Its the rear. You are probably right. I didn't do any figuring when I put the rear in. I centered the engine with the front mounts then just stuck the rear in there. I'll be ok if I move the mount & maybe shave a little if the housing.

 

I've got about 3 inches vertically before the drive shaft hits my rear driver side mount. I did notice that my rear mount is only using the top two of the four bolt holes to increase the amount of clearance there (I had forgot I did that). The engine is positioned just enough to the passenger side so the shaft doesn't hit the bottom when the front axle comes up.

 

Thanks for looking. I am definitely going to rethink that rear mount. I can bolt up the shaft but it rubs the head of one of the bottom bolts, and that's with no articulation. Using the top will probably be ok just have to make another bracket will not take too long.

Drove it about 20 miles yesterday everything else is doing fine.

 

Macet,
From your information and my research, I've concluded that you're using a 143 tooth Flywheel similar to:
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductD...artNumber=3420

I'm wondering.......do you think it would be possible to use a 143 tooth Flywheel from a 318 equipped Dakota in order to use a larger 12" clutch? From what I understand, both the 5.2 V8 & 3.9 V6 are internally balanced. The V6 & V8 flywheels weigh similar and look the same with the exception of the smaller bolt pattern for the smaller V6 clutch pressure plate and the index markings on the engine side for the crankshaft position sensor. The V8 clutch assembly weighs about 3 lbs more than the V6 clutch assembly.
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductD...artNumber=3410

 

You are right on what I am using. Yes the 318/360 flywheels will fit and you can use the larger clutches, but for average use in a Jeep a 10.4 should be fine don't you think. The 3.9, 318, 360 in the Dakota generally run the same bell housing and that's what I used. I used the pressure plate and disc (looked better than the Dakota's) that came on the Jeep. I’m just not aware if it is a weak spot.

The whole clutch system feels just as it did with the stock 4.0

 

The 10.4" is probably adequate for the YJ. Since I have to buy all new, I may as well use the 12" clutch. A ZJ is ~500 lbs heavier than a YJ, so I want the extra insurance of the larger clutch.

FYI, the Mopar 360 is externally balanced and uses a different flywheel. Notice the cavity in the engine side adjacent to the mounting surface and the asymmetrical mounting bolt pattern.

http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductD...artNumber=3419

 

Ok I see. 360 is a different beeast. Thanks for pointing that out. They share the same bell housing pattern right?

 

There are two different sets of adapters that PC makes for Chrysler. One is for the 727A the other is for the 727C; would the 360 be considered either?

 

Yes, the 360 shares the same bellhousing pattern as the 3.9 V6, 273 V8, 318 V8, and 340 V8 engines. These engines are all of the Chrysler "LA" engine family and share similar architecture.

I do not know how the PC 727A & 727C adapter sets relate to Chrysler bellhousing patterns. Sorry. If you're interested, here's a link to a breakdown of Chrysler bellhousing patterns. This article is not all inclusive as it does not list the 354 & 392 hemis, some early Dodge "A" series or the Desoto engines. I am by no means a Chrysler aficionado. The article may have missed a few that I'm not aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._block_pattern


What is the model designation for your adapter set?

 

I don't know?? I have the receipt from PC but they have individual part numbers not the set number as shown on their web site. Maybe I will give those guys a call.

20-00050 SAE 4 to Chrysler 727A
20-00051 SAE 4 to Chrysler 727C

PS: I drove the jeep to work this morning 50+ miles. Did great!
Don't know whether to tell anyone I don't want to make a public spectacle.
Don't know whether I want the opinions of 30 Cummins Engineers.

 

To celebrate the 2 year anniversary of my conversion I decided to splurge and buy 1 hr on a dyno for my jeep. A place close to where I live recently installed a SuperFlow chassis dyno and I took the jeep there in between rain storms (the Midwest is a wet, hurting place right now). They specialize in high performance diesel trucks. Big HP monsters. They enjoyed teasing me about my baby Cummins.

From what I’ve found on the net it appears there’s some debate over the accuracy of different dynos. Seems like dynojet’s tend to read high, with Mustang dyno’s a little lower, and SuperFlow’s a little lower yet. I do know the multiple runs for my jeep were very repeatable, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate.

Anyway, some background:

Several months ago I decided to turn the fuel screw down a bit from where it was on my last accelerometer test as I wasn’t comfortable with how long the engine took to slow down in between shifts at high rpm’s (hard accelerations and shifting above 2k the rpm’s would kind of float down slowly) and it didn’t seem like that was a good thing for the fuel pump. I think I was asking the pump to put out more fuel than what my injectors can flow? I backed off the fueling so that on a hot engine even at high rpm shifts the engine slows down rapidly so that it’s below the next gear shifts rpm on fast shifts. Anyone with experienced on VE pumps I’d appreciate hearing if this is an accurate conclusion or not. I was also concerned about the drive train reliability with estimated 300+ ft-lbs of torque going through it.

The dyno runs were with >90% home brewed biodiesel in the tank. Tires are 30 in ProComp AT. Air temp was 80 F and kind of humid. They used an optical pickup to measure engine rpm’s (was able to verify my Dakota Digital box which takes the alternator pickup and drives my jeep tach was accurate), and we also hooked up the EGT and boost to the machine. Runs were in 4th gear (1:1). I asked him to keep the max rpm’s below ~3k. The top mount intercooler really didn’t have any air flow going through it so I don’t know what impact that would have on the numbers.

The first couple runs the operator started the tests above 1800 rpm so we missed peak torque numbers. The best run put down 99.7 hp at the wheels at 3000 rpm. The worst run was 98.8 hp which occurred on the last run where he started at lower rpm’s. Peak torque on the last run was 233.5 at ~1880 rpm.

On my accelerometer runs I started at ~1000 rpm and peak torque occurred lower than this rpm and was down about 10 ft-lbs at 1880. I think if the operator would’ve started even lower the peak torque might have been a little higher.

Right now I have a pic of the jeep on the rollers and a pic of the last run. I’ll try to post those. I emailed them to see if they could send me the data file as well. I think the peak boost was ~16.5 lbs and EGT’s were ~1250 F.

Found some dyno plots of stock jeep 4.0’s at this site (don’t know what type of dyno they used)
http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...wrangler40.htm

Looks like I’m ~ 48 hp less and ~32 ft-lbs more than the 190hp/235ft-lb 4.0 engine. So I’m maybe ~140 hp and 270 ft-lbs at the crank on almost straight biodiesel? Somewhat close to my swag accelerometer tests predictions.

 

I think you should make a spectacle. And those guys are going to find out sooner or later so you might as well get it over with

 

Impressive dyno run. I have been thinking about doing the same thing with my truck just because I was curious. I am happy to say I just rolled 7000miles since the conversion and hit 38mpg on my last fillup of straight #2

 

Thanks. Glad to hear you're still rolling along. That's some great mpg's. Did you ever fiddle with your timing to see if backing it off some helped the full fuel smoke thing?

 

Hi Guys, My unveiling went well. I had several e-mails asking about it. Two of the performance engineers took it for a spin yesterday. I had to tell them all about our little 3.3 round table. I also showed the guys the work TDI did with his dyno testing they were impressed. 90% home brew that’s great. I am hoping that this will open doors for questions we have about these engines. Thanks for all the help.