The timing with a 4g64 belt on a 2.4 lines up as it would w a 63 belt on a 2.0 it's fact it's been done over and over again on multiple motors to the same effect


Logically thinking if you turn your cams bak one tooth and then turn your crank back one tooth everything must stay in sync from that point on yes? Yes...

Thus when you go to tdc on the crank w a 63 belt you are off half a tooth due to 6mm of deck height. Now go measure the distance from tooth to tooth on a belt it's in the realm of 11 mm therefore 6mm of that is taken from the deck leaving you off by 5mm or about half a tooth which is why you need to degree the cams.

W a 64 belt the 6mm from the deck + the left over ~5mm is made up for in the extra one tooth thus leaving you with as close to perfect timing as one can get (same as timing a 2.0 w a 63 belt) varies a degree or two depending on how much was cut from you head and block etc

 

EVO 1-3 are one way and 4-9 are the other. Read the instructions again. I have used a lot of these gears and always put the EVO hole on every EVO8 and they lined up. I used them the other way on DSM and they are right. I would hate to see your car run like crap because the timing belt is off. Mine was and it was a pain to figure out. I didn't do the belt the first time and took for granted it was right. Poor vacuum at idle and barely ran. Lucky I didn't bend valves.

 

The 6mm deck height must be counted twice up and down. The difference would be 12mm. A belt two teeth longer would be closer to on but too long for the tensioner to work properly.

 

Some fidanza gears have the wrong dowel hole mark, i had this problem with my 2.4l. had to call fidanza to figure it out

 

THIS is the piece of information I've been waiting to hear.

Thank you.

 

When I couldn't get my 2.0L to run it was the opposite problem of what you (Batty) said. (Not disagreeing!)

I posted a picture of my dowels in the EVO hole, and everyone told me to put them in the non-Evo dowels. I did the change and my car ran perfect, and timing lined up.

So, I just kept it the same. For the car to even run with the gears in the other position the ignition timing had to be absolutely nutty. When I put them where they are now, it ran perfect with a normal ignition timing map.

That's a whole other dilemma I guess....

Again, thanks for all the help in this thread. I've heard far too many things from far too many people without any logical statements to back it up, so when I timed my car a number of times and it lined up perfect, it didn't make sense to throw it off from the beginning, until what Batty said about accounting for the 6mm twice.

 

such fail in here.

THERE IS NO TIMING CHANGE between using 63 belt and a 64 belt.

the 64 belt simply would have more slack on the tensioner side.

 

So what the f*ck is the actual answer then. This is unbelievable.

 

k, one more try and I'm done....

the 64 belt is one tooth, 12mm longer to make up for the 6mm deck height up and down. from the crank gear to the cam gear only offsets 6mm of this length because the belt passes it once, obviously. soooooo 63 belt comes up 6mm short, half a tooth short, and the 64 belt comes up 6mm long half a tooth long...

clear as crystal yet or will you just believe me when I tell you I'm right...

the 94 galant is the only car mitsu put the 63 head on 64 block and for some reason those engineers decided to move the cam dowel and mark half a tooth... the answer is described above

anyone else wants to disagree get out the degree wheel and realize your wrong...

/thread

 

You didn't say that the first time. If you did, I wouldn't have questioned anything.

Just throwing a bunch of facts out with no support doesn't go so well when someone asks a question purely based on logic, you feel?

Now I get to do it:

/thread

 

I totally feel you and understand your confusion. This topic is always a mess dude. The only reason your having a hard time is because of all the people spreading the wrong info. Its an easy concept once you consider the measurements.

as they say, "the math doesn't lie."

just remember

is how I roll

 

Exactly. I got told so many different things it was unbelievable, so I resorted to math, but my math was off because I didn't know one had to account for the deck height both up and down in the equation, hence my retarded conclusion .

Now to rip the lower timing cover off in the car. This will be a blast.

 

That seems to always be the problem. next time I'll just jump straight to that explanation. Now we both learned something today.

 

Indeed I did. Thanks for the help, mang .

 

Anytime! harleysville is only an hour from me so maybe I'll see you out at an event some time once you get this beast moving.