Jeep 4.0 swap?
Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:54 AM
Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:24 AM
Posted 15 October 2008 - 08:01 AM
Cool, now I have an email for all those newsletters that I don't want to read and sites that I don't care to register using my own email or real information.
LOL, this was priceless!
Posted 22 October 2008 - 01:35 PM
I love know it alls... (directed at michanic220)
The Inline six AMC blocks were originally developed by Ford. You know, AMC, the same company that used early buick V6's in the CJ series etc.? That AMC, the company that used very little of their own parts to build a vehicle and outsourced a lot of it?
I'm a huge jeep buff, I own several and wheel the piss out of them off-road. I know what i'm talking about.
Actually, I think you may be mistaken.
AMC used most of their own parts (though they were manufactured by other companies as most parts are done today, they weren't FoMoCo, GM or Mopar parts) and were the first to do many revolutionary things (Full-Time 4wd in a passenger car, anyone?) AMC never used any FoMoCo or Mopar engines during their long run, however they did use a few GM and Audi engines (The Iron Duke and the aforementioned Buick V6, aswell as the Audi/VW 121 CI/2L engine.)
It's a matter of fact that AMC didn't need engines from other manufactures (well, maybe four cylinders, as they were behind the game in that aspect...) because they had remarkable engines of their own. Many of their engines are actually stronger than the "Big Three" counter parts because they used forged internals, while the others did not.
Many AMC's have touched into the 11's, and perhaps 10's, with out much effort. AMC's have earned their place time and time again; not every thing you hear about American Motors is correct.
Now on to the 4.0...
It's unlikely that the I6 the eventually because the remarkable 4.0 was based off from a FoMoCo engine. The 199, a 4.0l variant, was introduced in 1963, and as such, there had to have been planing years before that date. However, if you have some viable proof that this engine is based off a Ford design, I'd love to see it (note: try as I might, but I cannot get this statement to not sound sarcastic, though I am being sincere here; I'd love to read up on this!)
Now, to the original poster who wanted to swap a 4.0 into his car:
The 4.0L can be a performer, you just have to have the ambition to do so. Parts can be attained easily, one site that I know that carries plenty of Jeep performance parts in SummitRacing. Stroker kits, if you wish to go that route, can be had without much work at all; you can either buy a kit from a company like Hesco, or do the "258 piston rods and crank into a 4.0" method, and if you choose the latter, I can give you a link on how to do it, as there is one or two minor complications.
Turbo and Supercharger kits can be bought, but at a price. However, you could always fabricate your own with a Turbo from a Cummins or old school bus.
Sorry about this, I just found this topic while browsing google, and thought I would share. Hopefully this time I'll actually stay, as this forum has a tonne of useful information.
Edit: Actually, I'll just post the links I was talking about
General Jeep Performance
From Junker To Stroker
Posted 22 October 2008 - 06:19 PM
We've got N/A 3.1L Nissan motors here making just as much horsepower with a little less torque.
There are plenty of web pages out there with 4.0 stroker buildup info on them, and it made for some good reading as I've got a '92 XJ.
I still don't see it as an economically feasible alternative in a Z. It would be an interesting exercise in "look what I did" though.
'72 240Z - F54, P79, '78 5 Speed, 3.9 R200
'70 510 - L16, SSS Carbs, BW Auto
'70 Chevy Suburban - TBI 454, 4L80-E
Posted 22 October 2008 - 07:22 PM
I find it interesting that even the most insane Jeep 4.0L stroked and bored to 5.0L only produces around 300 horsepower (well, they can have almost 400ft lbs of torque though).
If the heads flowed worth an S it would be alot higher. There's a reason people do LS, JZ, ect swaps and not Jeep 6 swaps:biggrin:
Posted 23 October 2008 - 12:45 AM
Actually, I think you may be mistaken.
AMC used most of their own parts (though they were manufactured by other companies as most parts are done today, they weren't FoMoCo, GM or Mopar parts)
Of all the cars I've owned, my absolute favorite was my beloved '73 Gremlin X, especially after the 304 puked and we put in a 401.
The factory rearend was a Chrysler unit; unfortunately not a Dana 44 or 60.
The 9" rearend out of a 69 Mustang was a direct bolt-in, as the Gremlin was designed around the '69-'79 Mustang floor pan/rear subframe assembly. AMC got a great deal on the dies and jugs as Ford redesigned the Mustang for '71.
Both the 304 and the 401 came with FoMoCo/Holley 4bbl carbs,
The ignition was Chrysler.
The transmission was a T-10 with a Ford bolt pattern.
A Hurst shifter for a '69 Mustang was a direct bolt-in, and 20 bucks cheaper.
The clutch disc and pressure plate were Chevy-pattern. Ordering them for a Chevy saved 50%; they were the same thing.
Automatics for AMC V8s were Chrysler 727 Torqueflights.
The driveshaft used Mustang u-joints in the rear, Challenger/Cuda u-joints in the front (I think. not sure, but I know they were mismatched from other manufacturers)
The blower motor was a Chrysler, as were most of the switches in the dash.
The fact is, AMC saved a lot of money by raiding other automakers' parts bins. It was often cheaper to pay the licensing fees for parts than it was to design their own. I don't think that is bad.
In their day, the AMC dog-leg port heads for the 390 and 401 flowed more air, and made more power than any other manufacturers' small block heads. It wasn't till the Chevy Vortec head, which came out more than 20 years later, that the other manufacturers began to catch up.
I loved the fact that my Gremlin had superior engineering in it's AMC-specific heads, and cherry picked the best from other manufacturers. That Chrysler ignition was better than GM or Ford's. That Ford Super T-10 was bulletproof. I always preferred Chevy-style diaphram pressure plates to Ford 3-arm ones. Finding a 9" posi out from under a 69 or 70 Mustang wasn't that tough, it bolted right in, and no C-Clips to worry about.
I miss that Gremlin to this day. Before I changed directions, I was keeping my eyes open for a Spirit to stuff a 401 in. I saw one at a Year One show in Braselton a few years back, and was amazed by how good they look when you fix the nose-high stance. They also weigh 2500 lbs with the same wheelbase the Gremlin had, and they're not nearly as ugly.
As far as the 4.0 into a Z? I don't get it. Right before I left Atlanta, I went to the Friday night test and tune at Atlanta Dragway one last time. While I was waiting in the staging lanes, I started talking to a guy in the next lane with a 71 240. He'd transplanted the engine, tranny, and rearend out of a late 70s, early 80s Z. Liiking under the hood, it was nothing special, Although it was a FI Turbo) and he swore it was stock. We ran down together. I pulled him out of the hole and cranked off a 12.90 .... he passed me at the 1000 foot mark and ran a 12.60, or 70, I believe. And he'd driven the car down from Greenville!
My point is, with so many much easier choices, I just can't see going to all the trouble to fit an engine that only makes 190 hp. I love the 4.0 in my Jeep .... but I love it in my Jeep, not anything else. You might love a stripper when you're at the club stuffing dollar bills in her underwear, but at Thanksgiving dinner with your family? Not so much.
Posted 23 October 2008 - 12:22 PM
However, I feel that the main emotion of my article shown through. AMC had a lot going for it, and my main attention was directed to trying to respond more towards the mood of ZedNotZee's post.
Though, it is possible that I misread it, as is not uncommon with me.
Also: I may have underestimated of their tendency to use parts from the "Big Three", and I may have gotten a little carried away, as I often tend to do.
It is also true that theirs are many better choices than the 4.0, I was just pointing out that the 4.0 is capable of decent numbers, if one so chooses to go that route.
Me? I'd swap in something else.
Posted 30 October 2008 - 01:33 PM
I figured he would be belching smoke and he did..........for a couple of drive cycles and then the car ran just fine with zero ecu tweeks and continues to be a daily driver six months later.
The Jeep ecu is not to be underestimated in it's abilities......regardless of the fact that they were made with not so good components.
I've been really busy trying to hire on another technical support guy at our ecu rebuilding facility but this needs more looking into.
What I am finding is that chrysler and GM ecus are a whole lot more than most people think function wise.
That said..............anybody have a 401 steel crank?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users