Print Page | Close Window

4.0 Head on a 232

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC 6 Cylinder Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made I-6 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10395
Printed Date: Mar/28/2024 at 4:09am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 4.0 Head on a 232
Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Subject: 4.0 Head on a 232
Date Posted: May/07/2009 at 1:56pm
Will a 4.0 head work on a 232? I know alot of guys put 4.0's on their 258 and the 232 is basically the same block. 
 
Thanks,
Zach


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">



Replies:
Posted By: Thikstik
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:01pm
Man i wish Farna, etc would answer this because i dont know.  It will make less compression due to less cubes , but i dont think that is a deal breaker.  I say yes, but would like others to chime in.  Of course there is a thousand things to know of manifold changes.,etc for a left side starter 1968 unit.   Farna has listed all of them.

-------------
75 gremlin x, jeep 4.0 headed 258,
264H Cliff cam, intake,header. 390 holley. I want a 282 VAM motor!

AC/PS/PDB.

72 AMX , 304 2bbl, 3speed, now disks...probably will sell, want an automatic /AC.



Posted By: billd
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:09pm
Not so sure it would be worth it on that low cube engine..... if there's enough to gain for all the effort it would take The 232 is not the same as the later 258's in several ways.
Pretty sure you'll have exhaust manifold issues with a left-mounted starter.
The 232 having a shaft rocker will have oiling issues. The 4.0 oils via the push rods - up the center from the lifters. The shaft-style rocker oils up through number 3 cam bearing up to the rocker shaft.
 


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:12pm
I think chamber size of the 232 was the same as the 258. 


Posted By: Gremlinamc1975
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:21pm
wasnt the starter only on the left side in 72 and older for the 232? i remmeber my started being on the right hand side in my 75

-------------

1970 Gremlin 232, 1974 Gremlin, 1977 Gremlin X, 1977 Gremlin X, 1979 Spirit DL,


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by Gremlinamc1975 Gremlinamc1975 wrote:

wasnt the starter only on the left side in 72 and older for the 232? i remmeber my started being on the right hand side in my 75

Should be the same as the intro to torqueflite so 72 and newer would be a rh starter.


Posted By: Peter Marano
Date Posted: May/21/2009 at 10:36pm
Originally posted by 1968AMC770Wagon 1968AMC770Wagon wrote:

Will a 4.0 head work on a 232? I know alot of guys put 4.0's on their 258 and the 232 is basically the same block. 
 
Thanks,
Zach


I think the proper question is 'How well will a 4.0 head work on a 232?'.  Probably not well enough for the amount of work you will do.


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: May/22/2009 at 8:17am
That's what I was thinking and couldn't come up with the words.
Well said, Peter.


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: May/26/2009 at 8:58am
Thanks for all the help. I had computer issues so I couldn't get on.  I decided against the 4.0 head.  As you guys have said, way too much work for the little gain i would get. 



Zach


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: nosigma
Date Posted: May/27/2009 at 8:27pm
I hate to get you all spun up on this again but I think you would see a rather large increase in HP if put the 4.0 head on the 232 block.  If you look at the flow bench results (see sticky at the top of this page) the 4.0 head flows at least 25% better on the intake andd exhuast side stock.  If you do a mild clean up of the bowls and throats you will get about 30% more flow. 
 
The increase in flow is fairly proportional with HP.  The head you have is an open chamber head with a lousy flame spread, no quench and no swirl.  The 4.0 HO has quench, swirl and a better flame pattern.   This will only add to the hp increase.
 
If you go to the 4.0 HO head just make sure you get pushrods that oil through the center and lifters to match.
 
John


Posted By: Wrambler
Date Posted: May/28/2009 at 7:10pm
I agree with nosigma.
in fact I test fitted a 4.0L head on the early 232.
You need to fill the casting holes on the drivers side of the head.
A 91-99 4.0L exhaust manifold should just barely clear a 69-71 starter after rotating the housing so the cable stud clears the manifold. You may have heat issues, I do not know I never got to doing an actual instal.
  The ports of 4.0L are vast improvements over the early head.
Also to note, you go from a 1.5 ratio shaft rocker to a 1.6 ratio bridged rocker. You can also go to a nice cast aluminum valve cover.
  I have wished that I had done the instal just to do it, but I acquired a 8,000 mile 4.0L for free and just swapped to it.


-------------
Wrambler
69 AMC Rambler
4.0L, 5 speed
2015 Grand Cherokee Limited
2019 Chrysler 300


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: May/28/2009 at 8:00pm
Honestly, I am no mechanic and have no advanced skills myself, my grandfather is a mechanic and has been since the mid 60's, he worked on AMC's and knows them better than the back of his hand. I'm spending the summer with him and going to hopefully turn this car into something to be proud of, that being said at this time I think this task is a little to big for me.
 
Thanks for all the help/opinions/knowledgeand facts everyone has provide me with
 
You guys are what make the AMC hobby so enjoyable and easy to get into for new-comers.
 
Zach


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Thikstik
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 12:19am
The water hole (actually casting sand reliefs) plugging i say is up in the air.  At least this is the case with my  1975 258 motor.  As the head and block met perfect with no holes exposed.   Good luck.
 
ps-Do u know the weight of your wagon?


-------------
75 gremlin x, jeep 4.0 headed 258,
264H Cliff cam, intake,header. 390 holley. I want a 282 VAM motor!

AC/PS/PDB.

72 AMX , 304 2bbl, 3speed, now disks...probably will sell, want an automatic /AC.



Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 8:18am
I would say the weight is right around 3900lbs, just an estimate.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Wrambler
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 9:53am
Originally posted by Thikstik Thikstik wrote:

The water hole (actually casting sand reliefs) plugging i say is up in the air.  At least this is the case with my  1975 258 motor.  As the head and block met perfect with no holes exposed.   Good luck.
 
ps-Do u know the weight of your wagon?
 
