but....

anyone looking at ding the swap is going to send arround this much. i was just looking for others thats all

[ls1project]

i plan on starting my 4g63 quest in about 3 months 8)

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Why go through the extra expense and hassle?  Just build a wideblock 4g64/63 hybrid, and bolt it to your existing tranny..  Or you can get in on the T56 adapter GP and run that behind the wideblock 64/63 hybrid...  The Toyota W58 is also an option..

[Prtaick]

i kow what your saying that would be a great way to go   but....

its hard as hell to find a 6 bolt 4g64 and if i was to do that and get the t56 adapter i would end up paying the same if i do the buschur adapter and fly wheel with my own torque converter and such

 

now if your not looking for that much power than USE YOUR STOCK TRANS and find a 4g64. theres no way you can compare to the ease of that swap

 

but have fun

[Mr_pat]

maybe i'm crazy but i thought bolt pattern on 4g64 is the same as that of the 4g63..

[ASSD]

i kow what your saying that would be a great way to go   but....

its hard as hell to find a 6 bolt 4g64 and if i was to do that and get the t56 adapter i would end up paying the same if i do the buschur adapter and fly wheel with my own torque converter and such

 

now if your not looking for that much power than USE YOUR STOCK TRANS and find a 4g64. theres no way you can compare to the ease of that swap

 

but have fun

 

How is it hard to find a 6-bolt, G64B?

 

Tons of Mighty Max/D-50, Expo/Summit/Vistas out there with the blocks being a dime-a-dozen.

 

I'd go as far as to say that they're easier to find then the 4G64s.

[JustPaus_88TSi]

maybe i'm crazy but i thought bolt pattern on 4g64 is the same as that of the 4g63..

 

You're absolutely right.. It is..

 

4g64 has the same bolt pattern as the 4g63.. They're "Narrow-blocks"..

 

Our G54B is a "wide-block" motor, just like the SOHC 2.0L that everyone else got in their SQ's around the world..

 

4g63(2.0L)FWD narrowblock

4g64(2.4L)FWD narrowblock

G54B(2.6L)RWD Wideblock

G63B(2.0L)RWD wideblock

G64B(2.4L)RWD wideblock

 

Not all RWD mitsu blocks are wide though.. The D50's used a narrow pattern in some of their automatic equipped trucks.. They used a narrowblock mated to a 904 auto..

[Mr_pat]

hmm well thanx for that lil piece of info.. this sucks tho.. i have a manual trans from a ram 50 that i was going to use just to make the car drive for this summer and it's funny we're going to end up using DSM AWD flywheel and presure plate and a Ram 50 2.6 clutch disc figure that one out.. ok well i'm off for now..

[Kenquest]

now if your not looking for that much power than USE YOUR STOCK TRANS and find a 4g64. theres no way you can compare to the ease of that swap

 

If i wasn't looking for much power i'd be going with a 4g63 not a 4g64.

 

To correct JustPaus... the g63 isn't a wideblock. The 5 speeds in the d50's were narrow blocks. The automatic g63's were wideblocks. All rear wheel drive 4g64's are wideblocks. I pulled mine from a 92 mightymax. As labeled on the truck it is a 4g64 not a g64b.

 

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload7/wideblock.JPG

 

I slapped it all together to see if it'd work because there were lots of rumors about having to tap oil and water passages and fill in holes. All which were false... it had the same surface deck as the 4g63.

 

As far as transmissions.. there is also another option. The rx7 transmission which is pretty strong and at high rpms too. The b2600 2wd bellhousing is the same as the starquest bellhousing... so take a series 5 rx7 tranny with that bellhousing and there ya go. If you want an auto or if a t56 adapter plate gets made for the starquest you can go that route.

 

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload7/bell.JPG

 

You don't need buschur... just needs some common sense and creativity.

[ASSD]

If i wasn't looking for much power i'd be going with a 4g63 not a 4g64.

