ASSD

Still looking for these.

Thanks! I'll keep an eye open in my inbox. Josh

Send me a picture of what you have. If you're willing to find a box to ship them in, I'll give you $50 plus shipping. If you had a full set for sale, I'd definitely be driving up.

Send me a picture of what you have. If you're willing to find a box to ship them in, I'll give you $50 plus shipping. If you had a full set for sale, I'd definitely be driving up.

Not looking for anything else at the moment actually. The car is a 48K mile car that's been stored since '97. Unfortunately, that didn't include conditioning the leather and it pulled the stitching. =[

Could you send pictures of the passenger seat to sales@jnztuning.com? Thanks!

Looking for a set of black leather 88 or 89 seats within "reasonable" driving distance of Philadelphia PA (meaning 2 hours radius or so). Must be in presentable condition. Thanks. Josh josh@jnztuning.com 215-997-6850

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.

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

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...

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:

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

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 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.

This'll never happen. Seen this scenario 100 times on other DSM boards, and it'a always the same kinda story and run-around--each time, the guy perpetrating it thinks that he's doing something new. Makes 1001 statements about his cars, then beats around the bush about giving ANY sort of concrete evidence. Kid, give it up--we've all seen this game before, and it's pretty sad when you have to make up an imaginary life on the internet in order to make up for your lack of confidence in your real life. Seek professional help.

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.