  You do know how lucky you are to find that head?!  I had one and did not realize what it was at let it get away from me! The one I test fitted sat with the holes flush to the block and no overhang!
 Then when someone needed a head I traded it not realizing the other one I had would hang over the block!  I knew there should be others out there as I suspect core shift. I just had not heard of one yet!
 
  I wanted to mention, for a 232 in an early car I have been wondering if 2002 up head would be a good swap. They have a smaller exhaust port, they may really help that engines torque numbers?
  I'd stay away from the 2000 head as they have been known to crack.


-------------
Wrambler
69 AMC Rambler
4.0L, 5 speed
2015 Grand Cherokee Limited
2019 Chrysler 300


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 10:08am
Performance of the 2000 plus heads isn't as great due to reduced flow.  Emissions thing........
The pre-2000 heads are the best.


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: Wrambler
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 11:04am
Originally posted by billd billd wrote:

Performance of the 2000 plus heads isn't as great due to reduced flow.  Emissions thing........
The pre-2000 heads are the best.
 
  I have heard that, but at what point does the smaller port come into effect? Has anyone actually looked at the flow to see what really happens with the 2000 up head? If one is running a wagon or other heavy vehicle as a driver. Is there any bottom end enhancement to those small ports?


-------------
Wrambler
69 AMC Rambler
4.0L, 5 speed
2015 Grand Cherokee Limited
2019 Chrysler 300


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 11:17am
No, it won't improve or enhance anything as far as performance.
It will hurt.
Smaller exhaust ports won't help low-end torque like a smaller venturi area on a carb will.
Depending on the exhaust length and size overall, there can be gains or losses, but the head ports being smaller won't improve things.
Here's the flow numbers (0331 being the 2000 and later) - the numbers are lower across the board but quite a bit at low valve opening:

HO head #7120 & #0630

Valve lift (in)... ... 0.2 ... 0.3 ... 0.4 ... 0.5 ... 0.6
Intake flow....   128.0 179.0 206.0 209.0 209.0
Exhaust flow... 100.0 120.0 136.0 141.0 141.2

HO head #0331

Valve lift (in)..... 0.2 ... 0.3 ... 0.4 ... 0.5 ... 0.6
Intake flow.... 114.0 165.0 194.0 199.0 205.0
Exhaust flow....94.0 117.0 126.0 130.0 133.0



-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/29/2009 at 4:34pm
Unfortunately you can't just use hollow pushrods to oil the shaft rocker head. It's designed to oil from INSIDE the shaft. The tips of the rockers would be okay, but I would bet that not enough oil would get on the shaft to oil the rockers. The rockers aren't designed to channel oil back up to the shaft. Chrysler V-8s use a shaft with the rockers oiled by the pushrods, but the rockers are a totally different design - they channel oil back to the shaft.

I think I answered this on the other forum. You'd have to run an external oil line to the shaft. AMC did that to fix the low oil volume problems before they figured out that grinding the bolt where the oil feed came through would work. There was an external line kit that fed through the valve cover (line ran through a grommet in the top) into a drilled rocker shaft support bolt. Line fed from a T at the oil sending unit. They even had a kit made up for dealers to install! I bet a dealership mechanic saw that monstrosity and said "Gee, why don't we just turn the bolt in the shaft support down instead of making a new car look like something someone cobbled together?"




-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nosigma
Date Posted: May/30/2009 at 12:25am

Works fine on mine!!!

Oh wait, I have roller rockers
 
My bad.
 
John


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/05/2009 at 2:00pm
Yeah, the roller rockers aren't plain metal to metal, so I guess they do work with just a little splash in oil!

One thing I meant to mention about the water ports on the 4.0L head. The ports aren't exposed on most of the heads, but there is very little surface area between the ports and edge of the block. Once the cooling system is pressurized there could be some coolant seepage on that side of the engine. I'd seal those ports regardless of whether they are exposed or not. I've epoxied a couple of them with no problems. Stuff toilet tissue in the holes then fill in with JB Weld or some other high strength epoxy -- after a thorough cleaning (wipe inside with paint thinner or other solvent). The epoxy will sag and/or shrink. I filled in the slight depressions after letting the epoxy dry 2-3 hours. Once it all cured about 10 hours later I just sanded everything down level. There was still a slight depression or two, but not problem there! Was most of the TP out before installing the head, but it will easily dissolve in the coolant if there is any left. Ware soluble packing peanuts (starch based, usually labled as "biodegradable") work better.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: firefly
Date Posted: Jun/07/2009 at 11:04am
Can someone tell me if I should use the 4.0 headgasket,or the 258? Also,should I use the 4.0 headbolts or 258? Thanks


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Jun/07/2009 at 11:09am
Originally posted by firefly firefly wrote:

Can someone tell me if I should use the 4.0 headgasket,or the 258? Also,should I use the 4.0 headbolts or 258? Thanks

You would use the headgasket to match the bore of the block so the 258 is it.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/07/2009 at 1:27pm
The bolts won't matter, they should be the same length and size. I defaulted to the 258 bolts when I did the upgrade on my own 258 (2000 4.0L head). 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 3:19pm
Ok, I decided to go with the 4.0 head on my engine.  I'm new to cars so a list of what i need and what i will need to do would be great if someone could provide it.  Also i was wondering if the headers and intake i have for my 232 will work on the 4.0?
 
Thanks,
Zach


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 3:38pm
You can't use your existing iron intake or exhaust. You must use a 4.0L exhaust, but can use a mid 1980 or later 258 aluminum intake. Use the 4.0L head gasket. There are several sites with a good list -- search "Jeep 258 4.0L head swap" (or change 258 to 4.2L).

The only problem you might run into is the pushrod length. Check it for length with the 232 pushrods, but they may not be correct. When you get the 4.0L head get the pushrods too if you're pulling it from a salvage yard, just in case. I used 258 pushrods in my 83 258 w/4.0L head, but the old rocker shaft 232 pushrods usually aren't hollow, and you must have hollow pushrods for the 4.0L head. Won't hurt to use one for testing though, just turn the engine over by hand.

