Better engine design: 420a or 4g63 ??

[EvuLFleA]

Just curious to your explanations.

 

[Black95GSX]

Personally I'm going to have to go with the 4g63 -- Even taking CW into consideration.


Out of the box (stock vs stock motor) -- the 4g63 can make more power, and take a lot more punishment then a 420a could of out of the box.


But that's just my "short" opinion

 

[jbillakdsm]

I don't mean to sound offensive, but the 4g63 of course. I can't find anyone with a 420a that can catch my 4g63 turbo, and all the kids I know who added turbos to their 420a had a shitload of problems, while the kids with 4g63s had no problems at all. Plus, did you ever try and build a FMIC for a 420a? I think I would rather gouge out one of my eyes with a spoon. There is a reson why they didn't offer a 420a turbo, the block was not as stable or solid as the 4g63. It's like the 1.8 that was offered, I think there is one with a turbo out there and I can't imagine how much money and time was spent doing that (kudos btw). Don't get me wrong, the 420a is a good motor, but the 4g63 is just on another level.

 

[talonawdbig16g]

there's a mach v message board member with a 420a turbo'd with 367 wheel hp. The only thing he says is that if he would have instaed put that same money on a gsx he'd have a much faster car than he does now and that rebuilding the engine and buying everything else and getting it tuned was an absolute nightmare. I know he was thinkingh of selling it not long ago. Stock for stock or otherwise I'd have to go with the 4g63. It's strong as hell and has loads of potention for a fairly reasonable price

 

[98TsiAWD]

His Question is which engine is BETTER DESIGNED, NOT faster.

I have read a big article about the 420a design, some of it is designed after lotus engines. I cant remember where i read it, maybe www.allpar.com

BTW, admit it please the 420a is a better designed engine stock to stock and will outlast a 4g63. Yes the 4g63 can be faster for less money obviously.

 

[98TsiAWD]

Originally posted by jbillakdsm
I don't mean to sound offensive, but the 4g63 of course. I can't find anyone with a 420a that can catch my 4g63 turbo, and all the kids I know who added turbos to their 420a had a shitload of problems, while the kids with 4g63s had no problems at all. Plus, did you ever try and build a FMIC for a 420a? I think I would rather gouge out one of my eyes with a spoon. There is a reson why they didn't offer a 420a turbo, the block was not as stable or solid as the 4g63. It's like the 1.8 that was offered, I think there is one with a turbo out there and I can't imagine how much money and time was spent doing that (kudos btw). Don't get me wrong, the 420a is a good motor, but the 4g63 is just on another level.

BTW, the new neon uses a 2.4 liter 420a block. 215hp, 0-60 in 5.9 sec. It CAN accept boost with the right management and tuning.

 

[CBgst]

"TW, admit it please the 420a is a better designed engine stock to stock and will outlast a 4g63. Yes the 4g63 can be faster for less money obviously."


I'm not dogging the 420a but if you only had 140hp on a 4g63 i think it would last longer than the 420a. That's really nothing on a 4g63. The 4g63 still last a long time even with mods (depending on the mods ). But with the 420a in the new turbo neons we'll just have to wait and see how it holds up. By the way the turbo neons are pretty sweet looking i can't wait to race one and see how fast they are.


That's my opinion later

 

[98TsiAWD]

Originally posted by CBgst
"TW, admit it please the 420a is a better designed engine stock to stock and will outlast a 4g63. Yes the 4g63 can be faster for less money obviously."


I'm not dogging the 420a but if you only had 140hp on a 4g63 i think it would last longer than the 420a. That's really nothing on a 4g63. The 4g63 still last a long time even with mods (depending on the mods ). But with the 420a in the new turbo neons we'll just have to wait and see how it holds up. By the way the turbo neons are pretty sweet looking i can't wait to race one and see how fast they are.


That's my opinion later

You have a point on the hp thing, but just compare a 1g nt 4g63 and the 2g 420a, they are both 2.0 DOHC and about the same output. The 420a was somewhat designed for economy also tho. They are both great engines but the 4g63 is over 15 years old in design, the 420a was designed in late 93-early 94.

