D50 trans power handling.

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:20 pm

As the title states, what can these take? I now have 3 projects I am working on, so a T-56 for the RX-7 may not be a viable option right now.

For example, I could grenade 1.5l FWD trannys on commend with 500whp-but I have never broken a FWD turbo trans. Is this going to be the same type of situation? How do they shit?

I dont want to put another trans that WONT work in there!

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:56 pm

this i am curious to know about too, in mine i am using the smaller brother km 119, if that is no good i have the km 132, anybody with power number on either tranny with success?

89coltgt · Post by **89coltgt** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:45 am

I know of one guy who is putting down ~400 whp on his trans with a 35r but he says he doesn't beat on it very hard. There was a guy on another board that put a decent amount of power through one as well. It seems the bearings tend to go before the gears do. I will have a few of these available and a clutch/flywheel setup once I get the gm auto trans put in.

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:35 am

i can tell you that i had the 4g64 na on my km119 and i use to beat the living crap out of it and it tore the front bearing, i replaced it along with a complete teardown and clean up of the tranny and havent had a problem since, i used an skf replacement bearing but i guess i will find out soon how it will handle turbo power

screemin eagle · Post by **screemin eagle** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:39 pm

well i can tell you that i wasnt making much HP but i had some sticky tires and after maybe 7 good holeshots something broke and the tranny started knocking. there was a guy on here toomuchnos running 11's in a colt with one. also its a pain in the ass setting up the clutch for hydrolics. for the trouble not worth it.

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:22 pm

Interesting

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:50 pm

i left mine with the cable, no hydro

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:12 pm

Daviticus wrote:
I may end up taking this route. At this point, it's tons easier than rebuilding/sourcing parts for my G54B.

I dont know if I agree.

With a set of pistons and a DOHC chead- you should be good up to 550+whp, and 700+++with a set of cheap rods. Also, I have found MANY more wideblock D50 trannies then narrow in my searches, and they are considerably cheaper.

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:08 pm

Fair enough. But you can go sideways with 2.5x more than 300whp too.

With the power I need to be happy, I will be breaking these. Im already starting to stockpile....

And BTW- I dont think you will find an internally stock 4G64 that will take 300whp. MAYBE a modern DOHC spyder motor, but with the weak ring lands of the NA pistons, I dont think I would push it.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:28 pm

Well, I haven't tried it...but all indications from studying the parts diagrams suggest to me, NOT A PROBLEM to beat the crap outta them at all.

HORSEPOWER is not the enemy of a trans. ABSUSIVE-USE of a HIGH TORQUE IS!

A D-50 trans is designed to PULL-A-LOAD, meaning it can handle the TORQUE LOAD it will be subjected to.

The Dodge/Mitsu RWD parts catalogs cover several RWD trans...starquest, D-50s etc. 4 & 5 speeds.

The TYPICAL WEAK-LINK is a sheet-metal access plate....that is easy enough to build a replacement from 1/2 Aluminum.

Another problem would be a WORN-OUT, mainshaft thrust plate and not replacing it (in due time) nor TESTING the shafts for END-PLAY.

When time allows...I could gut a 119 and compare the 132 parts for the DIAMETERS of the parts....shafts & bearings. (my guess...
they would be the same)

Note this: Failure of a trans BEARING is usually caused by NOT replacing a leaking seal and/or (low on oil) and NOT correcting too much end-play AND ignoring the CLUTCH LINKAGE NEEDS...CABLE OR H-Y-D-R-A-U-L-I-C-S.

(-U-know how to spell it now?

)

And...INPUT SHAFT BEARINGS were UPGRADED by installing FELT SEALS to SATURATE (with oil) that bearing (88/89 132s) and is ALSO shimmed end-play, and.....

ALWAYS replace the SEALED PILOT BEARING!

The COUNTERSHAFT bearings are small & CHEAP at $13 each (x 2) and the replacement, UPGRADED thrust plate was about $38 on a 132. The countershaft shims are nickle-dime parts, btw. The REST of the bearings are usually FINE to run again.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:03 pm

Testing countershaft end-play:

Testing mainshaft end-play:

Testing inputshaft end-play:

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:17 pm

Testing shifter-fork end-play:

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:28 pm

Upgraded mainshaft thrust plate = not common stamped steel (left) but a machined steel that is flame hardend. (sorry, bad light=tuff to see in that pic)

*IF*....I was on-da-hunt for a truck trans, My EYES would gaze-upon the ODOMETER FIRST. (verify it works

)

I gotta fly right now....but, YOU CAN REBUILD A 4/5 speed YOURSELF (or at least field-test it yourself by dropping the access plate) before you remove it.

