So, what so bad about Mistusbishi 2.6

[89ARIES]

A lot of members on this board own the 2.6 Mistusbishi. I have even heard of several going to 300,000 miles. A lot of you hate this engine and some of you refuse to work on them. Yet, Mike Flanagan and Danny Porter work on them here. Also, they know of a good carburertor rebuilder that does a more long lasting, permanent fix for a fair price. I am actually kinda fascinated by this strange, alien engine. We also have members with the original 2.6s in excess of 140,000 still running strong. So, without too much bashing the motor or scaring the 2.6 owners, can someone give an objective list of pros and cons and a checklist listing the cheap way to avoid the pitfalls of this engine. Some people have had luck with them. Someone even said its the smoggy climate that makes them prone to isses. I hope this does not open a can of worms as I don't want to lose members with this engine. Some are newbys that just bought a 2.6 K car and have no idea what they are up against. Techs, please don't call them crap, even if they are. Just the facts.

[Silverbeard]

Never had a problem with my 2.6 and know that the carb should only be looked at by someone that knows it well.

Martin

[Butch]

Learn how to use a wrench and find out for yourself.

[Baron]

Never had a problem with mine, but I kept it serviced and only had it until about 77,000 miles before I traded, so it was only just broken in.

[RichG]

I'm not a technical guy, so can someone tell me what "isses" are, and whay 2.6's are prone to them?

[Chief]

The Chrysler Mitsubishi 2.6L Engine: The SOHC 8-valve 4G54 (also known as the G54B) displaces 2.6 L (2555 cc), with bore x stroke at 91.1 mm x 98.0 mm. Some had heads with additional jet valves to improve emissions. It was designed for longitudinal use in rear-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles. It was equipped with a Hitachi 2-barrel carburetor with a vacuum-operated progressive secondary, except for the turbocharged version and a version used in Australian Mitsubishi Magnas, which used fuel injection. This engine was also used on Chrysler's front-wheel drive K-cars and their derivatives from 1981 until 1987, when it was replaced by Chrysler's 2.5 L engine. This engine was commonly paired with Chrysler's A470 3-speed automatic transmission on Chrysler vehicles.

The 2.6 engines were basically good engines, except for the carb problems, and that could cost you around $400 plus installation; its a computer controlled unit. Do not look to put a used unit on it unless its been rebuilt by a professional who knows what the hell he's doing.

I also found this on a AERA Technical Bulletin:

BURNED JET VALVES On Chrysler (Mitsubishi) 2.6L Engines

The AERA Technical Committee offers the following consideration for Chrysler 2.6L engines with repeated jet valve burning problems. This problem is most prevalent with engines that utilize hydraulic lash compensators (HLC). Reported failures have usually been shortly after cylinder head installation or compensators replacement.

Unless the jet valves are readjusted after the engine has reached operating temperature, improper clearances will result. The correct lash adjustment of .010 (.254mm) can only be achieved of the HLC plunger is in its operating location. If the jet valve is adjusted before that point, or on the bench, operating oil pressure will change the previous clearance. Insufficient clearance may hold the jet valve off the seat and eventually burn it.

The AERA Technical Committee

[89ARIES]

Thanks Chief. I hear professional technicians calling this engine junk. My guess is the word "junk' really just means quirky, harder to maintain, and needs some tweaking
to keep it going. It must also mean that failing to do some certain essentials means the engine should fail down the line. I have a Staff Sargeant who is complaining that his 3.0 Mistusbushi motor just starting smoking in his 1992 Chrysler LeBaron at 77,000 miles. All it might need is a minor adjustment. So, I guess in my opinion, the engines in order
of easiest to maintain to hardest to maintain would be:

Chrysler 2.5
Chrysler 2.2
Chrysler 2.2 Turbo
Chrysler 2.2
Chrysler 2.6

Also, KCARMAN88 says that 2.5 Chrysler motors are prone to oil pressure failure, compared to 2.2. I also truly wonder how many do-it-yourself mechanics can handle
the massive amounts of vacuum hoses and wires found on 2.6.

[Butch]

Also, KCARMAN88 says that 2.5 Chrysler motors are prone to oil pressure failure, compared to 2.2.

That guy is full of shit. Way to many lame people post here and you listen to them ? Have you had oil pres. problem ? Both engines use the same Melling oil pump for crying out loud.

[Butch]

The Chrysler Mitsubishi 2.6L Engine: The SOHC 8-valve 4G54 (also known as the G54B) displaces 2.6 L (2555 cc), with bore x stroke at 91.1 mm x 98.0 mm. Some had heads with additional jet valves to improve emissions. It was designed for longitudinal use in rear-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles. It was equipped with a Hitachi 2-barrel carburetor with a vacuum-operated progressive secondary, except for the turbocharged version and a version used in Australian Mitsubishi Magnas, which used fuel injection. This engine was also used on Chrysler's front-wheel drive K-cars and their derivatives from 1981 until 1987, when it was replaced by Chrysler's 2.5 L engine. This engine was commonly paired with Chrysler's A470 3-speed automatic transmission on Chrysler vehicles.

The 2.6 engines were basically good engines, except for the carb problems, and that could cost you around $400 plus installation; its a computer controlled unit. Do not look to put a used unit on it unless its been rebuilt by a professional who knows what the hell he's doing.

I also found this on a AERA Technical Bulletin:

BURNED JET VALVES On Chrysler (Mitsubishi) 2.6L Engines

The AERA Technical Committee offers the following consideration for Chrysler 2.6L engines with repeated jet valve burning problems. This problem is most prevalent with engines that utilize hydraulic lash compensators (HLC). Reported failures have usually been shortly after cylinder head installation or compensators replacement.

Unless the jet valves are readjusted after the engine has reached operating temperature, improper clearances will result. The correct lash adjustment of .010 (.254mm) can only be achieved of the HLC plunger is in its operating location. If the jet valve is adjusted before that point, or on the bench, operating oil pressure will change the previous clearance. Insufficient clearance may hold the jet valve off the seat and eventually burn it.

The AERA Technical Committee

This POS eng. was also used due to a storage of the 2.2's It's still Anti American but Chrysler owned a chuck of mitsu B i S hi. The eng. had PLASTIC timing chain tensioners, how fucking lame is that ?

[89ARIES]

Plastic? Wow. I am no mechanic, so I can't help what I hear. I just scrutinize everything as I really am in the dark. Also, what this I heard about heads and jet valves cracking on the 2.6? Was it almost always inevitable?