You may need to order an adjustable pushrod, adjust it to work, then order a set of pushrods that length. You may need custom pushrods, but there's a good chance some application will fit... if the 232 or 4.0L pushrods aren't correct.   

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 3:44pm
I'd say there's a good chance you'll have to address the lifters one way or another. Either replace with new or toss in a small cam since you're already half way there. I doubt the 232 lifters will have an oil feed hole in the top so the push rods would be for naught and you'll smoke the rockers.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 3:54pm
IIRC the lifters do have an oil feed hole, but that might just be later model replacements and not originals. As you mentioned... "there's a good chance..."  It's been a long time since I messed with a rocker shaft hydraulic lifter engine... the old 196 (which I do have a lot of experience with) has solid lifters -- no oil hole needed! ;>


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 4:31pm
if you must replace the lifters, you must get a new cam as well, new lifters on an old cam and viceversa is disaster.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 4:47pm
I am planning on a new more mild cam.  Also planning on doing some head work on the 4.0.  I want to get the most performance out of the 232 I can.  I'll also have to decide on the carb and everything else later.  Possibly now I will have a header that will work for a pre 72' 232 for sale, if it all works out.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 5:17pm
There should be no problems using new lifters on a used cam, but you can not put a new cam in and use the old lifters. The lifters "seat in" with the cam, not the other way around. A used cam would have to be worn very bad not to turn new lifters. I've done it many times on stock refurbished engines, and I've seen it done many times with performance engines and used cams. If you couldn't use new lifters on a used cam, there would be no market for used cams at all -- they'd be junk!

One more thing -- even when using original lifters and cam, if the lifters and/or cam comes out, the lifters must be put back in the exact way they came out or the cam will likely wipe a lobe in a short time.  As I said, the lifters "seat" or "wear in" to the cam, so the lifter must be put back on its matching cam lobe or new lifters used.

Lifters can be surfaced and reused -- once they are surfaced they are "like new". For the most part lifters are cheaper than the machine work, so that info is only useful in cases where lifters are hard to find or no longer available... such as in the old 196 engine family.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

The lifters "seat in" with the cam, not the other way around.

Both the lifter and the lobe lose something until seated (if it happens).


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 7:09pm
resurfacing lifters is fine if the cam is reground as well. I have seen new lifters eat a cam with my own eyes. I will never do it and will not recommend it whatsoever. New cam, new lifters at all times. Some may do it and get away with it, but my personal preference is not to. Not too start a $hitfit either  lol.  I just wont do it.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Aug/31/2009 at 7:23pm
I'm not planning on it, i figure in the whole scheme of things 300.00 isnt that big of a deal for a new cam.
 
I just need to find the time and the resources.  I can only cut, bale, and stack hay in the summer so now that hay season is over so are my paychecks.  But time is the biggest problem.  I gotta get one car together and out of the garage so I can get a new one in and take it apart.  And all this before i can drive in december.


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Sep/07/2009 at 5:38pm
I'm going to the macgine shop to get an estimate on the headwork on the 4.0 and was wondering what i should tell him i want done.  I will have the  water jackets filled at the shop.  I was wondering what to do as far as plaining and bore.  I dont want anything too radical but I want some added performance.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Sep/07/2009 at 5:52pm
As far as the head goes, all they need to do is fill the triangular ports on the right side then plane it smooth. You will get a little boost in performance from the better flowing head, but it's going to be up in the higher rpm range, you won't be able to tell at take off. They can take about 0.020" off for a slight boost in compression, but I wouldn't take any more than that. If you're pretty sure that you're just going to keep it on the 232 it's not a problem.  If you stick it on a stroker later (4.0L block w/258 crank and rods) it could be. Compression is raised by nearly a point due to the longer stroke. Then you'll have problems with the head giving a bit more compression too. The computers don't like more than 10:1 compression.




-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Sep/08/2009 at 9:02am
My plan is definately to just keep it on the 232. I definately do want the added compression.  What about the bore?

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Sep/08/2009 at 2:13pm
Boring an engine gives a minuscule power increase by itself. In general you bore to true up the cylinders, not to gain 1 or 2 cubic inches. Replacement oversize pistons also make up for the difference in bore with a slightly larger dish or shorter piston so that compression remains stock. That is unless you order custom pistons to your specifications. When you rebuild the engine have the machine shop check the cylinders for wear and see if they recommend boring. At that point bore it as little as possible. You also need to send them the crank so they can determine how much it need to be turned to true up before ordering a rebuild kit. They will tell you what size pistons and bearings to order. The shop shouldn't bore the engine until they get the pistons so the bore can be sized to the pistons. The pistons may be 0.030" over, for example, but then there are clearances to consider, and the pistons might measure out to 0.029" or 0.031" instead of exactly 0.030".

If the shop sells parts they may give you a better deal on the rebuild kit, or a better deal on the machine work if you buy the kit from them also. Get a quote from them for just the machine work AND for machine work plus parts before shopping for a kit so you can decide which way to go.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Sep/11/2009 at 8:16am
What year head should i go with?


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Sep/11/2009 at 1:57pm
95

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Sep/11/2009 at 2:05pm
ok, so 95 4.0 head, i will need the headers and intake too right?  And will the headers work with the left hand starter location?

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: tyrodtom
Date Posted: Sep/11/2009 at 3:01pm
   You mean left side starter don't you ? 64-72 AMC 6's have the starter on the left (drivers) side.


-------------
66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va.


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Sep/11/2009 at 3:38pm
Yes, i did mean the RH side.  Long day at school.
 
I'm definately going with the 4.0 head.  Now I just need to make up my decision on headwork and what other mods i want to do.
 


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Sep/13/2009 at 6:39pm
Any 91-99 head will work just fine, but some do think the 94-96 head is a bit better than the others. I forget the casting number. In all truth any 4.0L head will be an improvement over what you have now! So look for a 95, but fi you don't find one +/- a couple years is still good.  Oh, the 2000 model heads are known to crack, but it appears to happen only under hard use. I'm running a 2000 head on my 258. I think it will be fine for a normal driver.