And...any HINT that it was owned by a YOUTH

(hot-rod gadgets etc) WALK-AWAY.

There are TONS of them out there.

If you were ever inside a Muncie 4 speed trans...you would note that the INTERNAL PARTS are not that much smaller than the 132 parts.

The ENTIRE chapter of how to rebuild a 132 has about 500 pics....(that I generated, bolt-for-bolt, shim-to-shim and a CHILD could do it.

Hey...A friend of mine owns a trans shop and gave the ex-wife 1.2 million dollars when they divorced.

Trans shops will eat-up your money for nickle-dime parts!

Nuff said?

gotta fly......later.

ps: keep in-mind that a 2.6L was a BIG-BLOCK 4 cylinder (torque maker) but the internal parts MIGHT COULD BE INTERCHANGABLE.

Mitsu wouldn't want a PUNK-TRANS in a 4wd Raider etc. Say..."ahhhh."

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:57 pm

They WILL abuse the bed of a truck!

Here's the 87 132 upgraded, (superceeded) replacement inputshaft bearing. Bearing is ENCLOSED on both sides just like the 88/89 stock bearing. (not interchangable = differant part number for 88/89 bearing)

Nope...I don't use a PRESS to install them. I put the shaft in a freezer for 4+ hours, and put the bearing in the oven...bout 200*F for about an hour...then DROP-IT into position.

The pipe tool is standing-by to make sure the bearing SEATS 360* as a CYA tool....

same as installing ALL the trans bearings = use your head.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:17 pm

Here is the 1-2 shift fork. The new one is the top one.
The RED area has THINNED it's thickness due to...guess what,

TO MUCH END-PLAY on the SHAFTS...allowing it to get HAMMERD FLATERD.

If your car jumps outta first gear....all by itself, between the increased end-play of the two shafts and the WEAR of the shift fork...you are looking at the REASON.

Yep....the BONEHEADS wanna blame-it on the syncros.

WRONG!

The NEW ONE IS flame hardened, as you can see here.

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:31 pm

good stuff

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:51 pm

"My 5th gear vibrates my hand right of the shifter knob!

"

Wish I had a dollar for everytime I heard that.

Aluminum flywheels, Aluminum front pulleys (removes the dampner forces)

eurothane engine/trans mounts, slam-kits, BSEKs, etc etc....MISTAKES that I must deal with.

There was NOTHING wrong with the 5th gear bearing...as a whole. The INNER BEARING RACE has a LIGHT PRESS FIT. The INSIDE of this race (inexpensive part) AIN'T HAPPY...although this car was bone-stock with
105K miles on it.

What can become even UGLIER is the MAINSHAFT from this lil' sucker being VIBRATED-TO-DEATH! This mainshaft was still GREEN LIGHTED (good to use again) so it was used again.

Loctite GREEN bearing & shaft mount compound COULD be used IF the mainshaft was further damaged from PERPERTUAL IGNORANCE.

Psst..mainshaft ain't cheap!

Use the 5th gear roller bearing again...replace the inner race.

Btw...the 88/89 "upgrade" 5th gear....

Did you do that to keep your job at Mitsu?

I don't see that being an "UPGRADE".

Also...remember that 5th gear is an OVER-DRIVEN gear.

= Not for RACING use.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:05 pm

To FURTHER explain a SMALL BLOCK (SB) vs BIG BLOCK (BB) as in...2.0L vs 2.6L use of CLOSE RATIO vs WIDE RATIOS......I would need MORE PEOPLE HERE to LEARN.....what will FLY and what won't.

Most 4th gears are ONE-TO-ONE ratios on most manual trans. However...it's the first three gears that make a differance on what FLYS (makes you happy) and what don't.

Meaning...time to chime-in with a POPULAR VOTE or, once again, I be historyyyyyyy.

Closing notation: 3.90 ring & pinion are common on D-50s. Why? You've got a LOAD to get moving QUICKLY which is exactly WHY the fisrt three gear ratios come into play. 4.22s are also pretty common. NOW THINK!

Did a 4.22 use a close ratio....or...wide ratio trans? How bout....SB vs BB engines?

Bet your brain is going "hmmmmm, OPTIONS!"

One more:
I 4 DOWEL PIN the 1/2 Aluminum cover. No-way-in-hell the cover would be a weak-link, allowing the two shafts to walk-away from each other...the REASON you could explode an import trans.

And YOU thought it was from making to much hp/torgue!

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:44 pm

Just noticed...I'm listed as an "addict" now?

I gather that's a promotion?

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:02 pm

love the pan, i think im going to make one for my tranny the good old km119

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:40 pm

Great info! And I defiantly plan on making/buying an upgraded pan since it seems the only people really breaking there trannys have left them stock.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:01 am

I make those Aluminum covers and have sold about a dozen of them.
$125.

It MIGHT fit a 119 too.

I'm a lil' GREEN when it comes what trans to use to run those 63/64 engines.

After all, LIFE...is an experiment, ain't it?

On the firewall...or on the radiator support they'll be a metal tag that defines the ENGINE...THE TRANS....THE DIFF.

What a DISCOVERY JOURNAY it would be...to come up with UNDERSTANDING what is a bolt-in, what requires some minor modifactions, and is just plain stupid.

Hydraulics-ta-cable.....cable-ta-hydraulics swaps, I thinking that would be pretty easy..bolt-in parts.

But...if you can AFFORD it, I love Bill's & DJ's trans-plans!!!

coltboostin · Post by **coltboostin** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:45 am

Professor Quest wrote:I make those Aluminum covers and have sold about a dozen of them.
$125. It MIGHT fit a 119 too.

I'm a lil' GREEN when it comes what trans to use to run those 63/64 engines.

After all, LIFE...is an experiment, ain't it?

On the firewall...or on the radiator support they'll be a metal tag that defines the ENGINE...THE TRANS....THE DIFF.

What a DISCOVERY JOURNAY it would be...to come up with UNDERSTANDING what is a bolt-in, what requires some minor modifactions, and is just plain stupid.

Hydraulics-ta-cable.....cable-ta-hydraulics swaps, I thinking that would be pretty easy..bolt-in parts.

But...if you can AFFORD it, I love Bill's & DJ's trans-plans!!!

I had a RX-7 trans in my car- and RX-7 no less. 600+whp later, I was not happy with that set up, so thats why Im in the market for something else.

The suspension of my car needs work, so I just want something that works for now. The d50 is a guarantee to do that.

By 119 trans, you mean narrow block 2.0? I could have sworn the Narrow 88 2.0 I saw in the yard was a 132. Also, the 2 wide blocks were DEFIANTLY 132's. What trans comes in the quest?

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:52 am

the km119 came in the hyundai pony and stellar up here mine was bolted to the 1.6 motor. it probably is the trany that came in the old colts that are abundant on these forums. it shares the same narrow block pattern as the 4g motors and the narrow km132 transmission although its a smaller version of the big guy. quicker gears in it and a shorter 5th gear.

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:56 am

i have the gear ratios in front of me
1st gear 3.215
2nd gear 2.000
3rd gear 1.310
4th gear 1.000
5th gear 0.833
reverse 3.667

the rear diff ratio in mine is 3.90

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:52 am

Hey...

I didn't even know there was/is a "narrow block & wide block" versions of these engines until I read that info here.

I also don't know what was ONLY shipped to the USA models vs other-than USA models.

It's nice to see those gear ratios...but what trans are you speaking off?

Btw, "locking-up a trans....." is USUALLY caused when it goes into TWO gears at once.

Like you put it into reverse...then sorta speed shifter into first gear...and with a lil' shifter wear (worn or broken fulcrum) it didn't LEAVE REVERSE IN-FULL (a differant RAIL ARM) and goes into first at the same time. PITA it is.

Is this a Canadian club?

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:40 am

Imagine this...if you can: You bought a car used, you don't know much about transmissions, all gears APPEARED to work fine.

But not having experience with the way a GOOD SHIFTER FEELS...you may have a failed part that is pretty common on a KM132, AND ANY MODEL THAT CAME FROM THE SAME MANUFACTOR OFF THOSE TRANS!

