Will 88 4G63 2.0 L bolt in place of my 4G64

Will 88 4G63 2.0 L bolt in place of my 4G64 inmy truck?

The 2.0L is out.. it is a manual engine from an 88 ram 50.

My tired 2.4L is in my 91 Ram 50truck with and automatic.

I'm thinking of rebuilding the 2.0 then swap in place of the 2.4 so I have little downtime.

Question.... will the 2.0 bolt to my auto bellhousing and will the flexplate or converter bolt to the 2.0L?

I wash thinking of just swapping the head from the 2.0 L to the 2.4 after a good valve job and plaining... but maybe I should put the wholes motor in.

My FI should bolt to the 2.0 L head without any issues.

I'm thinking about running without the balance shafts also..

Opinions? and........ go...

FI I can not say but if it does it will not run correctly. The FI in your truck and is calibrated for the larger engine.

As for swapping the engines, as long as both the 2.0 and 2.4 are of the same wide/narrow block option everything should bolt up no issues.

the head swap option should be doable, the only thing I am not sure on is whether or not the the 2.0L head will cause a too high compression ratio.

If anyone has a 2.4 head they could CC that would be great, I will be pulling the head in the next few weeks for a valve job so I can cc that head and see what the difference would be.

i have put a 2.0 head on i 2.4 the only thing i had to do is put a plate on the hole for the fuel pump everything else worked just fine

Did you notice any performance improvements do to the smaller combustion chamber? I heard the camshaft is slightly more agressive.

The cam is ground differently as they needed to maximise torque for the smaller displacement 2.0. The combustion chambers are definitely smaller as well (the different head gaskets confirm that) With a bit of time spent on ignition tuning and running it on premium gas, there should be a noticeable improvement in all round performance after the swap :grin:

That brings up a good point... so I have to order a head gasket for the 2.0. Did you have ping on regular gas?

First up - I haven't done this. Secondly, I would take an educated guess and say no to using a 2.0 head gasket on the 2.4 Reason being is you will end up with gasket overhang into the combustion chamber. This could do a number of bad things. The piston could say hi to the gasket (gotta damage something somewhere like the piston crown or possibly a bottom end bearing. Alternatively it could promote hot spotting around the edge of the gasket (detonation and misfiring = not good) Also it may not adequately seal the combustion chamber (instant blow pass from the combustion chamber around the gasket and it might as well be toast)

True.. I should have thought of that before typing..

^^^
?What?
Humble apologies, can1991ram see post #4 :).

And the difference between the 2.0 & 2.4 bore is...
.063 or 1.6 mm (metric) divided by 2 !!!
.8 metric or (GASP) .032 .

Please do correct Me geezer

billtv is getting away with it, but it depends on whether or not he is using the original 2.4 gasket or decided to jump in with a 2.0 head gasket. His swap was successful and he's made gains as a result, so you know that from his efforts it's a viable option. It's only an opinion, but I'd use the 2.4 gasket to avoid possible problems after assembly.

The main reason for the swap is that the 2.4 head is really tired. The engine have 250 000 KM on it and needs valve seals.. and I can only imagine a good valve job, guides and springs.

I might as well prep the 2.0 head so it can be a weekend swap.

Of course while I'm prepping the head I "might" go in and clean up the ports and combustion chamber along with the rest of the prep work.

^a good idea. If you go ahead, take some pictures while you're buzzing away on the ports and chambers and post them up. I spent 40 hours on the original head I was going to use but a good running drivetrain came up for grabs. I have a nice head waiting for a complete top end swap the day I need to work on the donor engine :rolleyes:

Well.... I have the 2.0 litre head home now. A little disappointed with the combustion chamber and the 'interesting' way they are reburning the exhaust gas directly into the combustion chamber

The question is.... what is the best way to plug it?

I'm looking at possible tapping the holes from the exhaust manifold and plugging that as well as plugging the hole down from the rockers.

If I had the money.. tig welding up the combustion chamber to close that hole would certainly be the best way to address this and be able to make the chamber nice and clean.. and round.

