Turbo Dodge Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
if you cant figure it out by the my name im swapping this into a brick. (volvo 242GT) im here for more insight on making the 2.4 rwd. im pulling the motor from an 01' turbo PT. im still a little confused on how it is a 2001 didnt the GT come out in 03'? anyways i still have a few things i need to figure out in order to get this to work and right now the biggest thing im wondering about is the wiring, a few things about the trans and clutch flywheel set-up and starter.

wiring. can i pull the factory setup and run it as is? what needs to be changed in order for it to work? did chrysler put some security in place so if i get everything hooked up it wont run?

trans. im planning to get an MA5 and run with that. mostly figured out just just need to do more research.

flywheel clutch setup. im completely lost on this one. ive only found one piece of info on it and someone used s-10 part. but what about clutch cable and such?

starter. i may be mistaken but i believe the factory location is on the bell housing. is this true and is it the same with the liberty bell housing? what starter are you guys using?

i know i will have more questions for you guys but id like to start with that first. i will still be searching and searching for more answers.

thank you ahead of time for your help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
I'd have to guess it's only a small percentage of the members here who have knowledge about 2.4 swaps, and even a smaller percentage that know about the ma5 swap. Just have patience.

I'd tell you everything you need to know, but I don't have a clue. Sorry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I know almost nothing of these motors. I'm still trying to figure out wtf the engine code is for the srt4/gt pt. all i can find on the forums is its called a 2.4...
Coming from turbo bricks and having a b20,b21,b230,b230f,b230ft b b b b b b b b... Volvo gave each a name not just size. I guess I need my training wheels here. And MS is probably what I'm going to be running. Also I am going into the unknown. I'm getting into allot of headaches making this work.

I'm also drunk right now. Ill continue when I'm sober.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,928 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Liberty bellhousing, liberty flywheel(I dont much care for the dual mass, but until I get a custom aluminum piece, it works) S10 2.2l pressure plate and clutch disc(liberty flywheel locating dowels have to be removed to use the chevy PP). Hydraulic TOB from a corvette(or other GM RWD product)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Liberty bellhousing, liberty flywheel(I dont much care for the dual mass, but until I get a custom aluminum piece, it works) S10 2.2l pressure plate and clutch disc(liberty flywheel locating dowels have to be removed to use the chevy PP). Hydraulic TOB from a corvette(or other GM RWD product)
Awesome. That's what I needed to know. I knew I was gonna have to use the dual mass or fork out some serious cash for a custom aluminium one and that does suck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
By the way, an actual SRT4\turbo PT engine is the KZE, mine is a hybridized bastard...since I use a caravan block, 420a mitsu head, SRT internals and turbofold(SRT pistons flipped on the rods to match the 420a head) and modified stratus intake so I couldnt give it an accurate code if I tried
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
By the way, an actual SRT4\turbo PT engine is the KZE, mine is a hybridized bastard...since I use a caravan block, 420a mitsu head, SRT internals and turbofold(SRT pistons flipped on the rods to match the 420a head) and modified stratus intake so I couldnt give it an accurate code if I tried
Sounds like a pretty nice setup. Any benefits really with the 420a head? Only reason im probably keeping the stock one on is intake and exhaust sides. Intake on the driver was factory with my car and it'll be easier routing and such.

Side note. Seems like ya cant give me any accurate codes ;) i ended up finding the engine code for the srt4

"The Neon itself never carried a naturally aspirated 2.4L engine in its lineup, but a 150 hp (110 kW), 167 lb·ft (226 N·m) N/A version was used in Chrysler's JA, JX, and JR platform cars from 1995 to 2006 along with the Jeep Liberty from 2002 to 2005 and the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager from 1996 to 2000. The code for this engine was EDZ. As with some other engines of various architecture used in Jeeps, EDZs used in the Liberty carried Chrysler's PowerTech name. Unlike the 1.8/2.0L engines the 2.4L is a non-interference design
The SRT-4 performance variant utilized a 2.4L Turbo. The turbocharged EDV/EDT is similar to the regular EDZ."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
The benefit for me using the 420a head is exactly that...intake and exhaust manifolds...a non 420a head will have the SRT turbofold pointing the turbo inlet back into the firewall(probably very close...very hard for piping). Likewise the intake manifold will point back into the firewall...not a problem if using a factory 2.0 or 2.4 intake...but it is if you cut off the 90 degree bend that leaves the TB pointing up. Even if it fits that way without interference and doesnt make you place the engine further forward...its still ugly and akward. None of this is an issue if you are using a custom intake manifold and the correct aftermarket exhaust manifold+turbo setup. There is a potentially major downside I didnt realize to using the 420a head...at least not till I was doing exhaust routing. Using the 420a head means exhaust is on drivers side...the same side as the starter and whatever steering setup you have. I didnt have to contend with a steering shaft...I had a worm and sector steering box instead, unfortunately it was bolted to the framerail and only left me 3.5" of room between it and the starter I had to squeeze a 3" downshaft through. I had to make a heat shield for the starter and massage the downpipe pretty heavily with a BFH to make it all work...and it still rattles against the starter heatshield from time to time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
No stock 2.4 is interference, the 2.0l DOHC cam is(not the SOHC). The only time a 2.4 becomes interference is with aftermarket cams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The benefit for me using the 420a head is exactly that...intake and exhaust manifolds...a non 420a head will have the SRT turbofold pointing the turbo inlet back into the firewall(probably very close...very hard for piping). Likewise the intake manifold will point back into the firewall...not a problem if using a factory 2.0 or 2.4 intake...but it is if you cut off the 90 degree bend that leaves the TB pointing up. Even if it fits that way without interference and doesnt make you place the engine further forward...its still ugly and akward. None of this is an issue if you are using a custom intake manifold and the correct aftermarket exhaust manifold+turbo setup. There is a potentially major downside I didnt realize to using the 420a head...at least not till I was doing exhaust routing. Using the 420a head means exhaust is on drivers side...the same side as the starter and whatever steering setup you have. I didnt have to contend with a steering shaft...I had a worm and sector steering box instead, unfortunately it was bolted to the framerail and only left me 3.5" of room between it and the starter I had to squeeze a 3" downshaft through. I had to make a heat shield for the starter and massage the downpipe pretty heavily with a BFH to make it all work...and it still rattles against the starter heatshield from time to time.
I will be making a one off turbo manifold and for the exhaust im still considering cutting the runners off a srt4 intake and flipping it so it will look factory just backwards. So those arent any issue to me. Current problems i have are lack of parts. Work is going to pick up so i should be able to afford to start spendin all my money on getting this done.

One more question... You think im an idiot for spending all this money on a 4cyl swap into my brick?when I could have dropped in an ls for allot cheaper and had more power
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
More power? Depends on how much you need for the build. In the Celica 300HP is enough to get a 12 second 1/4 mile time. Sure...a LS1 will make 300HP at the cost of 100lbs over a turbo 2.4, but its not like 300HP is stressing a 2.4T much either...hell a stock SRT turbo can make that(barely). As for cost, the LS1 is far more expensive. In all including the cost of the car I have about $3000 in the Celica...just try finding a LS1+T56 for that...$5000 is more in the ballpark, and thats on one with reasonable mileage. My 2.4t was a full rebuild and the MA5 had 0 miles, its really apples to oranges. What do you want? The LS1 will certainly be torquier, and in general be more fun to drive and sound better, upgrades are easy as well, it will however be more expensive and get worse in town fuel mileage. Then you have the weight...100lbs is not much in the grand scheme of things, but every bit counts, plus the T56 is heavier(though not by much..20lbs or so) than the MA5. There is also fitment...4 cylinders are easier to fit...but depending on the chasis, a LS1 may be a better choice, if you need a rear sump oil pan for instance. I just bought a Miata, I plan to swap a LS1 into it because it simply makes the most sense for that chasis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
an aluminum block ls is not cheap, but the 4.7 or the 5.3 truck motors can be had at around 500 average for a runner with harness and ecu and then a cheap th400 bolts to it and your a grand into an ls swap, but a camaro/corvette setup is much more yes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
More power? Depends on how much you need for the build. In the Celica 300HP is enough to get a 12 second 1/4 mile time. Sure...a LS1 will make 300HP at the cost of 100lbs over a turbo 2.4, but its not like 300HP is stressing a 2.4T much either...hell a stock SRT turbo can make that(barely). As for cost, the LS1 is far more expensive. In all including the cost of the car I have about $3000 in the Celica...just try finding a LS1+T56 for that...$5000 is more in the ballpark, and thats on one with reasonable mileage. My 2.4t was a full rebuild and the MA5 had 0 miles, its really apples to oranges. What do you want? The LS1 will certainly be torquier, and in general be more fun to drive and sound better, upgrades are easy as well, it will however be more expensive and get worse in town fuel mileage. Then you have the weight...100lbs is not much in the grand scheme of things, but every bit counts, plus the T56 is heavier(though not by much..20lbs or so) than the MA5. There is also fitment...4 cylinders are easier to fit...but depending on the chasis, a LS1 may be a better choice, if you need a rear sump oil pan for instance. I just bought a Miata, I plan to swap a LS1 into it because it simply makes the most sense for that chasis.
I chose the 2.4 because i wanted to keep 4cyl and i love the motor. Plus being a fabricator i wanted to build something that nobody in the Volvo community has done before. You see v8's and 16 valve head swaps all day everywhere but nobody really thinks outside of that box aside from the 2j. You have about 3000$ into the celica? Damn... I think i need to do a little more searching because i was thinking this was gonna cost closer to 5000$
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
an aluminum block ls is not cheap, but the 4.7 or the 5.3 truck motors can be had at around 500 average for a runner with harness and ecu and then a cheap th400 bolts to it and your a grand into an ls swap, but a camaro/corvette setup is much more yes
Yes...but then its iron block and auto...which destroys the whole point of the swap, it adds an extra 50-60lbs in the engine and who knows how much in the tranny. At that point a SBF becomes more appealing on the weight front(and from a bolt on perspective).

As far as the Volvo 16v head conversion...heh, I have that head on my Ford 2.3L block...now that was a fun project, much less fun on a Volvo block though. I like the Chysler 2.4T myself, its very durable.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top