The 91+ exhaust should clear a left mount starter. 87-90 I don't think will. Might have to do a little tweaking on the 91+, but you should be okay. You only want the intake if you're going for the EFI also. Otherwise you need a 1980-89 carburetor intake. Easy to find on AMC cars and Jeep CJs and Wranglers with the 258 (also Jeep J-10 pickups from 80-88 w/258). They are easy to spot -- intake is aluminum and doesn't bolt to the exhaust manifold like your stock intake. It's an easy mod to bolt to the 4.0L head.

87-90 are Renix heads and have higher ports than the 258, but not as high as the 91+ H.O. heads. The higher ports give a straighter shot into the combustion chamber and improve charge velocity. In 2000 the ports were made smaller. That is why most don't want to use 2000-06 heads, but they are really just as good for low speed operation. A lot of work went into changing the ports and the smaller size DOES NOT hurt low end and mid level power, in fact they small ports give a slight low end power improvement. You do lose a little at high rpm... at least theoretically.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Sep/30/2009 at 11:50pm
I m really interested by this thread .
After thinking to many things to improve performance , I planned  to do exactly the same thing in my 66 ambassador 232 .
My project :
- head from a 93 Cherokee , casting 7120 , already waiting in the garage.
- home made heated intake to adapt 2 or 3 Rochester B carb , waiting for them via USPS ...
- a cam , don t know which yet , Clifford may be nice , but expensive ..
- new lifters , pushrod
- Cherokee  header , cut / welded to fit with the left side starter , or home made  ( I love my Miller MIG ... )
- 2 1/2 inches exhaust , with a Magnaflow , already done
- Javelin power steering , pump already installed with a home made bracket . Gear box rebuilt in the garage
- disk brake and power brake of course .

This is gonna be my winter project , just have to finish my spare car before :P
Not sure everything will work or be powerfull , but this may at least be eye candy ...


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 9:43am
You shouldn't have a problem with the Chero header (I'm assuming you meant stock, but doesn't really matter) in the Ambo. I just looked at my J-10. It has a 2000 head with a Renix exhaust manifold on it. The Renix exits about 3-4" further back than a 91+ exhaust. You might have enough room for the starter with no mods. Hmm.. I just looked at a 91+ exhaust manifold. The outlet angles to the rear, You will probably have to turn the outlet down and run the exhaust under the starter, or make some pie cuts near the top of the flange and get the outlet to run the pipe to the left side of the starter.

I'd go with a Comp Cams 252H for a good cruiser (http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/CamDetails.aspx?csid=8&sb=2), or the X4254H (http://www.compperformancegroupstores.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CC&Product_Code=68-235-4&Category_Code=A6CAMSx4X4). The split duration of the Xtreme series is a bit better on the six, but they have a bit more lift and you can't use stock springs. So the 252H is probably a better choice.  It seems that anything over 0.450" lift can't use stock springs. All the Xtreme series have at least one valve in the 0.46x lift range.

How do you plan on making the intake -- just a log? If you use three carbs plug the idle circuits on the first and third and center the second. Otherwise it will run rich. Unless you plan on making three small intakes. Then you might be able to get the idles circuits leaned down enough, but will take some carb know-how! With two carbs both have to have idle circuits, but when I did that long ago I didn't have a rich idle problem. Idle may have been a little richer than ideal, I don't recall, but not enough to cause any problems or to noticeably affect fuel consumption or plug life.

Which reminds me -- get a later Motorcraft dizzy and do the TFI upgrade or a GM six HEI system for best performance. At the very least a hot coil and a Pertonix unit! You won't regret upgrading the ignition at all!!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 12:34pm
Thanks a lot for your comments , they are always usefull :P

- I really don t like the stock Cherokee header . It quite ugly . But it s easy to find a cheap one , so it will probably be my first choice . It seems that even if I must modify it , it s not a big job . I have a MIG , still learning with it , but manage to weld down to gauge 24 without burning holes if I take care , so ...

- Nice to know for the cam . The car is a driver , so I mostly need low torque . Even if I don t get all the power I could , who cares ? It already enough to bring kids to school , go to working and growcery :) I ll follow your advice and choose a cam which permit me to keep my stock springs . the main reason is in fact money ...

- Concerning the intake , I plan to make a plenum with runners , nothing more . But not by chance ....
I m learning how to calculate the plenum volume , length and diameter of the runners .
I may try a steel one to verify it works , heated with the exhaust by a pipe , and later a stainless one heated by engine coolant .
What means "just a log? " . english is not my native langage , so I don t understand ..

- Carbs ... the guy I have my Rochester B sold 3 matched one , maybe from the same truck . I still have to investigate beforing deciding if I use 2 ou 3 . My knowledge in carb tuning is quite  null ..
So I will probably go the safest way .

- I already have a Pertronix , with the stock coil . Vaccum advance may need some tuning , playing with the spring / plates in the vacuum head  . Is the upgrade to TFI or HEI worst ?

- Of course , I ll have to check lubrification , rebuilt fuel pump , etc .. Minor details :P


Thanks a lot .


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 1:45pm
The stock Cherokee header for 1991 and later is just about the same as a Borla header. I agree that the 1987-90 header is quite ugly though!

By a "log" intake I mean something like the original Rambler 232 intake. Basically it is a straight piece with the carburetor in the middle (a "log") connected to the head by runners. It works, just not the best.

The Pertronix is a good unit, and I suggest you stop there! The only thing you might want to do is get a more powerful coil if you are still running the stock coil. The stock coil generates around 20-30,000 volts, a performance coil will be 30-50,000. Something around 40,000 would be fine. To be honest, unless you have a resistance problem in a plug (starting to foul), the stock coil is fine. You only really need the higher voltage for high rpm use -- higher than you will be running -- or to increase the time between cleaning the spark plugs, as the higher power coil will continue to fire when the stock one will falter.

