Can a 4G61 1.6 be mated to a KM-132 Trany?

richb · Post by **richb** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:38 am

I'm new to this forum and I've got an odd little project for you all. More on that later. First the questions.

1 Can the 4G61 1.6 engine be paired up with the KM-132 transmission?
2 What HP can the 4G61 1.6 produce in it's non turbo form?
3 Is there a site where I can find the physical dimensions of this engine and transmission?

Now the project. I have a '76 MG Midget that is in need of a drivetrain swap. The late model Midget came with a weak 1500cc Triumph engine and 4 speed transmission. The main problem when trying to swap something into the Midget is the size of the transmission. The tail shaft housing and the drive shaft are enclosed in a fairly small tunnel. Most swaps requirer cutting a section out of the main frame cross member to get the trans to fit. I would like to avoid this. While checking out this site (Great job DJ) I noticed the KM-132. I think the KM-132 tranmission may have a small enough tailshaft housing be able to fit in the tunnel with out cutting it up. The next tight point is the engine bay it's self It is about 25 inches across between the wheel wells and has low hood clearance. I don't think the 4G63 engine will fit, but I think the 4G61 would and be quite an improvment houtse power wise.

Thanks for entertaining a question from a non DSM driver.
Rich

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:40 am

A 4G61 would be sweet in a spridget. Yes the engine will mate up to the KM132.
You may want to chase down the 132s little brother the KM119. This trans came behind the early K32 1.6 in the 70s and early 80s. It can be found in the Plymouth Arrow, 78 later Lancer based Colts and Hyundia Ponys as well as other cars.

The G61 is similar in size to the G63 but has a lower deck height. It is a robust overlooked engine. All of the cams from a G63 will go in there. If you do a nice build on one with mild cams and springs these little engines howl. 170+ is available.
For a first setup put a set of G63 turbo cams in to liven up a stock engine, should be in the 120 hp or so range. Valve spring will be the limit but it should rev to 8k easy.
You will be able to snap axles pretty easy if you are harsh to it.

You have plenty of room in the Midget for the engine and as you know the tunnel can be an issue. I had the early K1600 in a Midget back in the 70s,and have swapped the Datsun 1200, Mazda 12A rotary and Ford 1600s in these cars. I still own a Midget still but it is stored two states away otherwise I would test fit the larger trans for you.
I do have a 4G63 in a 57 Elva Courier and height is an issue. I have a rather shallow oilsump on it to keep the cam pulleys low.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:12 pm

Sounds like a nice little combination. Is the MG a cable clutch or hydraulic?

I know that Charlie already said it, but the 1.6L, 2.0L and 2.4L are externally the same size other than maybe 10mm of deck height.

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:58 pm

The MG is hydraulic so you need the Wilwood pull cylinder to adapt it.

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:37 pm

I could be wrong, but I think the 1.6L has a smaller head. (demensionally) The 63 cams will fit, but the smaller size will help in the tight engine bay. If you have "extra" room, you might just go with the 2.0L, but the 1.6L with some springs will really rev.

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:47 pm

The heads are quite similar and external dimensions are the same.. The intake ports are quite a bit smaller than G63. The combustion chambers are the same as are the exhaust ports.
Another head of interest is the 1.8 Hyundia, the combustion chamber is smaller giving a compression increase and the intake ports are closer to 2nd gen 63s. This is a nice head for NA applications.

richb · Post by **richb** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:55 pm

Thanks guys this is all great info. I love sites like this.

As a follow up to the blocks is the same statement. Will I run into both wide and narrow block 4G61's, and will the 4G61 have RWD motor mount bosses?

I talked with a friend yesterday that may be able to help me find the KM-119 transmission. Apparently he knows a guy who has been "collecting" Mopar stuff for years, including as he put it "the mini import mopars". We'll see.

If I end up being able to fit the KM-132 in the midget I would most likely go the D50 route due to the short tail shaft and shifter placement. I see that DJ had problems with bearings. Would I run into this with the 4G61 also? My goal in making this swap into the Midget is to get a nice smooth highway cruiser with some power. Pretty tame by your standards I'm sure.

Thanks again for the help.

