[Bazooka]

Been looking around the site and seen some interesting engine swaps. One thing that seems to be missing is anyone slotting in the 2.4 Vitara motor.

Is there a reason ...maybe none around or are they a crap motor (I have a GV3 and LOOOVe the motor). A 2.4 in a sierra I thought would be awesome.

Just curious.

[PJ.zook]

I would imagine it may be be because they are expensive and/or hard to get hold of?

[sambo91]

and a bit heavy for a sierra i would think.

[Rusho]

And engineering....capacity is to big

[tanshi]

Rusho wrote:

And engineering....capacity is to big

Its soley because you cant get the motors cheap enough. the swap wouldnt be very different from the 2.0 j20.

2.4 is also in the legal bounds of what you can swap into a sierra as long as you do safety upgrades aswell.

[SuziBlu]

tanshi wrote:

Rusho wrote:

And engineering....capacity is to big

Its soley because you cant get the motors cheap enough. the swap wouldnt be very different from the 2.0 j20.

2.4 is also in the legal bounds of what you can swap into a sierra as long as you do safety upgrades aswell.

People put in the 3.8l V6, so anything is do-able legally.

Id say the 2.4l is a cost excersize.

[Gwagensteve]

I would have also though the electronics would be a fair bit harder - There are lots more inputs to the ECU (potentially things like fuel tank pressure, for example) that have to be dealt with to avoid trouble codes.

Obviously, a swap like this would have to be engineered, if for no other reason than the investment in the swap, and you can't get a cert if the car is throwing codes.

Considering the age of sierras, it's one of the reasons that a 3RZ from the mid to late 90's makes more sense - less ECU complexity to deal with.

Just my 2C.

Steve.

[Rusho]

SuziBlu wrote:

People put in the 3.8l V6, so anything is do-able legally.

Id say the 2.4l is a cost excersize.

3.8l in QLD would be no hope of certification

[steak_knife]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I would have also though the electronics would be a fair bit harder - There are lots more inputs to the ECU (potentially things like fuel tank pressure, for example) that have to be dealt with to avoid trouble codes.

Obviously, a swap like this would have to be engineered, if for no other reason than the investment in the swap, and you can't get a cert if the car is throwing codes.

Considering the age of sierras, it's one of the reasons that a 3RZ from the mid to late 90's makes more sense - less ECU complexity to deal with.

Just my 2C.

Steve.

CAN BUS
Didn't think they pressurized the tank tho....

[tanshi]

Rusho wrote:

SuziBlu wrote:

People put in the 3.8l V6, so anything is do-able legally.

Id say the 2.4l is a cost excersize.

3.8l in QLD would be no hope of certification

Nope, in QLD highest you can go is 2.7. which means H27a

[Fatzook]

PJ.zook wrote:

I would imagine it may be be because they are expensive and/or hard to get hold of?

Exactly. When you find one in a wreck its $4-6K exchange.

[steak_knife]

Fatzook wrote:

PJ.zook wrote:

I would imagine it may be be because they are expensive and/or hard to get hold of?

Exactly. When you find one in a wreck its $4-6K exchange.

What about g/box????

Gv one's are no good for a sierra as the bell housing's stupidly long, would near have the transfer at the rear diff...

[Fatzook]

Surely you could use the J20 box?

[steak_knife]

Fatzook wrote:

Surely you could use the J20 box?

Nope!!!!!!!!!

[Fatzook]

steak_knife wrote:

Fatzook wrote:

Surely you could use the J20 box?

Nope!!!!!!!!!

Adapter?

[Gwagensteve]

steak_knife wrote:

CAN BUS
Didn't think they pressurized the tank tho....

They don't pressurise the tank, but I am aware that tank pressure(/vacuum) is monitored, I assume as part of the charcoal canister function.

I guess my point is that trying to EFI convert a CAN BUS wired engine into a sierra is going to be miles beyond the EFI swaps that have been done to date.

Steve.

[steak_knife]

Gwagensteve wrote:

They don't pressurise the tank, but I am aware that tank pressure(/vacuum) is monitored, I assume as part of the charcoal canister function.


Steve.

Please explain???

[Gwagensteve]

I have no idea, but I have seen US swap writeups where tank monitoring was part of the ECU function and it's required to be carried over.

I assume if the tank pressure/vacuum changes significantly during operation it indicates a huge vapour leak, which would be an emissions fail.

Steve.

[steak_knife]

US....

The tank does do stupid thing's being a split tank, it will pump from one side to the other & if after filling up if it get's a speed signal with in 2 sec, will take up to 5hr's to read full.
But as for vapor loss, I have never seen anything to confirm that it's monitored in AU.
But they do love throwing code's.........

[Gwagensteve]

I reckon that emissions standards are converging on the same point - I wouldn't be surprised if what was on a US car was also required in enough other markets now to make it universal.

Steve.

[steak_knife]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I reckon that emissions standards are converging on the same point - I wouldn't be surprised if what was on a US car was also required in enough other markets now to make it universal.

Steve.

You are kidding aren't you???

there is a purge control, maybe that's what they are on about, but that's more venting, not monitoring vapor loss.

[zukenutter]

I drove a Sierra with a 2.4 Nissan around an empty carpark one night a lifetime ago. Was a hoot, back tyres had no chance of hanging on.

[MrRocky]

2.4 ecu controls everything, t-case, stability control ect...
aftermarket ecu and g/box adaptor would be the only way.
awsome engine though, i love mine

[steak_knife]

Ummm, Ok....

[Fatzook]

MrRocky wrote:

2.4 ecu controls everything, t-case, stability control ect...
aftermarket ecu and g/box adaptor would be the only way.
awsome engine though, i love mine

Doesn't the new GV and Kizashi have a BCM for that? ECU isstill seperate no?

[steak_knife]

Fatzook wrote:

MrRocky wrote:

2.4 ecu controls everything, t-case, stability control ect...
aftermarket ecu and g/box adaptor would be the only way.
awsome engine though, i love mine

Doesn't the new GV and Kizashi have a BCM for that? ECU isstill seperate no?

yes....

[Gwagensteve]

BCM or not - how do you deal with this:

MrRocky wrote:

2.4 ecu controls everything, t-case, stability control ect...
aftermarket ecu and g/box adaptor would be the only way.

Steve.

[royce]

even the g16b in California mode has some real strange emission stuff going by universal diagrams, map and air temp sensors, egr sensors that go to limp mode if the egr isnt doing what it should, all sorts of weirdness

[Rhinoman]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I reckon that emissions standards are converging on the same point - I wouldn't be surprised if what was on a US car was also required in enough other markets now to make it universal.

Steve.

Some of that stuff hasn't been made compulsory in Aus yet but its on its way, Aus is legislating Euro emissions norms but you're a bit behind us. As it stands its all expensive enough that the manufacturers drop it for markets where its not required.

The tank pressure is monitored on US vehicles to ensure that there isn't a leak in the canister system that would allow it to vent to atmosphere. A bad petrol/gas cap seal is a common failure.

[steak_knife]

Gwagensteve wrote:

BCM or not - how do you deal with this:

MrRocky wrote:

2.4 ecu controls everything, t-case, stability control ect...
aftermarket ecu and g/box adaptor would be the only way.

Steve.

By telling him to stop typing BS???????