Who was thinking of doing an NA rally Galant?

[cheekychimp]

I searched for the thread but I can't find it. I'm just interested to look at it again because I picked up a 2WD Galant in the UK and I have had a couple of discussions since then with members about the various NA Galant engines. The car has a 80hp 1.8 carb 8 valve SOHC 4G37 engine in it at present. To be honest it is fine for what I bought it for (i.e. cheap reliable family transport when I'm back in the UK so I don't need to drop cash on a hire car) and is surprisingly fun to drive. That said it has only widened my eyes as to how awesome a daily driver the AMG Galants must have been.

If you think about it the 175HP AMG Galant engine was pretty hardcore for it's time and given the lower parasitic loss of the 2WD drivetrain I imagine it was closer in performance to the early JDM VR4s (220HP) and even closer in performance to a stock USDM VR4 (195HP) than most of us give it credit for.

After researching the AMG heads and cyclone manifolds a bit more, I was struck with a strange thought. If you got hold of an AMG Cyclone and AMG head then bolted them onto a 2.4 4G64 (G4CS) block, could you get more than 175HP out of it? With the AMG head being good for an extra 500 rpms it seems like a really cheap and extremely fun engine for a 2WD car with far more potential than the 1.8 and 2.0 litre GTI engines. If you are reading this Rich, this is licensing and insurance issues aside. But what would it need to make it work? (ECU, harness, injectors etc)

 

[ktmrider]

Maybe this one: click

 

[cheekychimp]

No, someone started a thread with a title something like "So just hear me out on this ..."

He basically was talking about taking a GGSX engine and building an NA powered rally car but retaining AWD if I remember correctly. He was asking what people thought he could make out of the 2.4 block with some high compression pistons and some carefully thought out mods. I think misterfixit said the 1.8 16V DOHC engines make about 135hp and the 2.0 litre equivalent a bit more so after discussing the 175hp AMG engine, we came to the conclusion that the head, high compression pistons and the intake manifold must be the tie breaker. That being the case I am thinking putting all of those on a 2.4 litre engine with the same compression ought to yield 20% more power or around 210hp. That's K20A territory without the vtec lag and I suspect a barrel load more torque!

 

[fuel]

if I ever have a ton of money spare I want to build up a BTCC Galant replica - the torque of a 2.4 would be good but I would love to get an N/A 4G63 spinning upwards of 9,000rpm with ITB's and massive headers!

 

[Muskrat]

Here's a thread I started a while ago on the topic:

click

Not sure if that's what you're referring to, but there's some good info there.

 

[cheekychimp]

Yes, that was the post. So actually you were just going to NA a 2.0 litre turbo block?

I'd really like to get some more information on the AMG engine and see if the short block had any other real differences other than the high compression pistons. I am pretty sure the head and intake manifold played a much larger part in making most of the extra power. And yet it only had a 7500 rpm redline so by comparison with modern heads it was quite conservative. I suspect overall there was a lot more subtle engineering design in there as part of the whole package tuning and matching the intake and exhaust manifolds as well as the exhaust to generate usable torque as well as power.

Seeing as the 2.4 would flow more at lower rpms, a 7500 rpm redline would probably be sufficient without any further upgrading and I think that huge AMG Cyclone manifold could flow more than enough. Headers and exhaust might require something custom to reap the full benefits but I still think this could be a pretty awesome daily driver powerplant for a FWD car. In my opinion after you start making 220 horsepower in a FWD car, torque steer becomes a serious problem, so this should be right on the money, cheap, easily serviceable and fun!!!

Edit: Fuel, I hear you on the ITCC cars, that would be a really cool setup for the track, I just think the 2.4 would make a better street/everyday package. RPW in Oz has done some pioneering work with ITBs on 4G63s and the results were fairly impressive. I spoke to them when I got bored whilst I was back in the UK to find out about ITBs or an uprated carb for the 4G37 but it still looks like making much over 100 hp is unlikely with that platform. It does produce a nice spread of power through 2500-3500 rpms however so would work quite well I'm sure. A long tim ago they built a similar engine for a Colt to replace the 1.3 litre turbo engine. It just seems a lot of money for a very small power hike when you could reach stock USDM VR4 territory for the same outlay!

 

[curtis]

ITB would work or even a small runner big plenum intake if you wanted to find a 2nd gen head instead.

I did this in the spring for a N/A car.. 2nd gen intake with small runners made to work with a 1st gen head.
Chopped off the matting surface and welded on a big port flange, then ported, then welded, then blending, then welded over and over. Didn't think it would ever end, then built the larger plenum.

Should work super for what he wants but with the amount of work I think I could have got a pair of ITB's from a Skyline and built a runner system in the same amount of time. I'm sure he'll chime in when its installed and running.

 

[fuel]

The only difference with the AMG block over the regular N/A 4G63 block is the addition of piston oil squirters like the turbo VR-4 block. I am unsure if the AMG runs with an oil cooler like the VR-4 too. The AMG pistons have '63D M' on them which are 10.4:1 CR and is shared with the facelift VZ-S and VX-S JDM E33A models, but obviously the cylinder head and manifold is AMG specific.

Surely if you can't track down an AMG head or even just the cams, someone is bound to make up aftermarket cams for the N/A 4G63, or you could at least get a custom grind made.

The 4G64 with its longer stroke isn't really a candidate for higher revs, 7500rpm would be the absolute limit you would want to rev them out too unless you go overboard with forged pistons, rods, crank, rod bolts, main studs and head studs etc.

I have a fond liking of the 4G37 engine, but in standard form they really are smothered - the stock cam grind and extreme thickness of the rods really don't help it rev at all. My old one would just struggle anything above 5000rpm and just felt very lethargic. It was a great reliable engine though, travelling over 400,000kms before it finally spun a big end bearing (due to being run dry of oil). My one was in an NZ delivered 'GLX' model with wind up windows and very little creature comforts which basically consisted of power steering and central locking. This helped it tip the scales at a measly 1050kgs but even still the 66kW 4G37 didn't push it along that quickly haha. NZ models among some other export markets had 9.5:1 CR while Jap and US models had 9.1:1 or thereabouts. With some head port work, higher compression, lighter rods + crank etc it would make the engine much more lively, but heavily modified it probably still wouldn't be able to match the power of a dead stock 4G63 N/A.