|
|
|
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
Pre 71 232 steoker??? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author | |
matty 401 
AMC Addicted 
Joined: Jul/06/2007 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 1727 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(1)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Oct/22/2018 at 4:29pm |
|
find a 4.0 use your crank and make it a mini stroker with your crank can run the stock trans
|
|
|
72 matador 401 the beast
79 concord 2 door 72 matador 304 grasshopper 68 Rogue 406 93 Cherokee 4.0 5 speed |
|
 |
|
|
americanjackie2
AMC Apprentice 
Joined: Mar/01/2015 Location: wallace id Status: Offline Points: 110 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/22/2018 at 9:55pm |
|
Yeah that's the goal to keep the original 1969 transmission that's in it. So a 258 crank won't work for a low deck 232 an original transmission right
|
|
|
|
|
232jav3sp
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/09/2013 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2451 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/22/2018 at 11:06pm |
You cannot run the stock trans, from that car, on a 72-up block. Different bellhousing. Which is also why stroking the stock block won't work because the flexplate won't bolt to the later crank (pretty sure the flange is different). Unless the crank flange can be machined. Personally, build a 4.6L stroker, put a 904 behind it and don't look back. I have a good 258 crank I will sell. Needs to be cleaned up. If running the stock original trans is non negotiable, build the 232. It wakes up very well an has the same potential as the two larger 6's. Might not have the torque, but, it's not lacking either. I've beefed up two 232's, swapped one from 3sp stick to a T5, and the other from a BW M35 to a T5. Both with cams/intake/carb/exhaust/ignition and the power increase is very noticeable. That being said, a 4.0 swap would have been the same money, or less and would have a modern auto w/od and I could have done the same "go fast" mods, too. Food for thought. Edited by 232jav3sp - Oct/22/2018 at 11:14pm |
|
|
|
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum 
Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Online Points: 19689 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/23/2018 at 5:45am |
|
Yes, 71 232/258 is the same block. The "new" 232 used the slightly longer 199 rods, 199 was discontinued for 71. That block is about 1/8" taller... I forget the exact deck height... might be closer to 1/4" taller. Made room for the longer stroke 258. The 71 232/258 uses the same bell pattern as older sixes, and uses the same flywheel/flexplate as earlier 199/232. Note that the 196 flywheel/flexplate is slightly smaller in diameter.
|
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
|
|
|
americanjackie2
AMC Apprentice
Joined: Mar/01/2015 Location: wallace id Status: Offline Points: 110 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/23/2018 at 6:43am |
|
Yep want you to keep the stock transmission so will I need to keep the pre 71 block what crankshaft will fit and what do I need to do to make all this work
|
|
|
|
|
232jav3sp
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jan/09/2013 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2451 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/23/2018 at 7:01am |
Not sure if it can be done, but, you're have to have the crank flange machined to accommodate the flexplate. I know the flanges are different, I just don't know how much it if they can be turned to match the early style. I'm sure someone it there had the answer, and experience, to chime in. |
|
|
|
|
ramblin64sw
AMC Nut
Joined: May/31/2012 Location: SoCal Status: Offline Points: 274 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/23/2018 at 9:04am |
|
Is this a BW automatic or 3 speed manual trans?
|
|
|
|
|
1982AMCConcord
AMC Addicted
Joined: Jul/13/2012 Location: Kenosha, WI Status: Offline Points: 1287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/24/2018 at 7:16am |
It's crazy that Jeep could've just used the AMC 232 crank in the 4.0 Jeep engine and made another version of a 258 4.2L I-6. From the Jeeper forum posts I'd read about the 232 crank in the 4.0 block is that the only benefit is slightly more TQ. It's been said that the 4.0 doesn't quite have the same TQ the 258 did.
Honestly guys.. I don't know if you've ever spec'd out the 232 in a 4.0 block... but I have.. and I have it rounded out to roughly about 2500-2900. The Silv-O-Lite pistons for this combination that use the factory 4.0 rods are only $100 on ebay. Put a 4.0 head on it, an Offy intake and a Holley 390! Nice. Plus the 232 crank doesn't have the side loading issues on the cylinder walls that the early 258 stroker engines used to suffer from after they started to be come popular. |
|
|
|
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum
Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Online Points: 19689 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/25/2018 at 7:32am |
|
Side loading wasn't the issue... well, part of it. Early strokers typically used 4.0 pistons, 258 crank and rods. This brings the piston way down in the bore. The lowest edge of the writs pin is right at the bottom of the bore. If the engine is bored to AMC specs it's okay, but much looser and it will wear faster due to a slight piston rock. Doesn't hurt -- I put 70K on one that was put together with 0.006" piston to wall clearance. AMC specs are 0.002" though!! Chevy machinist... When I took the head off for oil consumption (about a quart every 800 miles... less if running hard) I thought I had badly worn valve stems. It didn't smoke and still had great power! What I found was 0.012" wear near the top. Took a piston out and had 0.16" at the bottom. Measurement wasn't done with an accurate bore gauge, so it was likely a bit more. That's why the builders all switched to a 4.0L rod and custom pistons. They are popular enough now that you can buy off the shelf stroker pistons and not have to spend $600 or so as you did back in late 1999 when I built mine.
|
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
|
|
|
americanjackie2
AMC Apprentice
Joined: Mar/01/2015 Location: wallace id Status: Offline Points: 110 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Oct/26/2018 at 4:22am |
|
M37 auto
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Click for TheAMCForum Rules
Topic Options
matty 401 wrote: