Hybrid Turbo 2.5.. with RWD?

[Lukifer122]

Hey everybody! I'm sure glad to have found this board.. I'm seeing lots of great information on here. It's always good to know that there are people out there who have information and know how, and are willing to share it with others.

My question is this:

Has anyone here ever (or know of anyone who has) built a hybrid turbo engine (neon head), and run it in a RWD configuration? It just seems to me that it would be a great idea. Lightweight engine setup making big power with a RWD layout. Could build a drift car and teach those litle rice rockets a thing or two.. or even make a monster street machine in a total sleeper shell.

I've already got a donor Shadow ES for my engine, and I just found a Neon head for the hybrid, but I'm still collecting the rest of the parts needed, so I've got a long way to go.

Any tips/suggestions/problems that anyone would like to bring up? Are there any oil starvation problems with a RWD conversion that I should be aware of? I'm trying to collect as much information as I can before I start building anything, but I hope to have this thing all running before next summer, so I'm getting my shite together now.

Thanks to anyone who took the time to read this post!
-Luke

[Ray Bell]

Any engine you do this with will potentially have oil pickup problems...

By 'this' I mean drifting or racing or anything that puts extreme G-forces into changes of direction.

The oil pickup has to be placed so that it can pick up oil even if it's being thrown about. This might mean changing it to a central location in the oil pan. Then it's usually a good idea to have a horizontal baffle over top of the pan so that oil can't just run up the sides or to the front of the engine... these have a name, but I just can't bring it to mind at the moment!

That will do in most applications.

[dwc43]

They make a pan for the 2.2 that is fully baffled for road racing so oil starvation is not a problem. I would suggest finding an '80 Dodge Challenger and dumping the 2.6 for your 2.2 turbo hybrid. We run one on dirt tracks, but we are using the 2.6 that came with it untill it dies. Then we will switch over to the 2.2 for more power and most likely wont do that till we build the second car we have. Nice thing about it, stock gear is a 3.90:1 in the rear and it drops out like an 8 3/4 axle.

[sefus]

If you havent yet, check out turbododge.com and hahnracecraft.com

[skankweirdall]

Either you or me are confused. First of all the Neon turbo is a 2.4, the older 2.2/2.5 engines were turbocharged as well but they are not the same as the 2.4, the heads do not interchange.

Secondly the 2.5 came in Dakota pickups in a non turbocharged application so that's easy. The 2.4 I don't know about. There is or was a Comp Eliminator team running a Neon motor in a dragster but I don't remember if it was a 2.0 or a 2.4. One of those Sport Compact racers I think runs the 2.4 in a RWD conversion class too, or at least they did.

[Dart 65]

Originally Posted by skankweirdall

Either you or me are confused. First of all the Neon turbo is a 2.4, the older 2.2/2.5 engines were turbocharged as well but they are not the same as the 2.4, the heads do not interchange.

Secondly the 2.5 came in Dakota pickups in a non turbocharged application so that's easy. The 2.4 I don't know about. There is or was a Comp Eliminator team running a Neon motor in a dragster but I don't remember if it was a 2.0 or a 2.4. One of those Sport Compact racers I think runs the 2.4 in a RWD conversion class too, or at least they did.

Well, it's not a straight swap, but the Neon head will fit the 2.2/2.5. It'll physically bolt up, but there's a bunch of work and modifications that need to be done for it to work. As far as converting the 2.2/2.5 to RWD, you need to use a four cylinder equipped Dakota's transmission and associated hardware. There have been Dakotas that were turbo'ed, but not with the 2.4 DOHC Neon head conversion that I've seen. I'm sure that someone has done one somewhere.

[ShadowGoomba]

Well, the actual conversion is rather simple and the hardest part is just getting everything togather (I'm doing it to my Daytona right now). All of the 2.0/2.4 heads are identicle for matching years... they did change the exhaust ports at one time from oval to square so you'd need to make sure you get year matching parts.
The RWD conversion is one seen less in the FWD L4 motors, but I know it has been done in the smaller cars so it's definitely not out of the question. Just make sure you use the Dakota L4 transmission and parts needed for that conversion.

[skankweirdall]

Seems rather odd to me that a Chrysler designed 2.2/2.5 engine would be able to bolt on a Mitsu designed 2.0/2.4 head but admittedly I don't know. I think there would be head oiling and water passage misalignment problems beyond just the head bolt holes lining up and that doesn't even consider the timing belt pulley alignment.