I will measure the gross lift on the cam to see if is much more aggressive than the stock cam.

Also..... should I tap and plug the hole coming from the factory fuel pump rod to the cam?

Unless there is a difference in duration, the lift on the cam if no different between the 91 2.4 litre and 2 litre engine. Duration on the 91 engine is 264 degrees as per the manual

The cam I have has a 42.41mm intake lift and 42.39mm exhaust lift average which show a little wear.

I did an EGR delete on my G63B head by tapping a thread into the exit side of the exhaust gas port (under intake manifold) and installing a big hex key grub screw to cap it off. Admittedly my delete is different as I have also completely cut through and ground off the gas gallery around the stock carb manifold plenum and most of the EGR solenoid mount. The head is an all mechanical rocker assembly type with manual adjusters so I didn't have to deal with a jet valve delete.

I did notice that the underside of the factory intake have a tig welded plate. Not sure if that was a factory modification because it wasn't needed in the intake anymore due to the Jet Valve in the head?

I'm thinking if I tape at the exhaust port and run a bolt in place of the Jet Valve that might work....

It just looks so ugly in that combustion chamber.

Tig welding it would mean heating the head and welding.

I could dramatically make the chamber smaller by filling in the holes from the jet valve in the combustion chamber.

One of the problems with jet valves is the valve assembly themselves failing, the other is the head cracking in the combustion chamber from the jet valve to the nearest other hole in the head (spark plug/intake valve seat etc) It is a big hole to weld up but it will reinforce the top of the combustion chamber and, as you've pointed out, raise the compression ratio a bit. There are delete kits but it still leaves you with the potential head cracking problem.

I suppose the next question would be to leave the valve in place and swap to the 2.4 rockers that don't have the provisions for the jet valve. I was going to swap the rockers from the but worried about how the 2.0 litre rockers are worn in unison to the camshaft

I suppose I could swap the cam and rockers from the 2.4 and have a matching set, left the jet valves in place and just plug the holes from the exhaust manifold to the jet valve to keep exhaust out of the head ( which would make them a BIT cooler.... I'm assuming they are defaulted to the closed (seated position)???

The jet valves will seal shut without the rocker arm assemblies hitting them (some people just lop them off with a grinder) I don't know if the rockers are the same between the 2.0 and 2.4 as far as rocker ratios are concerned. I wonder if the 2.0 cam also contributed to making power...

It looks like they have the same lift.. so the duration would have to be the difference..... or the rocker ratio was different between the 2.o and 2.4.

BTW I did get a free Eaton blower off a V6 Bonneville.... That would help the power of my engine...LOL

Hmmm,
Been about 200 thousand miles since I replaced the head gasket on 'Mule' (my 88 g63b)
I could swear there were iron inserts/sleeves pressed into the head for jet valve service...

May I impose for the head casting #

Where could I find that on this head? Is it just me.. or is there a sleeve pressed into the exhaust port to make them smaller?

I'll see what I can find for numbers on the Head.

Anyone know is there is a difference in the 1988 Dizzy or are they both the same as in optical hall effect. I grabbed it anyways.. and it does have vaccum advance that would need to be locked out for the Holley system.

I would love to see about changing it to a standard style reluctor, pick up style if I go with this blower and a Holley Sniper EFI

Some austarion members ran 2.4 sohc head on their 2.0. They say 2.4 chamber ~76cc. 2.0 chamber ~55cc

could b a royal pita rigging up the eaton blower to the sohc... v-belt and all
Here is an excellent custom install on a 2.4 dohc nissan 240sx. End result strong tq, looked like factory. Not ez tho.
http://www.ka-t.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=45663


seem like a long & expensive path to power vs turbocharging the stock truck 2.4 sohc... as some austarion members have
buy a new non jet 2.4 head, whever u get around to it ? 2.0 starion turbo manifold is a bolt-on + u.s. starion turbo & downpipe
I'd either run megasquirt or DSM electronics. Both compatable with 2.4 distributor. I'd forget that Holley sniper crap too