I am wondering if you can replace the Mivec SOHC head to the 4G63T head off an evo. I heard it from one of my friends from Dynoworks in CA so I wanted to get everyones input about it. I am wondering if mitsubishi got lazy on the blocks to save money but switched heads of the RA to detune our RA's?

 

i really dont know anything, but wont that mess up the mivec cam profiles if you have 2 cams instead of one??

 

I'm not sure but probably the basic casts are the same, but like honda and toyota, there are so many mnute diffs between two motors, it probably wont be easy. The 2jz toyota and the turbo version are really similar but they wont interchange in an is300 without a lot of changing. Even swapping vtec with non-vtec heads is difficult in honda. The biggest problem would proably be electical. Also, there aren't many evo heads out there without their respective blocks. Wish it could be like g.m. where motor swaps are so easy!!!

 

If the head would even fit, my guess is you would have no choice but to go stand alone ECU.

 

Are you a coke head? What about the MIVEC, do you really want to give that up for double bump sticks?

Mod's are supposed to add power, not take it.

 

First off, if the head fit then you may have a evo head, but you won't have the evo lower end. Our lower end has different internals, a different stroke, and a different bore than the evo.

Secondly. It won't interfer with mivec, because if you take the head off the mivec is gone. There will be no mivec on the car. Mivec is a mechanical change in "cam profiles" that happens at ~3500 rpm, so if the mivec head is missing then there is no cam profile to change.

 

It was just a bad idea to begin with. You have a 2.0L engine mated to a very large turbo and then you have a long *** stroke 2.4L that's N/A. Yeah, lets put a turbo head from a high reving turbo engine on my low reving N/A engine. The idea was absolutely horrid to begin with. Whether or not it fits is a moot point. There is no reason for it to be done, period.

DOHC > SOHC only when continuous variable valve timing is present. Any desire beyond that is RICE.

 

I agree with the last statement. There is NO reason to try to make it work. Thing about making the timing belt work, think about timing it! You have no written material to know how to time it. You want to do it just so that you can say "I have DOHC?"
If so, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME. If some idiot ricer says "haha you don't have DOHC" tell him you still have 4 valves per cylinder (that is the MAIN reason for DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder) Mitsubishi managed to operate 4 valves per cylinder off of one single camshaft. There is no reason for the 2.4L to have DOHC, it has 4 valves per cylinder AND it has variable valve timing.

 

Honda 'managed' to operate 4 valves per cylinder with SOHC 10 years ago. My 1994 Accord has this. I think the true advantage of DOHC is when it comes with variable valve timing. Our RA only have valve travel/duration change on the intake side. When you can get variable valve timing on both, intake and exhaust sides, usually done with DOHC, you get more performance.

 

We'll I think it will be a great Idea. I think the EVO head flows much better than the MIVEC SOHC so it will be an upgrade. In addition the DOHC has lots of cams, spring, retainers, valve, and manifold options tha we dont have and the fact that it will be much easier to find parts..

 

Do you have any idea what it would cost to tune that setup on a dyno, or even how many one off parts that it would take. For the love of god, just swap the exhisting cam.

 

The 4G64 has had 16 valves and SOHC for several years too. The '94 Galant debuted with this engine also. SOHC is easier/cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain. Compare prices for replacing timing belt on a 4G69 or '64 to an Evolution or Eclipse.

 

I should have added "managed to operate 4 valves per cylinder AND had variable valve timing and lift"
On the intake valves anyway.
Variable valve timing only gives you so much more performance. It gives you tame valve lifts at low rpm (for a clean idle and good torque) and then "opens it up" higher in the rpm for better flow and power. It is not some god-send, incredible device that people make it out to be. It simply gives you 2 different cams in one. DOHC is also not something amazing. The 3.4L GM V6 had twin DOHC in 1990. Wow, DOHC, wow
It's like it is a ***** measuring contest "my car has two cams, yours only has one...HA"
OMG...

 

the thing about dohc and sohc is i always though dohc was better but at technology goes on it doesnt seem that. the new mustang gt is soch, most of the mercadies sports cars are sohc, the mercadies 16 is sohc and thats a super car, so if sohc is better gas milage or something, u dont need that on a super car, so i just dont understand, i guess sohc is better when you do something(what ever their doing) maybe someone can shed some light on this for me

 

and someone said its cheaper, well in a super car obviously money isnt an option so i just dont understand