 

This makes no sense to me, as there are many 4G63s putting out just as much (and in a lot of cases, more) power than 4G64s. Quickest DSMs in the world use 4G63s. Rev-abillity is an issue going from one to the other, and some people I know have issues with flywheels loosening up on the 2.4s.

 

End point---it's not a win-win situation by just going to a 4G64 over a 4G63

 

I slapped it all together to see if it'd work because there were lots of rumors about having to tap oil and water passages and fill in holes. All which were false... it had the same surface deck as the 4g63.

 

The 4G64s I've built in the past indeed needed the water port tapped. You've either missed it, or have a different 4G64 block that I've yet to use.

 

It's quite visible when you lay a 4G63 DHOC headgasket on the 4G64 block. It's towards the rear and "back" of the motor.

[Kenquest]

Rev-abillity is an issue going from one to the other, and some people I know have issues with flywheels loosening up on the 2.4s.

 

Umm are you referring to the narrow block, 7bolt?

 

The 4G64s I've built in the past indeed needed the water port tapped. You've either missed it, or have a different 4G64 block that I've yet to use.

 

It's quite visible when you lay a 4G63 DHOC headgasket on the 4G64 block. It's towards the rear and "back" of the motor.

 

OF COURSE you're talking about the narrow block... its a WIDEBLOCK 4g64.

 

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload3/wbsurface.JPG

 

Compare that 4g64 wideblock cylinder deck to the 4g63 as pictured below.

 

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload7/4g63.JPG

 

IT IS THE EXACT SAME! the blocks you were working with not only were narrowblocks, but 2nd gen blocks. Plus with the fly wheel issue you were talking about you must be referring to the 7 bolt block.

 

As far as revibility? I don't know where that came from. It's still a 4g63 head! ONLY difference aside from the bigger crank... is the 6mm higher cylinders... it's all relative and compensated for, so where do you get this "revibility" theory from?

 

The 4g63 is the most popular and the most done but is NOT proven to be the fastest. Buschur for example is too stubborn to use anything else... he wants to prove the 2.0. I do believe the fastest 4g6x engine is a 2.1 destroker. (2.4 block with the 2.0 crank) If you want to get down to the "fastest". By doing the 2.4 you're not changing the mechanics of the engine at all its the same thing just a bigger block... you still have the same head. But back to the original point... the wideblock bolts right up to the stock tranny. 4g63 is more money more work for less results. IF you're building, because the wideblock requires a different pistons for the 4g63 head to work.[/img]

[ASSD]

The blocks you were working with not only were narrowblocks' date=' but 2nd gen blocks.[/quote']

 

They are narrowblocks, but they are 6-bolt.

 

Plus with the fly wheel issue you were talking about you must be referring to the 7 bolt block.

 

Incorrect, but I'd love to hear your theory about what the difference betwee, 6-bolt vs. 7-bolt cranks would be that would have an effect on flywheels loosening up.....

 

As far as revibility? I don't know where that came from. It's still a 4g63 head! ONLY difference aside from the bigger crank... is the 6mm higher cylinders... it's all relative and compensated for, so where do you get this "revibility" theory from?

 

Has nothing to do with the head. Mayhaps look into rod to stroke ratios.....

 

The 4g63 is the most popular and the most done but is NOT proven to be the fastest. Buschur for example is too stubborn to use anything else... he wants to prove the 2.0. I do believe the fastest 4g6x engine is a 2.1 destroker. (2.4 block with the 2.0 crank) If you want to get down to the "fastest".

 

Brent Rau: 2.0

John Shepherd: 2.0

 

Marco's one of the fastest, and running a 2.4, but so far, I've seen lots to be desired about reliabilty.

 

I wasn't even throwing David in there.

 

By doing the 2.4 you're not changing the mechanics of the engine at all its the same thing just a bigger block... you still have the same head.

 

Rod to stroke. Bore to stroke. Lack of Cap webbing. Starting to not look like the same thing.....

 

But back to the original point... the wideblock bolts right up to the stock tranny. 4g63 is more money more work for less results. IF you're building, because the wideblock requires a different pistons for the 4g63 head to work.

