View Full Version : Got a crazy question
Deacon
01-30-2007, 10:07 PM
I've got an 86 Jeep Wagoneer.
I'm wanting to replace the 2.8 V6 with something a little more reliable.
Has anyone ever mounted a 2.4 Turbo to a standard trans (front to back) setup?
Just a thought.
TurbododgePirate
01-30-2007, 10:42 PM
Why not a chevy 350. There has to be a install kit out there for one of those.
clocktowersniper
01-30-2007, 10:57 PM
They also had a 360 option if I remember correct.
Birddog
01-31-2007, 12:50 AM
Best upgrade for that truck is the GM 3400 crate motor, it's even listed as a replacement in the catalog.
I guess you could do a turbo 2.5 using bits from a Dakota?
Or go for all out reliability and put in a Jeep 4.0L ;)
but, I would probably look at the 2.4 or 2.5L turbo swap for the coolness factor! :)
moved to Custom Turbo Mopars section.
88_pacifica
01-31-2007, 09:38 AM
Actually, my parents had one when I was a teen. Put in a 360. No thought process there. The trans cases and what not should bolt right up... That's when jeep and Chrysler started merging fully. Of course, I put ours on it's side being a stupid teenager. I miss that thing actually. That dam thing would go anywhere... :D :thumb:
guys, his wagoneer is a cherokee. GRAND wagoneer came with 360. completely different truck.
wagoneer in this case = option package on cherokee. like an srt-4 is not called a neon but is. :P
anwyay, if you stick with the 2.8, you're boned. it would take major work to make the longblock you have perform worth a ----. now, take a newer 3.1, 3100, 3400, and swap that in and find a way to run the injection and you have a big upgrade. or see if any makes a carb manifold thats compatible with the newer heads. summit used to actually list a manifold for that engine but i dont know which heads it will work on.
as for 2.4/5speed rwd, yes, they sold wranglers like that for a while, probly 01-06 or so. maybe libertys too but i never actually seen one, might be wrong on that.
the 2.5 amc motor will swap in easily, as those were in cherokees stock. 2.5 dodge, im sure can be made to work easily using a dakota trans and custom mounts. a 4.0 can make a cherokee move damn good with some mods, i've heard of 14s n/a. 4.6 stroker= teh win.
EITHER WAY, all of the above except 3.1/3100/3400 would require you to use a different transmission. depending on what transmission you have behind that 2.8, it may or may not be worth it to do an adapter plate, based on whether what you have is worth a crap behind a stronger motor.
got pics of your truck?
the 2.5L was used in the wrangler up until about 2003. So its VERY new for this XJ. In fact it was never used in an XJ, the 2.5 was.
88_pacifica
02-02-2007, 04:30 PM
...GRAND wagoneer came with 360. completely different truck.
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Especially if it was not original... My parents had a Grand Wagoneer. :) I still miss it...
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Especially if it was not original... My parents had a Grand Wagoneer. :) I still miss it...
Plus that 360 was an AMC motor, NOT a 360 chrysler/mopar motor.
Birddog
02-02-2007, 05:03 PM
EITHER WAY, all of the above except 3.1/3100/3400 would require you to use a different transmission. depending on what transmission you have behind that 2.8, it may or may not be worth it to do an adapter plate, based on whether what you have is worth a crap behind a stronger motor.
got pics of your truck?
2.8 V6 was a GM 60 degree and used the GM "metric" bolt pattern Same as available in F bodies/S series.
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/cherokee/xjtech/engine/28-34swap.html
88_pacifica
02-02-2007, 05:20 PM
Plus that 360 was an AMC motor, NOT a 360 chrysler/mopar motor.
True, but especially in the late 80's the accessories/trans were Chrysler...