The TFI and HEI ignition systems are about the same, just Ford and GM respectively. There are some minor differences, but it's mainly in packaging -- HEI is an all-in-one unit, TFI has a separate coil/distributor/ignition module.  The only advantage over the Pertronix they have is the large distributor cap. That separates the contacts inside the cap and prevents higher than older stock coil voltages (the TFI and HEI have "hot" coils) from jumping across to a spark plug tower other than the correct one. I don't see why the TFI adapter, cap, rotor and wires can't be used with a Motorcraft points distributor and Pertronix unit though. The plug wires have to be changed because the end on the TFI cap has a different, tighter connector than the old cap.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 2:12pm
I added it up, and with everything i will be up over 2500 in this rebuild and modification.  ALmost makes me want to just drop in a 360 and tranny.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 2:25pm
what is a stock 360 rated at for hp at the crank?    My 4.0 made 184rwhp through a 3 spd stick and a amc15 rear.  at a 18% loss in the drivetrain (which it probably has more, but well just use that) that is 33.12 loss from the crank to the wheels....    or 217.12 to the crank. torque was 212ftlbs at the tire..   losing 38.16 to the tires is 250.16 at the crank.    remeber that is with 18% loss. It is probably more...     not bad for a stock 4.0       port the head, cam, and some compression, and you will stomp a mudhole in a stock 360 with your 6.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 2:27pm
http://www.jeeptech.com/engine/amc360.html - http://www.jeeptech.com/engine/amc360.html
I am sure the hp only got less as the years went on....       go with the 6 unless you want to mod the 360 as well.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 3:04pm

I like the idea of having a radical six, because not that many people do, and I would love to eat some of those ricers with a six, but it's just alot of money to do it right, and thats the way I would do it, and I dont have a job right now since my job is seasonal(hay farm).  S i'm just trying to weigh the pros and cons.  I also want a manual, but that probably wont happen.



-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 3:37pm
well, really you dont need to go ape$hit with it to have a blast. I bet 300hp at the crank is in order with the stock bottom end in the 4.0 if the top end is done well. I havent even opened my motor up and it makes that kind of power. That is a offy intake, 600dp carb, and a 2.5exh. Thats all. A cam and 10.5 or 11.0 compression would be great and still run on pump gas with the right camshaft and make a TON more power.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 3:43pm

It's a 232, and will be a 4.0 head if i go through with it.  The money numbers are just the scary part.



-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 3:48pm
I got my 4.0 for 500.00......      

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: TinMan
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 4:18pm
I got my 4.0 for $220. Keep an eye on the local stuff such as craigslist to see what they go for in your area.


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 4:33pm
http://albany.craigslist.org/pts/1397095814.html - http://albany.craigslist.org/pts/1397095814.html  Seems like a good deal to me, but the trans is what i'm worried about with the 4.0, i guess i could then go with a manual of some sort...

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 4:35pm
get a 904 for cheap I bet.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 4:38pm
theres a jeep comanchee 4.0 5 spd. 2wd.  DO a complete swap, that would be nice, i know 4.0's are good engines but this one has 150k on it

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 4:47pm
A 904 would be pushed behind a stock 4.0L. No more than a Borg-Warner M-4x would though!!

The transmission is a stickler if you go with a 4.0L. It's not hard to modify an early trans bell housing and sensor, just takes drilling a 1/2" hole in the right place, and using a Wrangler sensor. There is a CPS relocation kit, but it's around $300. Still, that might be the best thing for you. The big problem is you need a rear wheel drive AMC V-8 transmission or bell housing, the six cylinder bell you have won't bolt up to a 4.0L. It. like all other 72+ AMC sixes, uses the same bell pattern as the AMC V-8. Rear drive 4.0L trannys are hard to find in snow country -- but not impossible. Easier to find down south. All you really need is an 80s Jeep bell, then you can install a T-5 from a Ford Mustang.

You're talking about a lot of work, time, and not too much more money. If you get a 360 it will have to be rebuilt, and you're likely to end up with more than $2500 in it, depending on what the core engine needs. Finding a good running one is difficult at best, but not impossible. They usually come with an 80s Jeep Grand Wagoneer wrapped around them.  That trans can be converted to rear drive, but at the cost of a trans rebuild and some junk parts -- $1000-$2000, depending on the shop and location, and if the shop has some junker 2WD 727s they just want to get rid of...

It all adds up when you start modifying and upgrading no matter what you do!!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 5:18pm
150K is just a little over half life. It it's been reasonably taken care of you can expect another 100K out of it before you have any problems if you do a few things like replace the front and rear seal, oil pan gasket, clean the oil pickup screen, replace valve cover gasket and PCV tube (replace the little plastic tube!!), clean the PCV baffle in the valve cover, and maybe replace the oil pump. Spend $100-$150 before you stick it in and it will pay off. Wouldn't hurt to check the main and rod bearings while the pan is off, and maybe replace them with standard size bearings. You still wouldn't have but an extra $200 in it after buying. Oh, replace the clutch before you stick it in if you go that route, and the hydraulic throw-out bearing if it has one. Another $150 for both, but again, worth it!

Like I said at the end of my last post, it all adds up!! But you get out what you put in, so it's not that big a deal. The clutch and all might be fine for a couple years, you'll just have to pull it later. Might last a couple weeks, who knows? Your risk. Not that hard to pull the trans though.