Rich

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:32 pm

I do not know of any wideblocks in a 4G61, they were FWD only.
Mount bosses are there. 2.0 truck brackets should do.
You will not have any problems with either box when running behind a NA engine. The bearing failures are torque input from turbo engines. You will approach the limit of the 119 sooner but I run plenty of track time with the 119 and have not hurt anything.

richb · Post by **richb** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:39 pm

The MGB has a much larger engine bay and transmission tunnel than the Midget does. I don't currently have a 4G61, but here is my thinking. The main hurdle in swapping any drivetrain into the midget is the transmission tunnel. Most swaps involve cutting the main cross member out and fabricating a new one. The other tight points are the low slope of the hood and the location of the heater box and battery tray right between the engine and firewall. I live in Washington so a working heater/defroster is a must.
I have thought about the Toyota 4AGE combined with the T-50 transmission also, It would clear the heater shelf, but the cross member would still need to come out. The Mazda B6 or BP engine and RX7 model R gearbox combo with the B2600 tail shaft housing also looks like a possible option. It was investigating the Mazda option that I ran across this site and saw the KM-132 gearbox. I need to get some measurements still, but it looks like it might fit without cutting the cross member. Pairing it with the 4G61 seemed a good size option, but it sounds like the 4G63 is the same size just slightly taller. This could be a problem with the hood line.

Since I'm not looking for the obscene amounts of horse power some have been able to get out of the 4G63 and since the Midget only weighs 1850 pounds the 4G61 should provide a fun ride

As for the Midget, I grabbed this car for free from a local MG buff with one to many projects. It currently does not run and is need of plenty of work, but it is rust free. I'll see what I can find for a picture.

Rich

richb · Post by **richb** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:42 pm

Does anyone know if the 80 to 83 Plymouth Sapporo or Dodge Challengers used the KM-132 or the KM-119 transmission?

Rich

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:51 pm

The Sapporo is the third generation of Galant and is the chassis that the Starion was built on. It came with both the 1.6, god forbid and the 2.6. The 2.6 is a 132 for sure.
I do not seem to be able to find the specs for a 1.6 Sapporo so I can not give you a definitive answer. I think the 1.6 was only offered here a year or so.
The Plymouth Arrow 160 would be a sure bet as well as the Colt Coupe of 77-79 if it had a five speed. Many were the KM110 four speed.
The pickups were all 130/132 in the 2 wd.
The 132 in a Sapporo will be the large shaft with rear mount shifter.

richb · Post by **richb** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:49 pm

I have posted a request for measurments for the KM-132 (d50) and the KM-119 gearboxes on the measurment sticky if any one can help.

Thanks
Rich

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:42 pm

I'm considering the KM132 or KM119 for a locost Lotus 7 replica.

The 84-87 Hyundai Stellar had the required Ford Cortina suspension, but had a 4G32 with a KM119.

What gear ratios were in the KM119? I have the ratios for the KM132 (and the almost identical KM135 from the column-change L300 van) - only 1st and 2nd differ.

How much smaller and lighter is the KM119 than the KM132?

Do they have the same bellhousing bolt pattern? I'm heard all the 4G** blocks have the same bellhouising bolt pattern, but I've also heard the KM132 has different bellhousings for the narrow (2.0?) and wide (2.6?) blocks.

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:27 pm

The Hyundia Stellar would have had a G32 engine in it with the KM119 trans.
The Km 119 is slightly smaller and closer ratios than the KM132. I would need to set them next to each other to give a better description of size and weights, I would need to pull a box out a car to do so and will not get to that for awhile. Winter is here.
The 119 has a dual pattern, both narrow but the top bolts accommodate both the G3X and then the larger pattern the world describes as Narrow.
In a light car I prefer the 119.

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:06 pm

These are the ratios I have found after a fair bit of googling :-

Vehicle 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Starion/Galant Sigma 3.369 2.035 1.360 1.000 0.856
Lancer/Hyundai Stellar 3.215 2.000 1.316 1.000 0.833

So the KM119 has closer ratios than the KM132 (nearly as close as an MX5) - should make it the best choice.

Have also heard that the 6A12 200bhp 2-litre V6 from the FTO will also mate to the KM132 (supposedly the narrow block bolt pattern) - wonder if the KM119 would handle the torque with only 600kg to push?

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:31 am

The KM 119 will be at it's limit with a 6A12, whether above or below the limit I would not know, but weight does matter.
Now with bolting a 6A series engine up to a RWD gearbox, now we introduce the fact that there are at least four "narrow" pattern bellhousings. This uses a low mounted starter that is on the 4th gen narrow block engines. AKA the late EVOs and Galants.
What you will need to do is to weld in some mounting points for the starter down low on the gearbox.
The 6A engines use the small 7 bolt pattern flywheels such as the 4G93 engines. I think.

