18-06-2016, 10:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 18-06-2016, 10:37 AM by theGAMEisOVER.)
thanks for your reply , I also had thought about it but the BE3 box fails the engine 4HX
Thank you for your answer, really smart . But I really wanted to go for the full engine 4HX ( not RHX my mistake ) maybe have to cut a little bit a subframe .
Maybe is this what is indicated in the image?
(18-06-2016, 10:01 AM)Ruan Wrote: That's not an RHX, that's a 4HX... Anyway...
It's not a plug and play conversion... The blocks are quite different and the mounts don't line up at all.. As you've found you have to convert to hydraulic clutch, driveshafts won't fit.
You're best off losing not even 200cc of capacity and putting the 4HX 16v head onto a RHY/RHZ 2.0 8v bottom end... Swap out for a set of RHW/RHM/RHT (2.0 16v) pistons if you want definite compatability, although I reckon you might not need to change them, the valve reliefs only set the compression ratio and are only used if the belt slips... They're not required in normal operation, not to mention that the rockers are the weak link anyway, you can't bend valves.
That way all you do is use the 4HX 2.2 16v head, injectors, but you keep the 2.0 RHY/RHZ bottom end that fits the BE gearbox, ancillaries, cable clutch, driveshafts, stock engine mounts, stock driveshafts... Also you save a huge amount of weight and don't have the silly deep sump. The improvement in the 2.2 16v is from the head really.
RHY/RHZ 2.0 with 4HX head advantages :-
- Gearbox fits stock
- Ancillaries off 306 fit straight on
- Driveshafts fit
- Shorter sump
- Don't have to notch subframe
- Uses cable clutch
- Engine mounts fit directly
- Lighter
2.2 4HX advantages :-
- It's a 2.2
- 182cc extra displacement
Thank you for your answer, really smart . But I really wanted to go for the full engine 4HX ( not RHX my mistake ) maybe have to cut a little bit a subframe .
Maybe is this what is indicated in the image?