If you can run a compression check on the engine that sure would help! Needs around 100 psi on each cylinder. A new one will develop 120 psi-130 psi. With 150K 100 psi would be fine, and you'll still notice a lot more power than the 232.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 6:10pm
Maybe this can help ..
Here s a 4.0 Cherokee 1993 head . The gasket is a 232 gasket :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=285&u=12474091"> " border="">

Same head , 232 gasket on . No doubt the holes have to be filled , and a 4.0 gasket used instead of the 232 :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=286&u=12474091"> " border="">

Exhaust side :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=287&u=12474091"> " border="">

Here s a 1966 232 head :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=288&u=12474091"> " border="">
Notice the exhaust shape :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=289&u=12474091"> " border="">

232 pistons :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=290&u=12474091"> " border="">

So ... Don t know is the pistons top may make a problem ( low compression ) , but for sure you can t keep the 232 intake and exhaust :)








Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 7:51pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

150K is just a little over half life. It it's been reasonably taken care of you can expect another 100K out of it before you have any problems if you do a few things like replace the front and rear seal, oil pan gasket, clean the oil pickup screen, replace valve cover gasket and PCV tube (replace the little plastic tube!!), clean the PCV baffle in the valve cover, and maybe replace the oil pump. Spend $100-$150 before you stick it in and it will pay off. Wouldn't hurt to check the main and rod bearings while the pan is off, and maybe replace them with standard size bearings. You still wouldn't have but an extra $200 in it after buying. Oh, replace the clutch before you stick it in if you go that route, and the hydraulic throw-out bearing if it has one. Another $150 for both, but again, worth it!

Like I said at the end of my last post, it all adds up!! But you get out what you put in, so it's not that big a deal. The clutch and all might be fine for a couple years, you'll just have to pull it later. Might last a couple weeks, who knows? Your risk. Not that hard to pull the trans though.

If you can run a compression check on the engine that sure would help! Needs around 100 psi on each cylinder. A new one will develop 120 psi-130 psi. With 150K 100 psi would be fine, and you'll still notice a lot more power than the 232.
 
hmmm...but if i go the rebuilt 232 route I basically have a brand new engine.  Tough decision.  Is there a manual tranny that will bolt up to my 232 without a lot of mods?


-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 8:12pm
And after all that you still wind up with 150k mil
e piston rings and cylinder wear.
It's a waste to try and add performance to that.


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 8:25pm
I'd do a little to add LIFE, but not performance. The entire EFI engine would add performance to the car though.

You can use any manual trans that was used on pre 71 AMCs. I think the mid 80s Ford four speed where 4th is OD will bolt to a T-14 bell. A 67+ big car should have a T-14 behind a six, T-15 behind a V-8 (both are three speeds). You need a pre 72 six bell for the 232. One of the Ford T-5 adapters might work with that bell. http://www.safepay.net/cgi-bin/shop/cart.cgi?db=mddata.txt&category=Adapters&merchant=moderndriveline
I'm not sure which one would work though, or even IF it will. AMC used the same trans bolt pattern as some of the Ford 3 and 4 speeds, but I don't know the depth of the Ford bell. Some of the AMC trannys had AMC unique input shafts, I think. I just don't know enough about the Fords at all!! I'm pretty sure the 60-65 140/170 six adapter will work on a T-96 bell.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 8:35pm
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

I'd do a little to add LIFE, but not performance.


Adding a little lifer to it is replacing seals and  maybe tossing a cheap valve job on it. Not the time and expense of a head conversion.  If you wind up with more blowby after you have valves that seal then what? Start over?


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 8:58pm
We've got turned around somewhere Ron!! I was talking about changing the seals and such on a 150K 4.0L before replacing the 232 with it, not doing all that to the 232 and swapping on the 4.0L head. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/01/2009 at 8:59pm
One question  ...
Adapter  is necessery  because the bolt pattern of the engine and the trans bell housing are not the same . Easy to understand .
But ... I naively suppose that an engine shaft from an L6 AMC is not always supposed to be the same than a Ford / GM / whatever . Not the same diameter , nut the same number of tooth  , lenght , etc ....
Or are they most compatible ??? In this case , you could adapt quite any trans to any engine ...
Must we have a machined sleeve between trans and engine ?
I hope I m clear enough ....


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 6:09am
You are correct! SOME makes use the same length shaft, or close enough to the same length that the transmission will work. Not all Ford transmissions will work, you have to have the correct model. Length of the input shaft is the only critical measurement once the bolt pattern is dealt with. The diameter and number of splines mean that you may have to mix and match clutch components -- an AMC pressure plate on the AMC flywheel, a Ford clutch disc of the appropriate diameter on the input shaft, and maybe a Ford throw-out bearing.  The transmission adapter takes into account the input shaft length with the thickness of the adapter. The AMC six cylinder bell housing is 6.5" between each mounting face. The input shaft is roughly 7" long, with 1/2" going into the end of the crankshaft in a pilot bushing. The bushing may have to be custom made for a different transmission also, but they are usually simple bronze bushings and easy to adapt.

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 6:48am
It s so easy so ...
There may be a chance to adapt a 5 speed manual , so , event keeping the torque tube ? :P


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 9:08am
Ugh... totally forgot about the torque tube!! It would be possible to keep it, but a LOT of special work.  I'm afraid you're stuck with the factory type three speed or three speed with overdrive if you want to keep the torque tube. It's less work to change rear axles than to adapt the torque tube to another transmission. Sorry for being misleading!

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 9:33am
does that mean i'm stuck with the automatic 3 speed or could i still use an amc manual 3 speed?

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: amc67rogue
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 9:51am
 Try looking at a T-5 for a 4 WD app. , Jeep , S-10 , the short tail might leave room to make an adaptor to bolt up to the torque tube . Just a thought nothing ventured nothing gained.

-------------
Keith Coggins 67Rogue X code


Posted By: Wrambler
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 9:55am
Originally posted by 1968AMC770Wagon 1968AMC770Wagon wrote:

does that mean i'm stuck with the automatic 3 speed or could i still use an amc manual 3 speed?


68 does not have the torque tube, so you can stay with what you have for a 232 or swap to a three speed.

4.0L, you can go with just about any trans AMC ever used.

As far as power goes, mine is a stock shortblock, probably has about 10-12K on it.
mild port and polish on a 60K head with the valves lapped.
Modified 91-98 "header" I cut off the outlet and replaced the Y section with a custom piece dumping directly into 2.5" pipe. Cam is an NOS 87 Renix 4.0L cam I had so I used it.
Stock 91 Wrangler efi.

Runs through a AMC T5 to 3:31 gears.
Runs real good and gets 28+ mpg on the highway at 70-75 mph in the mountains.

Putting a stock 4.0L in a "big" car will knock a little umph out of it, but I'd still think it will run quite respectable.


-------------
Wrambler
69 AMC Rambler
4.0L, 5 speed
2015 Grand Cherokee Limited
2019 Chrysler 300


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 10:16am
Ok, so 232 with the 4.0 head, i can use either a t14 or t15 pre 72, correct?  

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 10:22am
I think me and maybe someone else is getting threads crossed up!! I know I am...

Torque tubes are in the big cars from 56-66 only. With no torque tube you can run any trans you can bolt on. You just need to have a driveshaft made, and that's under $200.

A stock XJ Cherokee weighs about as much as my 63 Classic wagon. Your 68 is 300-400 pounds heavier, not that much. My car doesn't have the get-up-and-go that Mark's American has with a stock 4.0L, but it has about the same power as a 1974 bone stock 360 V-8 w/4V, single exhaust. 1991 and later 4.0L is rated 190 hp, 1974 360/4v/single exhaust is rated 195 hp. The 360 does push it over a bit on torque -- 360 = 295 ft/lbs 4.0L = 220 ft/lbs. A 1974 360/2V is 175 hp/285 ft/lbs, so that's probably more equivalent to a stock 4.0L.  So it would be much better than a 304 (1974 - 150 hp/245 ft/lbs.), not quite as much "grunt" as a 360. The 258 only produced 110 hp/195 ft/lbs.  I'm running a 4.6L stroker (280 cubic inch) six now, but did run a stock 4.0L for about a year.  It had plenty power with the stock engine, and got good gas mileage.

I lost 2 mpg when I stroked the 4.0L to 4.6L, and there isn't a huge difference in acceleration. You need a stop watch to measure the difference. It will pull a load better, but I don't do that very much! Sometimes I wish I hadn't stroked it, and have considered moving the stroker to my Jeep and putting a standard 4.0L in the car. Probably won't do all that work though!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 10:27am
Yes. You just need the pre 72 bell housing, the trans can be from a later car. The T-5 won't bolt up to the early bell housing without an adapter though. The Ford four speed from the mid 80s that has an OD fourth gear will though. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: Thikstik
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 11:01am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Yes. You just need the pre 72 bell housing, the trans can be from a later car. The T-5 won't bolt up to the early bell housing without an adapter though. The Ford four speed from the mid 80s that has an OD fourth gear will though. 
 
Farna, can u say what type Ford 4 speed works, tork rating , od ratio? 
Thanks


-------------
75 gremlin x, jeep 4.0 headed 258,
264H Cliff cam, intake,header. 390 holley. I want a 282 VAM motor!

AC/PS/PDB.

72 AMX , 304 2bbl, 3speed, now disks...probably will sell, want an automatic /AC.



Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 12:36pm
Yeah, that would be great to know ^^^^^

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 12:37pm
I haven't done the swap. Search for Ford SROD transmission and Ford SMOD transmission, also Ford T170 transmission. They were used behind 300 sixes in F-100/150 trucks around 80-85, Maverick/Mustang/Granada/etc. 75-83 or so.  There were three different versions. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 12:43pm
Ok, the any of the t170's will work? what bell housing though? Sorry for all the stupid questions!

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: TinMan
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 12:47pm
It's better to ask the questions than never know the answers!


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 12:52pm
That's a good question!! The late 70s one will work for sure, I'm not positive about the mid 80s. Will take some research on Ford bells...

Here's some gear ratio info:
http://www.5speeds.com/toploader.html

This site seems to be talking about the Ford small sixes, but indicates that 67-80's trans bolt pattern is the same, bell is 10-7/8" deep:
http://www.phlegm.us/tech/drivetrain/history.html

I've got it from a reliable source on the AMC-List that the trans will bolt in place of a T-86. Ford used a T-86 or T-89 with OD in the late 60s in some of their heavier vehicles.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 1:07pm
Ok, does that mean a direct fit? A bolt on? Or am i wrong?  Would a pre 72 amc be a bolt on? Obviously after going through the trans first.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 1:10pm
and according to my research, the t170 was used in jeeps from 80-86, the t177 is the best for a six because of its wide gear spread.  I'm guessing that it will be a pain to find one around me though.

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 1:18pm
It should be a direct bolt-on in place of a T-86/T-14/T-15. I say should because I haven't done it. Some things you just have to try and figure out what needs to be changed. AMC sixes have a short bell, so you might need a V-8 bell or a Jeep input shaft. At some point you have to locate a transmission and check it all out. We learn by doing, hopefully someone else's doing, as that's a LOT easier, but there comes a point when you have to just do it. Research only goes so far. The only thing that will definitely bolt in is a 67-71 AMC car transmission. The Jeep trans would have the right bell and input shaft, but would have a 4x4 output shaft and housing for a transfer case. It might take one of those and a standard Ford trans to work, but I was led to believe that the Ford trans would bolt right on. Again, might be for a V-8 instead of a six though.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 6:16pm
What is exactly the interest of changing the trans ?
May a stock trans break with a bit more power ?

In my case , it look like the engine runs too slow a low speed , and too fast at high speed , if you consider 60 MPH beeing high speed of course :)

I must admit I don t know which trans I have ...
According to the owner manual , it should be a BW  Flash-O-Matic  PRND2D1L


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 6:41pm
I have the BW35 i believe.  It should easily hold up to the added power but i just prefer manual because it is more fun to drive and chicks love manual transmissions:)

-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: 1968AMC770Wagon
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 6:43pm

The Borg-Warner 35 (or BW-35) is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission - automatic transmission produced by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BorgWarner - BorgWarner company. It has three forward and one reverse gears. The selector lever follows a quadrant which has six stations (Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, Second gear and First gear). The "3" in the model number refers to the number of forward gears.



-------------
Zach Orcutt



http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x188/kyladogsetter/100_2147-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/02/2009 at 7:04pm
Nice to read this can stand power ....
For now I take care of it , because my clutch is dead :)
But I ll move the engine outside this winter .