You need to un-bolt the shifter to remove the trans and you see this crap laying in there. Maybe you're installing a clucth? This is coverd in the clucth repair topic at the SOS Manual.

That brown crap is: The FULCRUM FELL APART and it still shifts OK, sorta, but it's LOOSE FEELING...

and you COULD end-up placing it into TWO GEARS AT ONCE.

Not a pretty picture!

And...according to Mitsu, you can't buy that part alone.

You buy an ENTIRE SHIFTER ASSEMBLY for about $150!

That COULD BE BS in another country.

Stedebani makes SHORT SHIFTERS ( and a few other companies) to replace one with a METAL FULCRUM for $99 to $150. That is covewred in a DIFFERANT SOS Chapter...btw.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:05 am

Let me back-up a lil':

See those ROLL-PINS in the shifter rails? If you READ the FSM it states:
"MAKE SURE YOU INDEX THEM CORRECTLY" Meaning...you turn those pins 90* and IT WILL COLLAPSE UNDER PRESSURE....making it SLOPPLY or FALLING OUT....

or even HALF-WAY out = you COULD end-up being in TWO GEARS AT ONCE!

= LOCKED-UP TRANS!

Btw...I THINK those are listed as a "N" part = YOU REPLACE THEM WHEN YOU REBUILD THE TRANS, according to the FSM.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:55 pm

This is all great info, but if I remember correctly, DJ (or someone else) stated that the KM failures were probably due to high RPM operation and not torque capacity. I'm sure those upgraded bearings would be helpful, but can it handle a 400+hp turbo 8k RPM engine?

Most of us will not likely be abusing our cars, but a good launch on sticky tires with good power could put an end to our fun with a weak transmission.

Anyone have a positive experience with putting down good power in a hard launch situation? This seems like a viable option for our projects, but not if we're swapping them out every month.

turbostellar · Post by **turbostellar** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:23 pm

turbostellar wrote:i have the gear ratios in front of me
1st gear 3.215
2nd gear 2.000
3rd gear 1.310
4th gear 1.000
5th gear 0.833
reverse 3.667

the rear diff ratio in mine is 3.90

these ratios are for the km119 mr quest

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:00 pm

Otis, the former owner of "Midwest Turbos", I've spoken to him several times. Bright, knowlegdable guy.

Owned a 87 DRAG CAR ONLY....beat that crap outta a 87 KM132 WITH ZERO DESTRUCTIONS.

We both ROAR with laughter when we read the....MIS-INTERPETATIONS.

Guys want MORE CLUTCH...and IGNORE the linkages.

Guys want MORE TRANSMISSIONS...and IGNORE the tolerances & housings.

It *IS* within your means to do some CORRECTIVE ACTION ....FIRST.

You know the term: "BLUEPRINT"....that don't just apply to your ENGINES!

It would be, one cold day in HELL before I would EVER install a PUCK-TYPE disc.

Life *WILL* go on with plenty of DD (destruction-destroyed) outta REFUSAL to UNDERSTAND the faults.

Watched the "fast & furious" again recently. Words like...."You didn't double-clutch.....blah blah blah". That is pure BS...a MOVIE LINE.

I loan-out a performance car...I heard you double-clutching....call 911, cause I'll send you to a hospital for being a BUTTHEAD!

Same as SIDE-STEPPING a clutch pedal. OUTRAGES....STUPID MOVES!

And...140mph in a PARKING LOT? Spinning-out the car saying "SHIT"?

What was he hopping for? 150mph?

He wanted plenty of N2O!
Maybe he should be TOWING a huge tank of N20!

And...most of you are gonna GO-BROKE trying to reach 400hp outta an engine THAT SMALL with ANY form of RELIABILITY & DURABILITY.

You know that ol' saying...."SPEED IS MONEY...WHAT DO *YOU* HAVE TO SPEND"?

Came across a new Evolution/Lancer MR yesterday at the Mitsu dealer.
$44K!

I'm sure it's very fast....but it looks like it weighs TOO DAMN MUCH.

Maybe I should test-drive it....roll that SLUG over...and buy the salvage to transplant the engine & computer into a Starquest?

I don't THINK it will be sold very soon.

