In reply to Stefan :
I'm happy because I totally understand how much force you are describing.
In reply to Stefan :
I'm happy because I totally understand how much force you are describing.
Stefan said:Antihero said:Good info guys, thank you.
Do either of you know the torque specs for the valve cover? Usually I just do "tight" but I want to make sure
Like 1/4" stubby ratchet snug. So yeah, like maybe a few ft-lbs, more likely to be in in-lbs.
Cool. Usually I do it in choked-up-to-the-ratchet-head level of tight do that's about similar.
Ashyukun (Robert) said:The engine is out of an '89 LeBaron, and is the 2.5L Turbo II engine- it should be the 1-piece gasket. Looking through my emails I'm not seeing that I ever got one from RA, so I have not idea just how old the gasket is.
Is it a Turbo II? I thought from my research it was a Turbo I
In reply to Shadeux :
Hopefully you will talk her into it, it's been a cool trip for us. Even with the car breaking down, which I do admit I do hope I've gone thru all the problems so far
Antihero said:Ashyukun (Robert) said:The engine is out of an '89 LeBaron, and is the 2.5L Turbo II engine- it should be the 1-piece gasket. Looking through my emails I'm not seeing that I ever got one from RA, so I have not idea just how old the gasket is.
Is it a Turbo II? I thought from my research it was a Turbo I
Psst, the only real difference between the two is that the Turbo 1 doesn't have an intercooler and after 1989 a little more displacement. The Turbo 2 is a 2.2L and has an intercooler from the factory. There are many other subtle differences. So a T1 with an intercooler added, is sort of the best of both worlds since it has more displacement and more torque. A bigger turbo from a T2, etc. also helps since the Mitsubishi turbo is a bit on the small side for much over stock boost, even with an intercooler.
Really, in 1989 Chrysler moved to a "common block" where all of the blocks are the same casting with the only differences being the parts loaded and whether the turbo return line was added to the back.
Stefan said:Antihero said:Ashyukun (Robert) said:The engine is out of an '89 LeBaron, and is the 2.5L Turbo II engine- it should be the 1-piece gasket. Looking through my emails I'm not seeing that I ever got one from RA, so I have not idea just how old the gasket is.
Is it a Turbo II? I thought from my research it was a Turbo I
Psst, the only real difference between the two is that the Turbo 1 doesn't have an intercooler and after 1989 a little more displacement. The Turbo 2 is a 2.2L and has an intercooler from the factory. There are many other subtle differences. So a T1 with an intercooler added, is sort of the best of both worlds since it has more displacement and more torque. A bigger turbo from a T2, etc. also helps since the Mitsubishi turbo is a bit on the small side for much over stock boost, even with an intercooler.
Really, in 1989 Chrysler moved to a "common block" where all of the blocks are the same casting with the only differences being the parts loaded and whether the turbo return line was added to the back.
Good to know, I'm new to Mopars.
Is it was I'm already thinking of a turbo caravan and Daytona?
Today was a rest day while we waited for parts so we went to the Wonders Of Wildlife aquarium across the street.
AutoZone shipped it a day early so I'll be able to start the valve cover gasket early in the morning and then some shopping to do at Bass Pro Shops.
Seriously.....this place is awesome, if you are close you should go
In reply to Antihero :
Yeah, that engine was put in lots of cars. Basically if it was K-based, it could get a 2.2 or 2.5L of some sort. The 2.2/2.5 ran from 83-95 (84-92 in turbo form) and was in nearly every small car Chrysler made during that time.
There were two different production DOHC cylinder heads made. One cast by Cosworth for Maserati. The other cast by Lotus. Two different versions of the 2.5 and three different versions of the 2.2 block. Chrysler introduced Variable Nozzle Turbo technology on the 2.2 in 89 on Shelby’s CSX-VNT and the 90 TIV Cars (Daytona Shelby, etc.)
Even the early Dakota could have a 2.5 driving the rear wheels. They eventually changed to the Jeep 2.5 once they bought Jeep and were phasing out the Chryco 2.5.
The Neon’s 2.0L was an offshoot of all they learned from their 2.2/2.5 efforts and it shared the same bore spacing and cylinder head bolt hole spacing. The Stratus 2.4 is quite a bit stronger version of the 2.0, but it follows the same path as the previous motors.
In light of the recent passing of Lee Iacocca, and his role in the creation of the platform upon which you are now driving, I suggest your journey henceforth be known as the "Iacocca Memorial K-Car Trucklet Trek Across America".
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Well, except for the fac that it isn't based on a K-Car...
The engine is a 2.5L Turbo, and was non-intercooled from the factory (I had installed an intercooler but ultimately pulled it since I didn't have the budget to reflash the ECU to actually take advantage of it and made it not worth the lag). I may have misspoken about it being the Turbo II, since according to Wikipedia that one was only in Mexican vehicles and was intercooled, meaning you are right Antihero that it's the Turbo I. Regardless, I've never had a problem with using the 2.5L Turbo option for the 89 LeBaron on RockAuto when it has come to getting parts for it (and the only real difference I believe was that the II was factory intercooled).
Cooter said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Well, except for the fac that it isn't based on a K-Car...
Yup- it's an L-body like the Omni and Charger of the day.
I think I found the leak lol
In reply to Antihero :
Yep. That will do it. The one piece gasket is great, provided it is installed properly ;)
In reply to Antihero :
Yup, that would do it!
Stefan said:In reply to Antihero :
Yep. That will do it. The one piece gasket is great, provided it is installed properly ;)
It's a pretty good system. What it looks like is it ripped and shrank a little bit.
I added a little bit of rtv in the locations mentioned and it's currently sitting. It's 90 min set time stuff so we are gonna get lunch and see where we are
Ashyukun (Robert) said:Cooter said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Well, except for the fac that it isn't based on a K-Car...
Yup- it's an L-body like the Omni and Charger of the day.
Apologies. My Mopar knowledge gets pretty rusty after about 1974.
The felpro one piece gaskets seem smaller for some reason hence the dab of rtv.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
No worries. Some people are triggered by the misspelling of "Camero"
For me it's '80s MoPar FWD body platforms.
All fixed?
Pete
NOHOME said:All fixed?
Pete
I filled it with oil, let it run for 15 min and so far....no leak.
I snugged up the bolts after it ran too so hopefully.....we are good (fingers crossed)
In reply to Antihero :
AWESOME!
We would like some more pics please. 
In reply to Indy-Guy :
And not just wounded car pics either.
My phone camera sucks but here's an assortment of BassPro Shops and the World Of Wildlife 
My skill as a photographer don't do this place justice. If you are close by you need to visit it.
It's pretty hard to get pics in the aquarium because it's very dark and no flash photos
You'll need to log in to post.