So you go for the 4.0 head ? We ll be too :P
Most of ppl making mods on their Jeep use a 7120 casting head , before of its better flow than others . This head was used between 1993 and 1996 ( not sure for 1996 ... ).
They can t all be wrong ...

The casting # is easy to find , on this picture it s just over the blue tape :
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=291&u=12474091"> " border="">

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=292&u=12474091"> " border="">


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 5:44am
68AMC770wagon -- you're mistaken on the model number. The "3" in 35 is just the model number, not the number of forward gears. All "3" series are air cooled. AMC used a 35 and a 37. 35 was used behind 196 and 199, 37 behind the 232. They are almost the same, but the 37 will take a bit more power. The second number is the power level, but there's no correlation to a level -- the bigger number is just stronger than the smaller one. AMC also used a model 4x series behind sixes and small V-8s and the M-11/11b/12 behind the larger V-8. All are three speeds.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 9:30am
Is it easy to know which trans is on those cars ?
There s not much room under the hood behing the engine to see anything , and crawling under the car is not so easy :P ?


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 7:56pm
The year and model, along with the engine, will tell what the car SHOULD have in it. I can look that up in the TSM.  But if the transmission has been changed, and it's possible on so old a car, the only way is to crawl under it and find the ID plate. It's on the driver's side of the auto trans. The model is cast into the side on the manual transmissions.

Your 66 Ambassador with 232 may have an M-35, but most likely has an M-37. The 66 TSM doesn't give the model number, that didn't start until 1967. Before 67 the V-8s had one transmission an the six another, and that's all the TSM tells you. For 68 there were three different transmissions, one for the six, two (new models) for the V-8s. There is an hexagonal plate on the driver's side of the M-3x series transmission. On the bottom left corner of the plate will be a screen printed number such as "No. AS2-35". The last two numbers are the model number. I don't know if you have a 35 and the 37 was new in 1967, or if you have a 37 as that was the 232 automatic in 66. There is little difference between the 35 and 37. The 37 has an extra tube inside and an external cooler can be added, and it will take a little more power than the 35.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 8:29pm
all this talk about the kind of power that these 3 speeds will handle....    In my old gremlin, I started out with a 3 speed stick on the floor. I made enough power and had enough traction to either wheelie the car about a foor or so in the air, or rip the center spring housing/plate away from the outer steel ring with the fiber on it that was the clutch. My clutch would come out in two pieces, a fiber/steel ring, and a smaller round plate that was sheared off from the torque. I never once broke the trans or ever had a single problem with it. I later replaced it with a Lenko for the gearing and to spend money I suppose. These three speeds are WAY stronger than most think.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 9:14pm
You had a later model T-14, obviously. Try that with a T-96 and you'd be picking pieces up along the track!! Well, not that bad, but the synchro (only one between 2nd and 3rd) would have been toast. The T-96 was just fine behind the old 196, but anything more and it's marginal at best!! The last T-96 was used in 72. 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/03/2009 at 10:12pm
Thanks Farna . You and Forest are impressive and always usefull.
So ... the trans may take power ..
Enough to stand a 232 with a M90 blower ?
Have to do my homework before .. :P


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/04/2009 at 8:16am
Forest is talking about three speed MANUAL transmissions. The 66 232 used a Y-86, which should be strong enough. The M-35 or M-37 AUTOMATIC transmission is a different story. If you have an M-35 it is fine for normal driving even with a mildly improved 232. A small 4V and little bigger cam, perhaps, but that's all. I wouldn't do much more than that in front of an M-37 either, but it should hold up better with the external cooler added. That was mainly added for towing, not for more power.

I think you would need an M-40 from a 67-69 290 V-8 or the M-42/43/44 from a 70-71 six cylinder or V-8 for reliability with a small blower or turbo charger. AMC dropped the air cooled M-3x series after 69, replacing it with the M-4x. 199 got the M-42, 232 (and 71 258) got the M-43, 304 got the M-44.

The M-4x is close enough to the M-3x that the output shaft housing from an M-3x should bolt on, and the length should be the same. Easy enough to convert one to the torque tube, as I'm pretty sure the spines on the output shaft are the same also.  I have to say that I haven't actually done this conversion, so some caution is in order. The only way to verify they are identical as I am reasonably certain they are is to find an M-4x series transmission and compare. I do believe that someone in the past has done this conversion (M-4x in place of M-3x on a torque tube car), but I can't recall who or when. So proceed with the knowledge that there may be a problem with something like the splines on the output shaft. That would be easy enough to take care of, but you would have to have the driveshaft from the M-4x car also. The M-4x may have used a larger U-joint than the M-3x did, but that is probably the case on all 232 cars as well. My only direct experience with the M-3x series is behind a 196, which doesn't need a big u-joint. 

No one knows EVERYTHING about AMC and mixing and matching parts... I do try, but can't remember it all!!  Not trying to be arrogant, I really do try to remember the more common or questioned swaps, and make notes on things that I find when possible. I have a full set of TSMs and use them. I've lost a lot of notes through computer failures (usually hard drive...), but try to make backups more often now!! Which reminds me.... I'm due for that!!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Oct/04/2009 at 11:54am
man, you have themost random, and useful info on this stuff farna   lol

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Oct/04/2009 at 1:42pm
I've messed with the older cars more than newer, they are a bit trickier sometimes and need more improvement in some areas... some were real "grandma" cars!!! Mostly they were built when roads were rough and you couldn't run fast for very long. Most of us don't remember when there wasn't an Interstate and pretty good roads, except for some really rural areas, and they are better than the dirt roads of the 40s and 50s! I STILL live on a dirt road, and we have quite a few out where I'm at, but even they have been improved to the point that they are better than they ever have been for sure!! 

-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: nali
Date Posted: Oct/04/2009 at 5:25pm
Well .. I m in Quebec , so I also know what a bad road is :P
4 inches deep holes , even in main streets , are common here ...



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net