 

[Boosted91]

The 4G63 can handle nearly 500hp on the stock internals. Not many cars can claim to be able to do that without having to replace pistons, rods, etc.. A modified 4G63 motor can be much more reliably and affordably modified than the 420a. So what if its 14 years old, its lasted so long because it is such a solid engine. Look at the Lancer; after all these years its still using this engine, and now putting out around 280hp with the same block that we have in our 12 year old cars. A good engine proves itself over time, and the 4G63 has proven itself to be one of the best in the world.

 

[98TsiAWD]

Originally posted by Boosted91
The 4G63 can handle nearly 500hp on the stock internals. Not many cars can claim to be able to do that without having to replace pistons, rods, etc.. A modified 4G63 motor can be much more reliably and affordably modified than the 420a. So what if its 14 years old, its lasted so long because it is such a solid engine. Look at the Lancer; after all these years its still using this engine, and now putting out around 280hp with the same block that we have in our 12 year old cars. A good engine proves itself over time, and the 4G63 has proven itself to be one of the best in the world.

The Lancer uses different internals and head, just shares the block, its not hard to make a good block. Im not saying the 4g63 isnt a good engine either.

 

[tjh-dsm]

Originally posted by Boosted91
The 4G63 can handle nearly 500hp on the stock internals. Not many cars can claim to be able to do that without having to replace pistons, rods, etc.. A modified 4G63 motor can be much more reliably and affordably modified than the 420a. So what if its 14 years old, its lasted so long because it is such a solid engine. Look at the Lancer; after all these years its still using this engine, and now putting out around 280hp with the same block that we have in our 12 year old cars. A good engine proves itself over time, and the 4G63 has proven itself to be one of the best in the world.

Word. You don't mess w/ success. Even Turbo magazine said the 4g63 was one of the best engines ever made, including NT engines.

 

[RabidDonkeyBoy]

3S-GTE > 4G63 > all other 4clyinders > Honda

 

[NDgsx]

Originally posted by str8ballin
BTW, admit it please the 420a is a better designed engine stock to stock and will outlast a 4g63. Yes the 4g63 can be faster for less money obviously.

What the hell is your definition of "better"? The 420a doesn't do anything exceptionally well. Longevity? Sorry Toyota and honda kill it in that department. Power production? Ha what 150hp from a 2.0l? Lame.
The 4G63 can make 500hp with stock internals. The only other 4 banger out there that can do that is the SR20.

 

[GRNDSM]

First of all, you can only compare 4G63 NT to 420A to have any valid comparison. The only problem that I see with 4G63 motor is that it has the same tricky timing belt system as the turbo counterpart. This means that 90% of regular mechanics screw up timing belt jobs. Only with NT motors most people just junk the cars.

This issue apart, 4G63 NT motors can go well past 200k miles on stock bottom ends and are EXCELLET everyday engines.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know much about 420A engines, but one thing that I heard from Mitsubishi service manager that they did have their share of head gasket problems and that he could not wait for most them to go past the warranty period, so that they can stop making those warranty repairs (which pay less than regular repairs).

Of course, 4G63 does have a problem with crankwalk...

I do not know, we argue all day about this, but to me it also comes to this: which engine is available with AWD? I do not care how good the motor is, or how much power it is making FWD is just inferior for racing, so 4G63 has a HUGE advantage there...

Leon
RR

 

[h sir2 guy]

I (IMHO) think that the 4g63 is totaly a better engine, if it wasnt , then why didnt they us it in thier base models?

 

[CBgst]

What really classifies an engine design as a better design. There are so many different factors that determine how engines will last it's really hard to put down either design. They're both good I guess. Only the engineers who designed them could tell you which ones best and why. They probably wouldn't agree either so who knows.

 

[EvuLFleA]

True, but I just wanted to know what was/wasn't liked about the 420A and what wasn't liked about 4g63.

 

[1QUICK4]

We see more warranty work on the 420a than the 4G63. If you lined a 75k mile 420a and 4G63 side by side you would notice a much smoother idle from th 4G63. The 4G63 is a more refined motor and it is coming this JAN in the form of the EVO VIII. It it will be around for years come.

There is a reason they didnt put the 420a in the spyders. It would rattle to death:laugh:

But the way the rods are manufactured on the 420a is pretty cool.
Casted as one piece than cracked in two. Chrysler is just lucky they finally fixed that headgasket bug