Besides....that car ain't PRETTY in my book.

And..."you owe me a $10K performance car" Dominic said. He had already said the owner installed $10K in performance parts. Maybe he failed a MATH CLASS.

I'd hand him $10k and get the hell outta there.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:32 pm

Yes, F&F was complete BS. The "10 second car" was a 420A car. Check it again when they pop the hood.

I don't doubt the transmission can handle it, I just don't know anyone who has done it. Proven parts are what I'm looking for. That's why I have an R154. Lots of Supra guys running 400-600hp through them with little to no issues.

And 400hp out of the 4G63 is not expensive. Yes, it CAN get expensive and the old saying "Cheap, reliable, and fast. Pick 2." does hold true in most cases. You can make 400hp with an EVOIII 16G, open exhaust, intercooler pipes, fuel pump, AFPR and some fuel control. You can't get repeatable runs since you'll be over heating the turbo and intercooler and you'll be pushing tons of fuel pressure through stock 450cc injectors. You'll likely blow the head gasket and eventually the motor, but it can be done.

I'm running a stock 2G bottom end with a 1G head, MLS head gasket, ARP head studs and 660cc injectors. I won't have any doubt my car will put down near 400hp on the dyno and I'll only run 300hp on the street. All this in a car that weighs around 2200lbs. I'll never push the R154, but it's insurance.

Show me a car running a KM132 reliably and I'll definitely consider it. As will many others.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:15 pm

Just from what I've read, the Starion and truck transmissions are not the same. Yes, they are both KM132 units, but the gears and shafts are not the same. Not to say that this is a determining factor, but we are talking about the truck transmission as far as this swap is concerned aren't we?

If we're talking about the Starioin KM132, then I don't doubt it's power handling ability. I am under the impression this discussion came about to source transmissions for the narrow block builds.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:19 pm

For what we ALL need to agree on is:

1. All the YEARS that "CLUBS" have exsisted, few members were/are IN-THE-FIELD-PROFESSINALS!

2. Long-time "members" have OTHER professional duties that might be GREAT at THAT profession but lack the EXPERIENCE about FULL TIME RACING HEADACHES.

3. Movies & magazines = 99% BS.

4. "Club" info = 80% misguided (too many noobs that talk to each other) and an ADULT ask a question, not knowing WHOM answerd the question.

My heart goes out to EVERYBODY that wants to learn from the school of
"HARD KNOCKS"....but that is THEIR CHOICE.

A SOHC 2.0L engine? I had NO IDEA that is an engine you want it to go fast. Not me, sorry.

I got the idea you guys want a DOHC 2.0L to tweek-up a lil' more RPM ability. Cool, understood. But, 8,000 rpm is more of a RACE ENGINE ONLY RPM and don't even LIKE street driving it.

Running-up to 8k works...but she is not reliable & still PULLING at 8k. That green Eclipse NEVER hit 8k....btw.

And...F&F2, the driver of the silver Skyline BOUGHT that car.

Wasn't that a 6 cylinder engine?

How's that go?...."There is NO replacement....for DISPLACEMENT!" That rings to be pretty much the TRUTH.

And...

I stopped using 10lbs bottle of N20. I build my own bottles from 20lbs C20 bottles, cause the second I get TRACTION....N2O ENGAGED! But I RARELY needed it. (dat shit is HARD on an engine!

)

That was 30 years ago when Marvin Miller would plumb my intake manifolds.
Is he still alive?

Again...you WILL blame the KM132 because you lack the experience and KNOW-HOW to freshen-it-up.

I don't NEED their thoughts cause you guys would just replace a damaged trans with ANOTHER USED TRANS.

Yep...we call each other "gear-heads".....BUT YOU'RE NOT REALLY!

And DYNO NUMBERS make me laugh.

What's the problem? You BLITZ to WFO...then shut-it down? THAT AIN'T RACING! Hang at 7,000 RPM for 2 minutes!! That is the BEGINNING.

Anywho....you know the FAULTS of those import trans.

BLUEPRINT IT!

Can you ANSWER ONE QUESTION? What country does this site come from?

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:09 am

We live in America and this site is based in the USA.

We're getting a little off topic here, but you bring up some good stuff.

Yes, there is no replacement for displacement, but the RB26DETT in the movie is only 2.6L. You can rev the crap out of those things too. The 4G63 can rev to about 7500rpm on stock cams and springs. It won't make much power up there, but you can do it. And running some bigger cams and stiffer springs has been done all the time on street driven/daily driven DSMs for years without much driveability issues. You'd be surprised what you get used to driving despite any annoyances there may be. (272 cams are lumpy)

I don't claim to be an expert at all. Let's make that clear. I have some first hand knowledge, some things I've picked up from proven members and somethings I've just read from unknown sources. I am assuming Professor Quest is somewhat of an expert on this subject, so I feel his input is valuable. If you say the KM132 can handle the power after a good blueprinted rebuild, then I trust you. Now we just need someone to verify this info on a 4G63 DOHC Turbo motor.

And no, dyno numbers don't mean much. But they are one of the only measuring tools we have. It gets really expensive to go racing, so a race car with a well built 4G63 and a KM132 will likely be hard to come by at this point. Especially since it won't likely fit into any class.

Anyway, if anyone is willing to build a KM132 (it will bolt up pretty easily) and stick it behind your 4G63, please do. I'd love to see one in action. Hell, I'd like to see my Datsun move under it's own power too.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:21 pm

Thank you for one answerd question.

We know the KM132 bolted-up to a G54B, and I gather you call that a "wide block"? (new terms to me cause I'm only somewhat of an "expert" of what goes on INSIDE the housing) And it APPEARS the KM132 was replaced (in 88/89) with a KM132-N trans. The "production change" was sent to me years ago and speaks & diagrams of the "reinforced" parts. Maybe you'd like to see them?

Next question directed to the USA models only:

What RWD trans number came behind a DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder, 2.0L engine...and what type of vehicle was it used in?

89coltgt · Post by **89coltgt** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:41 pm

There was not any dohc 2.0l rwd verhicles produced or sold here in the US.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:54 pm

As far as I know, there was never a DOHC RWD application in the USA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

According to Drivetrain.com, there were only 2 Mitsubishi vehicles to carry the KM132. The Starion and Mighty Max. There were RWD applications for the Montero with the KM145. The 2.3L Turbo Diesel MM is also listed as having a KM132.

However, there are several similar transmissions listed as having the same rebuild kits. I don't know the differences between any of these transmissions, so I can't comment on whether they are compatible with each other or the 4G63 block.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:13 pm

Thank you! I gather the 2.0L D-50 engines were SOHC ONLY?

Question,

Is the D-50 2.0L a "wide block" or a "narrow block".....TRANS PATTERN?

And....btw, it makes PERFECT SENSE that a "rebuild kit" would fit SEVERAL transmissions.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:50 pm

Yes, both the Mighty Max and D50 were SOHC engines. They also came in both wide and narrow block configurations. The KM132 can be found behind both the 2.0L and 2.4L engines for sure. I don't know if the other engines (2.6L, Diesel etc.) have a compatible bellhousing bolt pattern.

Can anyone else confirm this? The 2.6L and Turbo Diesel are listed as having a KM132 as a transmission option on the 2WD configuration.

citrus3000psi · Post by **citrus3000psi** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:20 pm

All 2.0 were narrowblocks. Anything else is a wideblock.

89coltgt · Post by **89coltgt** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm

citrus3000psi wrote:All 2.0 were narrowblocks. Anything else is a wideblock.

They made some wideblock g63b(2.0) engines, they also made narrowblock 2.4 engines, they were not installed in a rwd from the factory.

citrus3000psi · Post by **citrus3000psi** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:58 pm

89coltgt wrote:
citrus3000psi wrote:All 2.0 were narrowblocks. Anything else is a wideblock.
They made some wideblock g63b(2.0) engines, they also made narrowblock 2.4 engines, they were not installed in a rwd from the factory.

sorry to post up wrong information, i thought we were referring to 4g motors.

89coltgt · Post by **89coltgt** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:14 pm

citrus3000psi wrote:
89coltgt wrote:
citrus3000psi wrote:All 2.0 were narrowblocks. Anything else is a wideblock.
They made some wideblock g63b(2.0) engines, they also made narrowblock 2.4 engines, they were not installed in a rwd from the factory.
sorry to post up wrong information, i thought we were referring to 4g motors.

The g63b is simply an earlier 4g63

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:49 pm

Easy as it is...to be confused while speaking of these trans.

KNOWN bellhousing differance:

1. Cable operated clutch vs hydraulic clutchs

2. Width of the mounting bolt holes

3. what else?

I believe we are scheduled to appear at two Canadian Indy Pro race tracks this season.

Is there something that I should now about Canadian models transmissions?

With two 18 wheelers coming along...we might have the room to bring some back to the USA.

Btw...DIESELS ARE TORQUE MONSTERS!! You BET those would have KM132s!
However, the gear ratios MIGHT not be what you would want. (that COULD be changed

)

And...what about the BOLT PATTERN?

I would DESIRE the DOHC 2.0L FACTORY Turbocharged, ECU & harness....and the RWD transmission HOUSING that bolts-up to that engine.

Is that the 4G63 engine?

89coltgt · Post by **89coltgt** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:09 am

Yes, the 4g63t is it. The starion km132 and the truck km132 have more differences, read about it here: http://www.projectzerog.com/transmissions.shtml

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:44 pm

The Turbo Diesel is listed as having a KM132-E from 1983-85. However, it also shares the same rebuild part number as the KM145 and KM132-9. All of this was found on Drivetrain.com and may not be 100% correct. Especially coming from only one source. I would imagine that some parts may be interchangeable though.

For some reason the 2WD 2.4L is listed as having a R5M21 transmission. But it shares the same rebuild part number as the KM145 and Starion KM132 from 85-87. I know members on here have reported it having a KM132. Is this a misprint on the Drivetrain site or have we been mistaken while rummaging through the junk yards?

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:10 pm

WOW!

That link was GREAT TRANS info, 89coltgt!!

However...I was cruising the "Super-U-pull-it" today.

Came across a nice WRECKED Might Max truck and the engine metal tag said "4G63" and it was a SOHC engine. (valve cover was loose) Auto trans.
Looks OEM engine!

I'm obviously lost in understanding this. Do you have a link that explains this?

SOME/MOST...of the early Eclipse (early 90s) had a SOHC engines.

I come across a 93 AWD (DSM?) that had a DOHC (engine was hacked, drivetrain missing), then I found a 94 with a SOHC! I'm thinking....WTF?

And that PLASTIC ID plate is pretty hard to read...like it's sunshine bleached it.

It's apparent when it has a DOHC head....but I can't tell what engine that is.

What YEAR/MAKE/MODEL should I be *ENGINE* hunting?

Btw...anybody that talks trash about KM-132s has NEVER freshend it up.... FIRST! How many guys have invested enough to make a G54B produce 400+ HP? Don't answer....I could count them on ONE HAND.

hschwartz3 · Post by **hschwartz3** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:00 am

DJ has a list of engines/donor vehicles listed at http://projectzerog.com/mitsubishi_engines.shtml.

I also use the http://car-part.com/ search feature to make since of the list above. The list is primarily made of Mitsubishi vehicles so the USA production dates didn't always coincide with the foriegn production dates.

If your looking to use the KM132 trans from the starion then you should be looking for a 2.0 wideblock engine most commonly found in a 1987-1989 D50/MM pickup with an automatic transmission. The manual transmission trucks with a 2.0 were narrow blocks. If using the car-part search feature you can see there are two different designations for the 2.0L engine throughout 87-89. Dj's list suggests the earlier 1985-1986 D50/MM with the 2.0L are narrow block engines.

If your looking to use a factory turbocharged 2.0L engine (narrow block) in your starion then you should be looking ,most commonly, for a the 1987-1989 D50/MM manual trans trucks or a 1985-1986 D50/MM with a 2.0L engine.

This is not, by any means, a complete list and only applies to USA vehicles. The above generalizations are merely an effort to help PQ understand this complex topic.

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:13 am

Soooo we have two different 4G63s out there. SOHC & DOHC.

The question still remains: What year/make/model is gonna have a DOHC set-up?

Did it NEED to be a AWD DSM?

And...would the block/crank/rods/mounting points be the same in BOTH 4G63 engines?

edit: we were typing at the same moment, i now see that link.

Let me say this again: I am looking for a DOHC 4G63 engine....ONLY.
I have ZERO interest falling-back to 2.0L SOHC engines.