[ShadowGoomba]

The head needs to be externally oiled in the conversion... then plug the oil drainbacks in the block and run lines from the head to the pan or bottom of the block. The coolant passages are easily fixed when you get the MLS head gasket for the 2.4/2.0 and put it on the 2.2/2.5 block so you can see which ones need to be elongated. The head bolts fit exactly like they should... most people go with the ARP studs for the VW Super Vee (don't ask me why they work but they do). The timing pulleys all have aftermarket conversion hardware that will set them to the right locations... some of the other accessory pulleys do need to be shimmed for perfect alignment most times, but that's small annoyances.

[skankweirdall]

Well that 'splains it better. Thanks.

[teddy1500]

a long time ago, i saw a renoult le car, it was a factory built groupe b race car, the took the motor, transaxle and mounted it mid car, to make it rear wheel drive, a few years ago hot rod magazine did an artical on some gm enginering projects, they showed a few front drivers, converted to rear wheel drive by moving the engine in the back.
it should be simple to put a 2.5 into the rear of a daytona, you could leave the stock engine in untill you work out the bugs, and hav an 8 cylender, twin engine, all wheel drive, in a sleeper body.....

[Greg55_99]

To answer part of the original question. If you want to convert a 2.5\2.2 to RWD you need a bellhousing from a 2.5L Dodge Dakota. The pre 94 trannies are the A535. A lightweight gearbox. The 94-95 gearboxes are the AX15. A much better tranny. They don't use the same bellhousings. The 94-95 bellhousing can also be bolted straight up to the 88-92 Toyota Supra Turbo R154 5-speed. A much stronger tranny and better gear ratio's than the AX15. The 2.0\2.4L Neon engine can also be bolted up to a Supra Turbo R154 by using the 02-04 Jeep TJ and Liberty 2.4L bellhousing. However, it may requires some shaving to decrease it's extra depth. 05 and up Jeeps use a six-speed behind the 2.4L/

Greg

2.5L Dakota bellhousing on the left - 2.4L Jeep TJ bellhousing on the right with Toyota Supra Turbo R154:

[skankweirdall]

Well there you go, I don't know what is better about putting the 2.4 head on a 2.2/2.5 in the first place. I'm sure some one here will tell me though.

[ShadowGoomba]

Plain and simple. More valves and cross flow head designs can do wonders.
Everyone knows (or should since it's huge now days) that more valves allow for better flow in and out of the combustion chamber. 4 is always better than 2 in these motors.
The advantage of the cross flow (through flow) head is that the intake and exhaust are separated to different sides of the head to keep the exhaust gas heat away from the incoming intake charge. That's huge in itself... there are other advantages for it, but the heat is the big thing for the changes in the head swap comparison.
Food for thought :jackbox:

[skankweirdall]

I understand that, what I don't understand is why you would want the 2.2/2.5 block over the 2.4 that the head is made for.

[ShadowGoomba]

Opinions of the 2.4/2.0 block vary. Some say it just isn't as strong as the older 2.2/2.5 blocks (especially the common blocks). I havent' seen much difference either way other than the fact that a 2.2 is the block that stood up to the T3. The major thing is the fact that the new 2.0/2.4 blocks have different mounting systems than the 2.2/2.5. Some of the first-gen Neons carried versions of the 2.0/2.4 that used a system very similar to the 2.2/2.5 mounts so if you could get one of those specifically it would be easier to swap the whole motor for sure (I had a spare 2.5 common block so it was cheaper than buying a 2.0/2.4).
There is also one other thing that I did take into account when choosing a 2.5 common block rather than a 2.2... displacement. The "biggest" of the 4 blocks I've been talking about w/ the best flowing head and a nice turbo is somthing that can make for a really kick-a$$ combination.

[Dart 65]

Originally Posted by skankweirdall

Seems rather odd to me that a Chrysler designed 2.2/2.5 engine would be able to bolt on a Mitsu designed 2.0/2.4 head but admittedly I don't know. I think there would be head oiling and water passage misalignment problems beyond just the head bolt holes lining up and that doesn't even consider the timing belt pulley alignment.

The only problem is that the Neon 2.0/2.4 isn't a Bitsosushi design. There was a 2.0/2.6 Bitsosushi four cylinder, but it has nothing to do with the same CID Chrysler engines. ShadowGoomba used the term L4, meaning inline fours, but the "L" head design hasn't been used in years. It refers to a flathead engine whose air intake/spent gas exhaust taking a more-or-less "L" shaped path. The proper term would be "I4" for an inline four.