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:10 pm

Wow! Sounds like Mitsi engineers really like parts-bin tuning!

Wish Mazda did that - none of their stuff is interchangeable.

This is all starting to sound very promising.::twisted:

Total vehicle weight should be no more than 600kgs (1300lbs).

My shopping list would be :-
1) 6A** V6 (6A10 1.6 140hp or 6A12 170hp or 6A12 MIVEC 200hp)
2) KM119 gearbox (off 84-87 Hyundai Stellar with 4G32 1600)
3) bellhousing (modify for low-mount starter)
4) flywheel (lightest V6?)
5) clutch (V6 or rwd Lancer rally?)
6) starter motor (V6 or late Galant?)

Sounds like it could be a goer, using all factory parts.

Are the KM119 and KM132 bellhousings interchangeable? I'd be surprised if they were, but there's always hope!

richb · Post by **richb** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:46 am

The KM-119 and KM-132 both have an integrated bellhousing.
I think it's interesting that someone besides me wants to swap Mitsubishi gear into a British car.

Too anwser my own questions, I was able to head out to the wrecking yard this past weekend and take some measurements off a couple KM-132 gearboxes. The accuracy is to about 1/4", not great, but close enough to see if a swap into the MG Midget is possible.

Length over all --28"
Bellhousing to shifter center (d50) -- 26"
Bellhousing to shifter center (Starion) -- 29"
Bellhousing to mount -- 21.25"
Height at mount (W mount) -- 7.5"
Height at mount (W/O mount) -- 6.5"
Mount width (D50) -- 7"

It looks like this may workout. The transmission tunnel in the Midget is 7.75" wide at the crossmenber and 8.25" tall, so the tail of the KM-132 will fit. the bellhousing to mount length is about 2.5" longer than the MG, but they use an off center mount that extends rearward about that same distance so I'll need to look at that a little closer.

For any one out here in the Western Washington area there is an all Mitsubishi, Chrysler, Jeep wrecking yard North of Everett called Downtown Auto Wreaking. Lots of stuff and nice friendly people. I knew more from this website than they did about what could be swapped, but they didn't mind me poking around. This brings me to another point. It appears that the later models of the D50 came with the extended shifter housings like the Starions have. They had a couple of them out there.

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:52 pm

Somewhere I got these figures (in mm) for the KM132 :-

Length Width Height
730 230 220

Note sure if I was given the measurement in mm or inches, but they convert to :-

Length Width Height
28.7 9.1 8.7

Now, if I can find someone with a KM119 they can measure...

As an aside, it looks like the KM119 was used for engines up to 1600, and the KM132 for 2000 and over - don't know what was used for anything inbetween.

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:08 pm

I will get you some measurements from a KM119. I went to do it today but it was to bloody cold.
Here are a couple of pics of a 4G63 getting mated to a KM119.

And as far as swapping Japanese engines into British cars, well some feel it is sacrilege.
So I will get some pics of my 1959 Elva Courier that has this 4G63 sitting in it now.
We have a rather cold week coming up so it may take a bit to get some new photos taken.

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:14 pm

Thanks for the pics.

Know what you mean about the cold - it's only 23C and it's supposed to be summer down here!

Is that a standard 2 litre 4G63? How much power (I've seen 102bhp to 157bhp mentioned in various places)?

Old Colt · Post by **Old Colt** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:34 am

Hi Bryan,
We are going to have a high for the day of -15C. So the thought of 20C is nice to me.
I have heard that you are having a cool summer this year down there.

That engine is a basic G63 from an 89 Galant GS. I think the claimed power on these would be 135 hp. It would be the AMG version that was up at 157 hp, we never got them. The SOHC engine would bring up the low end of the power range.

locost_bryan · Post by **locost_bryan** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:14 pm

Coldest December in 50 years - so much for global warming!

lonestarion · Post by **lonestarion** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:30 am

dont forget a 2.0 that was nearly identical to the 2.6 was also offered.
minor differences in the valve cover was the way to indentify.
its been years but if i recall i think the pcv outlet was in a different location on the early SOHC 2.0. in the arrow cars, as for the challenger/sapporo i've only seen 2.6's in them.as for the trans, i have only seen these cars with automatics. probly get the tranny code from the austrailians.