Cobalt60 Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 So a lot of people talk about doing 4G6 swaps, and theres a good amount of really crazy swaps like V8s and Toyota motors and such. But I would like to talk about the more modern Mitsubishi 4G9 motors and 4B1 motors. Motivation to do such a swap would be to get a more modern motor, with technologies such as 16V, DOHC, MPI or possibly even GDI, and possibly MIVEC. Both of these motors have factory turbocharged options, and a 4B11T 2.0l has about 290hp from the factory, while the 4G93T 1.8l develops about 188hp (hey that number sounds familiar) from the factory. However, Im sure anyone wanting to do such a swap would also appreciate getting some good power out of the motor, hopefully over 300. The 4B11T already has enough power to make most people happy, but how easy would it be to get one of these in a RWD Quest? The 4G9 was put into the RWD Pajero! So adapting one of these into a Quest might not be so bad, but how easy is it to get some decent power out of a 4G9? Well Id thoroughly enjoy any thoughts on this -Chris P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrasta Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Sounds expensive but anything is possible. Nothing anyone here has done. If you are serious about going with a swap I still think its hard to beat that wideblock 2.4 4g63 hybrid. If you are sticking with a mitsu motor that is. These cars are so heavy I think you need all the displacement you can get just to move it from a standing start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 There is a 4B12 which is 2.4l. Also which would be unique is a 4G69 which is 2.4l. The biggest 4G9 is the 4G94 at 2.0l. I think a 1.8l or 2.0l could be alright, especially if you can shave some weight off the car. Yes the standard 4G6 is a great choice. After all its been done many times and the 4G63 has the honor of having the highest specific output of a factory motor at 400hp/2.0l, and 4G6s get some excellent fuel economy and are technologically advanced. But if not just to be different and unique, the newer motors do have some benefits and I think such a swap would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarquestRescue Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 The newer evo motors have the exhaust on our driver side. The other problem is the blocks have no provisions for engine mounts on the side of the block. I know nothing about the 4g9. The swap is hard enough with the older 6 bolt motors. It sure would be nice to have a flash able factory ecu for tuning though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkdagger05 Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 it sounds $$$ but I would love to do it ( 4g9) the question is where to start the custom work at for the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hincher Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 from a performance stand point, the bore and stroke are backwards, creating an 'undersquare' motor and a single over head cam where is the advantage? The 4G94 is a 2.0 L version built in Japan, used in the Mitsubishi Lancer. Bore is 81.5 mm and stroke is 95.8 mm, with a compression ratio of 9.5:1. Output is 120 hp (89 kW) at 5500 rpm with 130 ft·lbf (176 N·m) of torque at 4250 rpm. It has a cast iron engine block with MFI fuel injection and an aluminum SOHC cylinder head with forged steel connecting rods and four valves per cylinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 You don't want to get into someting with varriable cam timing unless you plan on running the stock EFI system (which is very limited) or you'll have to get an expensive and complicated aftermarket system for it, and someone who knows how to tune it. In my opinion, it's best to stay with the older stuff for retrofit purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 So it sounds like the 4G93T is a promising swap. DOHC, 16V, turbo, GDI, and no MIVEC. And its already been put into a RWD vehicle (the Pajero). Though, indeed the motor is undersquare. However "The DOHC 4G93/4G93P has 103kw at 6000rpm and redline at 7600rpm" so does it really matter if its undersquare if the motor already has a satisfacory redline of 7600rpm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkdagger05 Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 So it sounds like the 4G93T is a promising swap. DOHC, 16V, turbo, GDI, and no MIVEC. And its already been put into a RWD vehicle (the Pajero). Though, indeed the motor is undersquare. However "The DOHC 4G93/4G93P has 103kw at 6000rpm and redline at 7600rpm" so does it really matter if its undersquare if the motor already has a satisfacory redline of 7600rpm? sounds interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Oh, and according to wikipedia, the 4B11T has an application in the Hyundai Genesis, which is RWD. Not sure how easy it would be to get such a motor though, or if standard 4B11s could be converted easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hincher Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 the building foundation of a performence engine starts with the bore/stroke demensions it is to the builders advantage to have a larger bore than stroke to accomplish the same cubic displacement ( if you are dealing with a rule book) because, you can burn more fuel on top of a larger piston area and make more power I know, I know, I know, lots of guys say 'more stroke, more torque' which is true depending on how you look at it, but the bottom line in building horsepower is how many pounds of fuel per hour the engine burns. and you can burn more fuel in the larger bore excellent example is the difference in the 428 Ford FE engine compared to the 427 Fe ford engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrasta Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 the building foundation of a performance engine starts with the bore/stroke dimensions it is to the builders advantage to have a larger bore than stroke to accomplish the same cubic displacement ( if you are dealing with a rule book) because, you can burn more fuel on top of a larger piston area