[ShadowGoomba]

Just to clarify, the "L4" doesnt really denote the "L" head style... if it did, the V8 would have a "V" style head (rediculous I know but it's an example of what I mean). L4 is what most people will agree a 2.2/2.5 or 2.0/2.4 is called... 4 cylinders lined up... so that is what I term it as.

Sorry if there was confusion, I should have clarified at the start

[Dart 65]

Originally Posted by ShadowGoomba

Just to clarify, the "L4" doesnt really denote the "L" head style... if it did, the V8 would have a "V" style head (rediculous I know but it's an example of what I mean). L4 is what most people will agree a 2.2/2.5 or 2.0/2.4 is called... 4 cylinders lined up... so that is what I term it as.

Sorry if there was confusion, I should have clarified at the start

I've never heard anyone refer to an inline OHV four cylinder as an "L" four. And yes, the "L4" would denote the "L" headed engine. In regards to the point, I present the following:
Straight and "V" Engines
"Most types of automobile engine (sic) are straight engines; that is, the cylinders are not half on one side and half on the other as in the case of "V" engines."
I quoted this from Handy Guide for Car Owners Wm. H. Wise & Co., Inc., 1953.
When V8s were still a relative novelty, they were referred to as "V" engines. There were also "L" heads and "F" heads, and perhaps other layouts of which I'm not aware. Since the air path of a V8 doesn't really resemble a letter, they were referred to by the cylinder layout. This goes farther back that the Phord flathead V8, dating back to at least 1919 when Chevrolet (I believe) developed their own V8.

[ShadowGoomba]

http://www.allpar.com/rebuilt/chrysler-engines.html

Wow... you've never heard anyone call a 4-cylinder an "L4" motor? Well here ya go.
Research does wonders when you are looking for facts.

[dwc43]

I would be carefull quoating allpar.com. There's too much incorrect info that is pretty obvious to most Mopar builders.

[Dart 65]

Originally Posted by ShadowGoomba

http://www.allpar.com/rebuilt/chrysler-engines.html

Wow... you've never heard anyone call a 4-cylinder an "L4" motor? Well here ya go.
Research does wonders when you are looking for facts.

Don't do all of your "research" online. Try a book; that's where they hide the information. Shhhh...
And since Allpar.com refers to the OHV four as an "L4," you're not alone in being wrong. Congratulations.

[ShadowGoomba]

OHV and OHC are 2 different things bud. If I'm wrong so are you.

Congratulations... jackass

[Dart 65]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time in continuing this argument with you. Do you own an "L" head? Have you ever worked on one? I do and have, a '49 217 CID I6 Plymouth engine. The layout is completely different from an OHV inline four or six. The valves are in the block, driven by tappets that ride against the lobes of the cam, creating a valve train that is vertical. Obviously, this arrangement is totally different from the OHV engines, OHC or not. The "L" headed engines don't use anything resembling a rocker arm. You brought the OHC into the discussion for some reason. I'm aware that the OHC and OHV are different; I never said they weren't, so I don't know what your point is. No matter what facts, however, you're 19 and you know everything. I hope you can leave your parents' house and make a good living for yourself while you're still smarter than all of us because reality's a bitch.

[bjoehandley]

I've considered the 2.2/2.5 a /4 since it was designed to lean towards the fire wall, like the slant six, and if I remember right, it was designed by one of the same engineers that worked on developing the /6 too. Atleast there isn't an somebody wanting to stick 2.2/2.5 SOHC parts on a CHevy 2.0/2.2 OHV engine (don't laugh, I had a parts counter idiot ask me that when I had my '85 GTS, and he was a UTI student, and as you can guess his base model Caviler was riced!) I think a Track T style hot rod with a hopped up, rwd swapped 2.2/2.5 would be a missle.

[Dart 65]

I think Direct Connection sponsored oddball FWD dirt track midget sort of cars years back. I saw one in an old catalog. I remember it had huge fat front tires and carbs sticking out of the hood. Yes, the 2.2/2.5 was sort of Slant four, leaning backward a bit. I've heard it referred to as a two thirds of a Slant 6 and I, too, believe it was designed by the same engineers. One of the coolest cars I saw at a show was an early 1930s Dodge coupe (three window, I think) with a hopped up Slant 6. It was painted Viper yellow, too. It sure beats the crap out of those belly-button 350 powered billet rods.