So its VERY new for this XJ. In fact it was never used in an XJ, the 2.5 was.
i dont get that statement.. the 2.5 to 03 thing makes sense, ok, so 2.4 used frmo 04-06. but the 2.5 never used in xj??? i think you meant 2.4 never used in xj, ok that makes sense, but the motor mounts is a much smaller issue than the transmission, so thats why i posted it up. sorry for being dense:D
WVRampage
02-03-2007, 07:42 PM
I think the cheapest would be a 350 chevy as all the parts a avalible cheap.
i dont get that statement.. the 2.5 to 03 thing makes sense, ok, so 2.4 used frmo 04-06. but the 2.5 never used in xj??? i think you meant 2.4 never used in xj, ok that makes sense, but the motor mounts is a much smaller issue than the transmission, so thats why i posted it up. sorry for being dense:D
2.5 in TJ until 03. Then they went to the 2.4.
2.5 in the xj until it went out of production in 00 (I think, may have been 2001).
so the xj never had the 2.4. ;)
I think that lays it out better. :thumb:
turbovanmanČ
02-04-2007, 12:23 AM
The 2.8 is a GM engine with a tiny bellhousing. If its a 5 speed, it should be fairly easy as the bell housing comes off the trans.
As stated 360 Amc and 360 Dodge V8's share nothing.
Putting in a FWD 3.1 etc cant' be done due to the fact theres no mounting boss's for motor mounts and then the electrical nightmare to make it work would be a PITA. I installed a 3400 package years ago in a S15 Jimmy, what a waste of money, it was barely peppier than the tired engine I took out.
I would put the 4.0L inline engine in, all parts are easily available as Jeep made millions of them, and they make GOBS of torque.
Birddog
02-04-2007, 12:37 PM
90-92 camaro/firechicken/rodeo vin T and Z, 3100 RWD passenger side starter...
I did the research on one of these swaps too at one point before coming across a rolled 4.0 XJ.
turbovanmanČ
02-04-2007, 01:54 PM
90-92 camaro/firechicken/rodeo vin T and Z, 3100 RWD passenger side starter...
I did the research on one of these swaps too at one point before coming across a rolled 4.0 XJ.
Forgot about the F-bodies, doh! Then you could use the 3.8L out of the newer ones, nice engines, :p
DeckSetter
02-04-2007, 03:17 PM
Not so fast on the 4.0L swap...
The 4.0 inline 6 is a GREAT engine, I loved my '95 XJ (the HO motors pull HARD from 3000-5000rpm), BUTT......
In an early XJ, it WILL NOT FIT. The XJ Cherokee was actually designed for the 2.8 V6 or an inline 4. They had to modify the engine bay to get the 4.0l to fit because it was so much longer. SO, if you want to put in a 4.0l you have to modify your firewall.
Believe it or not, a Chevy 350 is a better fit. I think Advance Adapters sells motor mounts for it if you want to go that route.
I like the idea of a turbo 4 though. I haven't heard of anyone putting a 2.4 in, you'd probably have to fabricate just about everything yourself and run it on megasquirt or something.
turbovanmanČ
02-04-2007, 05:11 PM
In an early XJ, it WILL NOT FIT. The XJ Cherokee was actually designed for the 2.8 V6 or an inline 4. They had to modify the engine bay to get the 4.0l to fit because it was so much longer. SO, if you want to put in a 4.0l you have to modify your firewall.
.
Where theres a will, theres a way, :lol:
Birddog
02-04-2007, 06:03 PM
BFH:eyebrows:
moparman76_69
02-07-2007, 07:20 AM
Plus that 360 was an AMC motor, NOT a 360 chrysler/mopar motor.
Actually I think it was a ford motor. I had a friend that had one and everything under the hood had motorcraft on it.
Actually I think it was a ford motor. I had a friend that had one and everything under the hood had motorcraft on it.
Im pretty sure it was an AMC motor. They did use parts for lots of parts from other manufacturers over the years. I know they used some chrysler 727 automatics, some ford engine electronics, GM engines, their own engines. etc etc.
Birddog
02-09-2007, 10:44 PM
304-360-401 were all AMC. Ignition systems were Duraspark/Ford.