and make more power ..... the bottom line in building horsepower is how many pounds of fuel per hour the engine burns. and you can burn more fuel in the larger bore excellent example is the difference in the 428 Ford FE engine compared to the 427 Fe ford engine Preach Rev. HorsePowa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 the building foundation of a performence engine starts with the bore/stroke demensions it is to the builders advantage to have a larger bore than stroke to accomplish the same cubic displacement ( if you are dealing with a rule book) because, you can burn more fuel on top of a larger piston area and make more power I know, I know, I know, lots of guys say 'more stroke, more torque' which is true depending on how you look at it, but the bottom line in building horsepower is how many pounds of fuel per hour the engine burns. and you can burn more fuel in the larger bore excellent example is the difference in the 428 Ford FE engine compared to the 427 Fe ford engine Bill you sound like an old Ford guy. I'm right there with you. But for those who don't know. The 427 had a 4.23" bore and 3.789" stroke. The 428 had a 4.13" bore and a 3.98" stroke. Both engines were virtually identical on the outside. Except side oilers and cross bolted mains. The power potential from the 427 was far greater than the 428. A long stroke will build good power and torque but a wider bore has room for bigger valves. Bigger valves = higher flow potential = more HP. The biggest valves you could put in a 428 was 2.09"x1.66" vs the 427 was able to fit 2.25"x1.73 Two engines based on the same block design. With 1 ci difference between the two. The larger bore motor outperforms every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliber308 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 If I was going to the expense of changing the engine type, it would be a Small block V-8. CALIBER 308 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOSTED88tsi Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Oh, and according to wikipedia, the 4B11T has an application in the Hyundai Genesis, which is RWD. Not sure how easy it would be to get such a motor though, or if standard 4B11s could be converted easily. but that car isn't even in production yet (In the us), so getting a motor or tranny would be pretty difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hincher Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 If I was going to the expense of changing the engine type, it would be a Small block V-8. CALIBER 308 now there is a 'regular ' guy :thumbsup: I bet you smoke cigars? a small block Chevy with large bore weapons, ya dont get anymore American then that! >;o)))))))))))) yeah I am an Old Ford guy this is one of my hot rods, this is the car I had in high school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 While I like FE motors I don't think one would fit in a quest. Maybe when I replace my motor I'll see if one of my spare FE motors will fit between the shock towers. Wouldn't it be a sight to pop my hood to reveal a 427 SOHC http://www.dickbrannan.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/SOHC-66-AA.gifhttp://www.dearbornflashback.com/9427sohc.jpg http://www.dearbornflashback.com/1dstafx.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 While I like FE motors I don't think one would fit in a quest. Maybe when I replace my motor I'll see if one of my spare FE motors will fit between the shock towers. Wouldn't it be a sight to pop my hood to reveal a 427 SOHC http://www.dickbrannan.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/SOHC-66-AA.gifhttp://www.dearbornflashback.com/9427sohc.jpg http://www.dearbornflashback.com/1dstafx.jpg Problems with your idea Jeff.......... First it weighs almost as mush as Rosie O'Donnells breakfast Second it would have so much torque it would'nt go anywhere beside tunneling itself to china Third I am not sure if your coolness status is sufficient to match this concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Problems with your idea Jeff.......... First it weighs almost as mush as Rosie O'Donnells breakfast Second it would have so much torque it would'nt go anywhere beside tunneling itself to china Third I am not sure if your coolness status is sufficient to match this concept First LOL Second Amusing Third ??? what's that supposed to mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) First LOL Second Amusing Third ??? what's that supposed to mean Your not cool enough to understand?????? :sunglasses: Don't worry Im not cool enough either...... Edited January 24, 2009 by BRAZILBOY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Well if you like those try Fords 1964 DOHC indy motor. Built to win the indy 500 it started out as a N/A 255ci motor. As development progressed it turned into a 156ci turbocharged motor pushing around 800HP. Put that in your quest. http://home.earthlink.net/~bultaco/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/64forddohc.jpg Edited January 24, 2009 by ucw458 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think Mario Andretti did just that put his old Indy motor in his vette....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I've only seen one pic of that motor and I'm still trying to figure out how it works. I wonder what those "canisters" are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I've only seen one pic of that motor and I'm still trying to figure out how it works. I wonder what those "canisters" are. Where they store the blood of dragons.......at least thats my theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hincher Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 WOW! you are a Ford guy ,ucw458! my hat is off to you. Its funny aint it? they always say when you find something new, go back and see what the ancient greeks had to say about it. I guess its true, those pics are all 50 year old technology. but god are they beautiful >;o) do you realize that you are producing the same horspower from a 4G63/4 Mits turbo engine at half the cost and wieght of that old V-8 technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts