i would have to disagree, the 2.6 is a great engine but just had a few week links, jet valves, jet valve heads non auto adjust balance shaft chain tensioner.

but with a smart build and not trying to make huge power its a great platform, served me well for over ten years, just has this feel to it.

let me see 2.4's make more power more common already efi don't crack heads tons of after market bolt on stuff for them if you really wanna make them powerful. how is the 2.6 better? wide block 2.4 is also a bolt on replacement(as close as it gets) its way easy to put in and wire up.

powerram50 i support you putting that 302 in the truck get that tranny and t\case, put that 2.6 a the bottom of a lake. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />

What do the donor motors come from, and what is the designation? 4g64?

4g64 is the engine name and they can be found in mighty max\d50 pickups aswell as a 16V version with coil packs instead of a dizzy in the montero sport plus most of the car line uses the 4g64 and 4g63 motors aswell but they are narrow block you'd want a wide block for the montero or pickup they are a little more work for a montero since they are front sump but on toastys swap he just spaced it the engine up to clear the front diff. It was also used in the pajero in japan with a rear sump config so chances are you could order a pan and pickup but they are a bit pricey. easier to just space it up or rework the pan your self.

I agree with the 2.6 being a boat anchor. I do disagree with the 302 though. I use to own a Shelby Lancer with the 2.2L turbo engine. Which is in the same family of the 2.4. I own a 89 Caravan with the 2.5L turbo and a 5-speed manni. I use to embarrass $60K mustangs with that car. I paid 1500 dollars for it, with electronics I probably put another 700 into for injectors and a wideband, BOV and piping. Stock intercooler, stock bottomend, I cut out the cat and ran 3" exhaust (the absolute biggest bang for the buck), and was close to running 12's in the quarter. All this and getting over 30 miles to the gallon.

the 2.4 L is an awesome engine. It has a lot of low end grunt (comparatively speaking), parts are everywhere, it won't have the low end of the 302 but it WILL bolt right in to a dodge D50 using the stock trans.
Obviously if you have a 302 kicking around that's the better route money wise but that 2.4 could be a potent little mill and get better mileage.

Here is my Caravan:


Here is my Shelby:


Oh and here are some pics of my 2.4 I built for my PT cruiser :

the 2.2 and 2.5 is not really the same family as the 2.4.i have a turbo 2.2 sitting in my garage now that is going into a 89 dodge spirit with the N/A 2.5 that has be fairly biult and without turbo does 17 sec in the 1/4 mile at the strip.plan on going garret hybrid turbo on the 2.2.i have owned many dodge k cars with the 2.2 or 2.5...

I guess I consider them in the same family because the heads are swap-able with minor adjustments. now why wouldn't you throw the turbo on the 2.5? pull the balance shafts and have a little more potent engine. The turbo'd 2.5 lays down a lot more torque than the 2.2.

Have you been on Turbo-mopar.com or been to any of the SDAC meets?

off topic but it is my post so i dont care....i probaly will put the turbo on the 2.5.i would have to get lower comp pistons to handle the boost.i deleted the ballance shafts when i rebiuld the motor.i also did a few other little things to improve power when i did the bottom end.i have a mopar performance turbo head gasket on it witch is a little thinner than stock witch also increases compresion ratio a little.took a little of the deck of the block and had the head milled.

i have not been to any sdac meets before kids my wife use to drag race the car at the local drag strip in portland oregon. it has been years since i was on turbo-mopar or the all-par forum.fwdperformance has some great parts for the k cars.