AMC was like the lovable mutt of the auto industry!:D
shmedley
02-11-2007, 05:02 PM
AMC = All Makes Combined
totally agree with simon about the 3400 not being worth a crap stock. i have driven a 2.8/5spd s10 blazer 2dr 2wd (basically lightest combo) and it SUCKED. i have ridden in a turbo 3.4/5spd camaro running 12psi turbocharged, and it SUCKED. now thats not to say a 3.4 cannot make good power, but it will take a lot of investment compared to starting with a stronger motor.
Birddog
02-16-2007, 01:39 AM
The only thing I didn't like about my Z34 was that I had to have my TB sent out to be hogged out and fitted with a new plate...AND the trans case would crack if you looked at it wrong... Otherwise it moved that "tubby pig" pretty well!
lotharamc
02-20-2007, 12:48 PM
AMC was ahead of their time in how it outsourced the components of their cars. Now all manufacturers do it this way.
Jeep did use some GM engines, but the AMC cars all had AMC engines. They started using torqueflight transmissions in 72 (previously borg warner), and some Jeeps got GM transmissions. Ignitions were GM, and alot of Ford carbs. The 6cyl engines have been largely unchanged for a long time. Its not too hard to put a 4.0 FI head on a 1964 232.
Actually a AMC/jeep forum would be a good place to ask this question. There are guys that turbocharge their AMCs too. I plan on putting a couple on my 290.
speedyshelby
02-22-2007, 09:20 PM
I love my xj cherokee. Mine got the 4.0 already but I what swap it out for a new lower end. Does a 4.0 from like 98 work? If I only keep the head up but put the 98 down. Mine got 210,xxx and she got some blow by :yuck:
here my cardomain for it.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2523955
actually i like the z34 motor, very different from the OHV 3400 performance wise. the dohc 3.4 is a sleeping beast, nice potential. i kinda wish i had one.
Birddog
02-28-2007, 05:25 AM
actually i like the z34 motor, very different from the OHV 3400 performance wise. the dohc 3.4 is a sleeping beast, nice potential. i kinda wish i had one.
Not to keep things off topic.... But.... The Dual Twin 3.4 is a but kicking mill! Unfortunately GM put it in the wrong car, W bodies were awefully heavy and coupled with a crappy auto transmission they just sucked!
Now with the Getrag trans however... If driven and maintained the way GM expected and IF they put it into a nice light car like the J body (1st and 2nd gen). That thing would have been legendary!
Instead GM once again settled for mid size seventies type mediocrity.. Ya know like they always do... :D :amen:
fleckster
03-05-2007, 01:02 AM
As stated 360 Amc and 360 Dodge V8's share nothing.
That's not entirely true. AMC V8s and small block Chryslers use the same lifters. (The bigger diameter that allows quicker lift cams! :thumb: ). Also when the Magnum EFI engines came out in '92 ('93 for the 5.9), the old AMC Engineers were working for Chrysler in the Jeep-Truck Engineering Dept. and they used what they knew. The Magnum heads changed from shaft mount rockers to AMC stud mount rockers and were now oiled through the pushrods. They supposedly did this to also get a better 1.6 Ratio. Regardless, the Magnum 5.9 uses AMC lifters, rockers, and pushrods.
csxtra
03-07-2007, 02:30 AM
That's not entirely true. AMC V8s and small block Chryslers ...<SNIPPAGE>...
John,
Once again you prove yourself wrong when you say that you don't know everything.:D :D :D :D
Chaz
Not to keep things off topic.... But.... The Dual Twin 3.4 is a but kicking mill! Unfortunately GM put it in the wrong car, W bodies were awefully heavy and coupled with a crappy auto transmission they just sucked!
Now with the Getrag trans however... If driven and maintained the way GM expected and IF they put it into a nice light car like the J body (1st and 2nd gen). That thing would have been legendary!
Instead GM once again settled for mid size seventies type mediocrity.. Ya know like they always do...
IIRC in 1990 it was emissions certified at 281 HP and had to be derated all the way back to ~215hp because gm hydramatic couldnt come up with a trans to take it. If they had, it would have changed the whole automotive landscape and nobody would give a flying ---- about a 306 hp VQ35.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.