 

Never said anything about this. Of course it's an overall easier route to go (wideblock vs. narrow), but not the subject at hand. My point was that you stated : "If i wasn't looking for much power i'd be going with a 4g63 not a 4g64". I guess you're planning on pushing more than 700-900 h.p., then, eh?

[Kenquest]

Whatever ya say there chief.

[ASSD]

Whatever ya say there chief.

 

So I should take that as a "Ahh, I see", or a "I don't have anything more to contribute, as I'm lost" kinda thing?

 

:roll:

[Kenquest]

You should take it as "Your name fits you well, a**'d" and all you're looking for is a fight and have no basis or experience behind it whatsoever. So i have nothing to reply to really as you quote every sentence in every post i make, avoiding the fact that i proved your silly a** wrong once with conclusive evidence, showing that you really don't know what you're talking about. So really there is no point in even arguing with someone who THINKS he knows what he is talking about opposed to DOES know what he's talking about. Did that help you understand?

[ASSD]

You should take it as "Your name fits you well, a**'d" and all you're looking for is a fight and have no basis or experience behind it whatsoever. So i have nothing to reply to really as you quote every sentence in every post i make, avoiding the fact that i proved your silly a** wrong once with conclusive evidence, showing that you really don't know what you're talking about. So really there is no point in even arguing with someone who THINKS he knows what he is talking about opposed to DOES know what he's talking about. Did that help you understand?

 

Not looking for a "fight", looking for a debate. You've proved nothing, made general statements without evidence to back them up, have yet to address half of the statements you seem to disagree with, andseemingly think that insults will win some sort of "battle" you're imagining in your head.

 

For not knowing what I'm talking about, I sure have enough engines out there in customer cars putting down quite a bit of power.

 

Now, back to the 2.0 vs. 2.4 discussion...

[Kenquest]

7 bolts crankwalk = loose fly wheel

 

4g63 head being the same head has the same results in revibility becuz revibility comes from your head. You can rotate your block as fast as you want. Its your cams, you springs, valves etc that have to do it safely.

 

The 4g64 and 4g63 from the factory both have the same redline.

 

Becuz the block is taller it compensates for the stroke thats why it is taller... if you put a 2.4crank in a 4g63 you lose rpm.

 

Lets see what else. I think thats it... but you'll just deny this all keep ranting on with more speculation just like EVERYONE else that has never touched the crap. So this was pointless.

[ASSD]

7 bolts crankwalk = loose fly wheel

 

Ummm..no. 2G 4G63s have been known to crankwalk (I.E., have thrust-bearing failure) more than should be average. This doesn't apply in a broad spectrum to the 4G64s, nor the 93-94 7-bolt 4G63s. Plus, I've already told you that the 4G64s that have been having flywheels loosen up were 6-bolts---NOT 7-bolts. Plus, they are not having thrust bearing failures in the mentioned cars.

 

Explain to me how a failed thrust bearing loosens up flywheel bolts :?:

 

4g63 head being the same head has the same results in revibility becuz revibility comes from your head. You can rotate your block as fast as you want. Its your cams, you springs, valves etc that have to do it safely.

 

While rpm limitations are affected by the heads (more precisely, spring rates, and their abilities to stop valves from floating) there is a TON of factors also affecting this in the bottom end. I don't mean this to put you down (I'm trying to keep this civil), but if you seriously believe that RPM limitations ONLY stem from the valvetrain, you need to read up on engines 101.

 

Let's look at this in its most basic form. We know that stroke is the distance from the lowest point of piston travel (BDC) to the highest point (TDC). Now, take into account that RPM is revolutions per minute--meaning how many times the crank spins in one minute's time, and thus each piston also traveling from BDC to TDC. What's important with this (in this discussion) is piston speed. Piston speed and the wieght of the piston add up to stress on the bottom end (rods, crank,pins, bearings). Now, the discussion is longer vs. shorter stroke and how it affects rev-ability.

