2.6 is better than 2.2

Moderators: 89ARIES, Webmaster

2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby foamermetal » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:24 am

I knew that subject line would get some attention.I don't undestand. People blast the 2.6, I modify a carb to take the place of the Mikuni that noone wants to touch and I get 2 replys. I even posted pictures. I hardly ever see any pictures of anything here. We can have 40 something replys to a car having scary problems though. Whats the deal.
foamermetal
Car Fan
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:47 pm
Location: Warner Robins, Ga.
Car Information: 1982 lebaron medallion mark cross convertible

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby dodgeariesguy » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:56 pm

I think you did a wonderful job converting to the Holley, I really think that what you've done could solve alot of problem's people have with their Mikuni, you solved the main problem with the 2.6 so I would like to thank you on behalf of the club for showing how this common problem can be solved with some inginuity.
Presenting the K-Car: THE KING OF ECONOMY CARS, LUXURY CARS, AND CONVERTIBLES!
Image
User avatar
dodgeariesguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 12:58 pm
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Car Information: 1987 Dodge Aries LE 2.5, 1986 Dodge Aries SE 2.2

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby Silverbeard » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:20 pm

I have defended the 2.6 many times as I have never had a problem with mine. It has a couple of quirks but it has been like that for the 22 years that I have had the car. The car is stored every year for the winter and come spring I put the battery back in, fire it up and listen for the same sounds I have always heard and think OK good to go for another season.
Love my LeBaron and the 2.6.
Martin
Image Image
Silverbeard
Car Fan
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:51 pm
Location: Barrie, On. Canada
Car Information: 82 LeBaron Convertible, Mark Cross Edition, 2.6 L

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby 88 aries » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:46 pm

good work on the carb, but still im not a lover of the Mr squishy engine. Id rather have mopar powered K-cars
88 aries
 

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby 88AriesLEwagon » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:33 pm

For some reason,the 2.6 Mitsu was a decent engine in Mitsu vehicles,but the FWD transition in Chrysler vehicles (in my experience) wasnt so rosy.Take a 78-83 Challenger/Sapporo,a Plymouth Fire Arrow,a Conquest turbo.....even a Dodge Raider/Mitsu Montero,and the 2.6 was a trusty plant.For some reason,the FWD K applications (and minivan) suffered carb issues,driveability problems,crankshaft failures (around 80K miles usually),and balance shaft chain slop that would wear holes in the timing cover.For years,balance shaft elimination kits were a hot item.Chrysler did not want to use the 2.6 at all,especially in its "all American K cars",but they had no choice,as their lack of funds at the time negated any development of the 2.2 (originally planned to be a 2.0)past its base output rating.They knew that a turbo 2.2 would come along eventually(it was in development in 1980/81),and an enlarged 2.2 "regular" engine to finally replace the 2.6.Plus the working relationship Chrysler had with Mitsubishi already in place was a natural for a source of a larger than 2.2 engine.
Generally I have no problem with Mitsubishi or their engines,
but their 2.6 was an engine in need of further development and polish.Why they never made substantial upgrades to it as far as carburetion (kick Mikuni off the planet in other words),those blasted balance shaft chains,and a seemingly flawed lower end oiling system is a mystery.The engine could have been a Honda/Toyota beater,and the template for future Chrysler engines,as it was,Chrysler ignored it,kicked it to the curb (went 2.5) and never looked back (except for a nod in the "silent shaft" department with the enlarged 2.5).Even the follow up Neon 2.0 was based around the 2.2 architecture...not any Mitsubishi engine.
88AriesLEwagon
 

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby Kabrio82 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:34 pm

I'm new and I have a 2.6...what exactly did you do to the Holly to make it work with the 2.6?
Kabrio82
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:18 pm
Car Information: 1982 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby foamermetal » Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:28 pm

As you can tell from the pics I got another mikuni carb at the yard to use as a template for the bottom adapter and the upper adapter came off of a latter model aries with a Weber two barrel carb. I cut the adapter out of some scrap aluminumm. with this setup be careful of he overall height. The carb can be found on 70s pinto, mustang, chevy vega,and monzas. I wanted to use the same breather so i took one off of the aris that had the weber carb, it has the same base as the Holley 5200 series. I also got another breather off of the mikuni and modified it to fit(one hold down bolt vs two with Holley). The linkage needs to be in the same locations as the mikuni and operate in the same movements if you need I can get some more pics. It seems to work really well. I used the wiring from the old mikuni to go the electric choke. three vacuum lines (1) to the vacuum advance (2) to the choke (3) to the thermal sensor in the breather that opens and closes the heated air door in the breather.
foamermetal
Car Fan
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:47 pm
Location: Warner Robins, Ga.
Car Information: 1982 lebaron medallion mark cross convertible

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby foamermetal » Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:25 am

Hey Kabrio82 I forgot to tell you that you can find the pictures in one of my other posts about the Holley 5200 carb swap
foamermetal
Car Fan
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:47 pm
Location: Warner Robins, Ga.
Car Information: 1982 lebaron medallion mark cross convertible

Re: 2.6 is better than 2.2

Postby 90plydance » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:45 am

my brother had a 2.6 mitsu in his minivan,what a nightmare,dealership left him high n dry on warranty/repair work....BUT i had a 2.6 RWD mitsu/dodge d-50,motor i pulled from a ply arrow,5 spd,strong as ever,no problems,even on propane.....VERY EXCELLENT gas mileage....no carb problems.....thats what held these motors back in the first place....over ten years on my 2.6 transplant,still running strong....truck is a 86,motor is a82....maybe some kind of difference between fwd to rwd......physically,yes...internally,no....?
90plydance
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:40 am
Car Information: 1990 plymouth sundance


Return to Mechanic's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests