Four cylinder rwd engines.

This isn't totally a car question, but here goes. 

I'm involved with small pulling tractors, and there is a four cylinder class. 

Up to 1450 pound weight limit. 

3,000cc max four cylinder. 

Can be turbo. Alcohol or Gas for fuel. 

RWD or able to convert to RWD.

The most common engines are 22RE  and 2.3 Lima variants. 

The tractor in the picture has a 2.4l Nissan Turbo. This is the only one i've seen used. 

My question is, what are some other 4 cylinder RWD engines that might work in a class like this.

My Elise and Mr2 both have "fwd" engines, that are in a RWD car. Would that work for your need?

Porsche 944, 924, lots of 70s cars

Lots of Subarus have been converted to RWD

I'm thinking there may be some other limitations... frame rail width?  Axle type? Must use rear diff?  Front engine?

Zetec can be mounted RWD, plus iron block 4s seem to take a good beating

Honda S2000?

Porkers would be the biggest.  

Nissan KA-24 DE. 

What are the most important criteria for your build?  Peak torque?  Peak hp?  Broad torque curve?  Price?  Commonly available?  Aftermarket parts availability?  Maybe listing your priorities in order might help us.  

The Dodge 2.2/2.5 turbo family with the RWD transmission setup from a dakota...   That bellhousing will bolt to several manual transmissions, and mounting bosses are already in the blocks.

the 2.4L DOHC dodge made its way into jeeps also..  So if you didn't want to adapt up the older bell housing pattern, there should be options there also.

What is the hot ticket for transmissions behind the more common engines?  I am assuming some type of manual transmission, but are they running automatics also?

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

Zetec can be mounted RWD, plus iron block 4s seem to take a good beating

Plus you can still buy the super duty parts and blocks 

In reply to JBinMD :

Well for me personally, it would be price first, availability second. I would think a broad torque curve would benefit over peak power or torque. 

Damn that leaves out the mercruiser 4cyl....

In reply to SVreX :

I don't think there is a limitation on frame width. 

Rear engine i'm sure would be legal if it could be done. Personally, i'm looking at a chassis that is already built, and it's front engine. 

Most of these use the 8.8 or 9 inch Ford rear ends. I'm not up on the GM rear axles, but they are out there. 

IMO the 8.8 is plenty. 

The Porsche 968 came with a 3.0L DOHC engine and it was RWD.

Expensive, but it would match your classes upper limit.

In reply to Ranger50 :

I do know of two tractors that have them, but weight is an issue. 

They both have aluminum Ford heads on them. 

And they pull pretty well. 

In reply to ronholm :

All manual trans on the ones i've seen. I'm guessing the Fords are using the T5. 

2.6 Mitsu was in Plymouth Arrow and pickup (IIRC)

Good suggestions already. The tractor pictured looks like a lot of fun.

What is best approach in terms of front/rear weight distribution? I'm assuming more weight on the rear equates to better traction, but if the front is too light steering may become an issue if the front tires are off the ground.

I like the idea of a Subaru WRX or STI engine. They already have a strange sound that would sound at home in a tractor and since the engine is exposed it would make people look twice at the flat four configuration. The transmissions can be converted to RWD only, but they may be a little longer than you want.

Nobody's mentioned the Ecotec engines in Colorados.  People seem to be able to get impressive power out of the FWD ones, so I assume (without any actual information whatsoever) that those techniques would transfer over to RWD. 

zilla916 said:

In reply to JBinMD :

Well for me personally, it would be price first, availability second. I would think a broad torque curve would benefit over peak power or torque. 

I think the 2.9L GM vortec LLV would fit the bill.  

I am in the planning stages on a RWD EcoTec swap with a Saab 2.0T.
 

According to internet can use solstice trans. Junkyard engines are about 300-500 around my area. 
 

According to:

https://www.brewcityboost.com/product/ecu-upgrade-t8-handheld-3/

can do 285hp and 300ft lbs with just a tune intake and exhaust. 

I think a giant 2.3 Lima would be the ticket.  I know Esslinger can build them out past 3 liters with their tall-deck blocks.   When you're talking turbo and essentially unlimited fuel, you want a stout bottom end first and foremost, and this means a good solid iron block, with wide bore spacing (so no Nissan KA stuff), beefy cranks and block architecture, etc.

Alternatively, Volvo "redblocks" literally look and work like alternate-universe Limas.  To the point that you can bolt a 16v Volvo head on the Ford block, although scuttlebutt is that a good 8v head (Ford *or* Volvo) is better for performance because more development.  Redblocks are actually popular for weird tractor pull kind of competitions in Scandinavia so this is not unprecedented.  And I've seen/heard of 3 liter big-motor builds, too.

Volvo B230FT with a 16valve head a set of Maxspeed rods and 20# boost (or more)

Even an 8 valve version would be very stout Oring the block and use a copper head gasket and you could probably put 35# of boost to it with corn licker.

The most displacement 4bang that's commercially available. Then spend a heap of money keeping it together when you max rpm and sustain. 

If the Ford guys are using T5s, they can't be making very much power.  You should be able to make 700-800hp on ethanol within the rules without too much R&D.  Definitely would want ethanol or methanol for the cooling.

Not sure where the weight restriction poses an upper limit on the amount of power you can realistically use.