 

I'll give you a little experiment that you can try at home. Take a 5-lbs. weight and hold it in your hand. Now pump your arm straight out in front of you (fully extended) as fast as you can (back and forth). Now take the same 5 lbs. weight and pump your arm in and out, but only travel 1/2 the way to full extension. A wee bit easier and faster to do it half-way, eh? Typically an engine with a larger bore than stroke (overbore) will rev easier and higher than an engine with a larger stroke than bore (overstroke).

 

Rod ratio, piston pin placement, etc., also affect rev-ability of a bottom end. Take a John Deere tractor motor for example, and I've give you any imaginary head you'd like--still not gonna get it to rev.

 

The 4g64 and 4g63 from the factory both have the same redline.

 

And? This is the FACTORY rev limit, not mechanical rev-limit. Two entirely different things.

 

Becuz the block is taller it compensates for the stroke thats why it is taller... if you put a 2.4crank in a 4g63 you lose rpm.

 

No, you won't lose RPM if you use the right rod length and pin placement. You can actually get that combination to be a rev-monster with the right combination. I'm actually confused though with this statement. You 1st state that rev-ability is affected only by the head, now you're telling me that a 4G63 with a 2.4 crank (only chaning the bottom end structuring here) will lose rpms? :?: While this absolutely contradicts your earlier theory, I'll agree to a point. If you use the stock rod you'll have a rod ratio of 1.50 which is terrible. However, there are piston/rod combinations that can put you back in the right territory.

 

Lets see what else. I think thats it... but you'll just deny this all keep ranting on with more speculation just like EVERYONE else that has never touched the crap. So this was pointless.

 

Deny what? I've yet to deny, I just live in the world where physics affects real life.

 

As far as "never touching the crap" as I've stated before, I've built plenty of 4G engines. I would comfortably bet that I've built more 4G6X engines than you've owned cars. So how is it that you use the crutch that I've "never touched the crap"?

 

Just because I disagree with your position on some of the things you claim, and am willing to play devil's advocate with some of the others, doesn't mean you have to get uptight about it. Open your mind/eyes, and you might learn something.

[Kenquest]

You have to remember ASSD, SOOO many people post and play a guessing game. The 4g64 "wideblock" was a mystery for so long because of all the speculation about what you have to do what it is capable of yadda yadda. MOST of it has been WAY false. And it is frustrating getting the story straight.

 

The head is the rev reliability... that was my point... you said "revibility" that word itself means Rev Capable. The bottom end DOES determine RPM, i know this but it is SUCH a small amount that it doesn't take away ANYTHING at all from the 4g64. You're right... from crank bearing to the top of the piston, thats true. But it has a 6mm taller cylinders which i believe is the same if not less difference in the 4g64 crank. So your stroke is essentially the same Correct? Bore size, standard is 1 mm larger... almost all 4g63 guys bore their blocks... with a 4g64 you have more than ample displacement to not need to. So bore size is similar. I just don't see how a 2.4 block is any less efficient at high rpms than a 4g63.

 

This is all irrelavent in my case i am actually using the 2.0 crank in mine... but thats a whole nother story all together, but for the info of others, i think you need to clarify the insignificance of "revibility" between the 2.4 and the 2.0.

 

The fly wheel comes loose with crank walk of course, thats just common sense, and i do believe ALL 7 bolts have crank walk. Just that your typical 2.4 isn't turbo charged i think that may play a roll in why the 4g63 experiences it more. Put it this way... i've pulled fly wheels off of MANY MANY 2.4's and they were on there TIGHTLY... not one of em were even close to becoming loose, and i'm yet to meet someone who had the problem. I think little incidents like that get a little more dramatized than they need to be. I have nothing against the 4g63, infact i made the comment about it to oppose PrTaicks comment about if you're not going for much power go for the 4g64.

[ASSD]

You have to remember ASSD' date=' SOOO many people post and play a guessing game. The 4g64 "wideblock" was a mystery for so long because of all the speculation about what you have to do what it is capable of yadda yadda. MOST of it has been WAY false. And it is frustrating getting the story straight. [/quote']

 

Indeed, and it's mostly from people who read "something, somewhere" and never bothered to look further into the information, nor even verify that what they read is true. The drawback to the internet--mis-information spreads just as quickly as information.

 

The head is the rev reliability... that was my point... you said "revibility" that word itself means Rev Capable. The bottom end DOES determine RPM, i know this but it is SUCH a small amount that it doesn't take away ANYTHING at all from the 4g64. You're right... from crank bearing to the top of the piston, thats true. But it has a 6mm taller cylinders which i believe is the same if not less difference in the 4g64 crank. So your stroke is essentially the same Correct? Bore size, standard is 1 mm larger... almost all 4g63 guys bore their blocks... with a 4g64 you have more than ample displacement to not need to. So bore size is similar. I just don't see how a 2.4 block is any less efficient at high rpms than a 4g63.

 

The head is NOT the ONLY "rev reliabilty", that was the jist of my above post. I will be the 1st to admit that what I think is "explaining clearly" is often "talking in circles" to the person listening to it. I'd never make it as a teacher. As I also mentioned, you are indeed correct that often times the heads limit the safe rpm limits, however, it is not in the least bit the "only factor", and it's typically the easiest to massage for more rpm capabilities.

 

The stroke on the 4G64 is in fact longer than the 4G63s. The 4G63 is an 85.0mmx88.0mm bore/stroke, whereas, the 4G64 increases both to 86.5mmX100mm (1mm larger pistons being the difference would be the same as going overbore on a 4G63, thus eliminating any use for a 4G64). "Theoretically" the best rev-worthy engine with optimum power production, is stated to be that of a "square" motor (bore and stroke are equal). One such engine that follows this (and which can be quite potent) is the SR20DETs (86mmx86mm).

 

The longer stroke of the 4G64 allows for more torque production at a lower rpm value. However, this longer stroke, (as I went into in the last post) comes at the cost of more stress on the bottom end at "XXXX" rpms then the 4G63s shorter stroke.

 

There are other factors that come into play here as well with deciding between a 4G63 and a 4G64 besides rpm capabilities, such as cylinder wall loading.

 

Bah, enough for one night. I'm just pointing out that it's not always "bigger is better", and the 4g64 isn't automatically "the best choice" as there are a slew of factors to consider. As with all life--it's give and take.

 

As for the crankwalk issue--no, it is not "all 7-bolt cars", and it's not even "All 2G 7-bolt cars". If that were the case, every 93-99 4G63 car would be off of the road. Crankwalk=Dead motor, but it has no effect on the flywheel bolts, trust me.

 

I'm sure the 4G64s you've yanked flywheels off of were all tight, but tell me how many of them were putting down 500+ h.p., and reving to around 7500? Issues tend to raise their ugly head once you start pushing things.

 

Enough for tonight, it's 2am and I'm filthy from working on the new shop. Shower time.

 

Good discussion though.

 

This is all irrelavent in my case i am actually using the 2.0 crank in mine... but thats a whole nother story all together, but for the info of others, i think you need to clarify the insignificance of "revibility" between the 2.4 and the 2.0.

 

The fly wheel comes loose with crank walk of course, thats just common sense, and i do believe ALL 7 bolts have crank walk. Just that your typical 2.4 isn't turbo charged i think that may play a roll in why the 4g63 experiences it more. Put it this way... i've pulled fly wheels off of MANY MANY 2.4's and they were on there TIGHTLY... not one of em were even close to becoming loose, and i'm yet to meet someone who had the problem. I think little incidents like that get a little more dramatized than they need to be. I have nothing against the 4g63, infact i made the comment about it to oppose PrTaicks comment about if you're not going for much power go for the 4g64.

[Kenquest]

Very true, but it undeniably spools faster, harder, and is much torqier than a 2.0. We'll have to see what happens to the flywheel.

[Prtaick]

geez i havent been on this post in a while