WJ 4.7L V8 swap into XJ?

[Dr. Dyno]

I'm doing the 4.0 based jeep based engine mainly because it is a plug and play mod. no need to swap computers, tranny's or engine mounts. That is probably a big reason many people like to build strokers.

~Alex

Yes indeed. That was the reason why I built my stroker as well as the low cost (~$1500).
Since we're on the subject of the Ford 4.6L 3v Modular engine in the '05+ Mustang. It puts down about 260-270rwhp and 275-285rwtq stock in manual tranny versions, but let's not forget that the Mustang has a more efficient drivetrain and doesn't have a transfer case to absorb more power. In that context, the 254rwtq that my stroker puts down is pretty respectable especially when you consider that it has the stock cam in it.

Here's the GM Vortec 4.8 V8 (LY2). This is a Generation IV engine, not the old school stuff. Iron block sibling of the LS1.

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...verado_SAE.pdf

295hp @ 5600 rpm, 305 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm.

Those are flywheel numbers, and my stroker makes 306lbft (if you assume a 17% drivetrain loss for my AX15 with NP231 transfer case) 1250rpm lower down.
As Wolfpack said, forget about using the AW4 for any V8 swap so if you happen to have an AW4, you'll need to factor in a tranny swap as well as the V8 engine swap, adding to the cost and complexity of the procedure.

 

[FoMoCo]

you also have to factor in longevity, the 4.0/stroker can easily run strong for 250-300k+, that and the other reasons already mentioned is why I'll be building a stroker when the time comes

 

[Slo-Sho]

What stroker has gone 250k+ miles?

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

mine has gone 8k...

 

[Root Moose]

Those are flywheel numbers, and my stroker makes 306lbft (if you assume a 17% drivetrain loss for my AX15 with NP231 transfer case) 1250rpm lower down.
As Wolfpack said, forget about using the AW4 for any V8 swap so if you happen to have an AW4, you'll need to factor in a tranny swap as well as the V8 engine swap, adding to the cost and complexity of the procedure.

Valid points. That said, your dyno numbers are not SAE J1349 numbers either.

If the dyno used was the typical tuner dyno setup we can pretty much guarantee that it is reading high. It's the only way a single mod like a CAI on a ricer pos can be "proven" to make hp after all. Your numbers are only worth noting between dyno pulls on the same vehicle or to show the shape of the power curve.

I forget, did you dyno before making mods? Even then, whatever number that is would not be an accurate number compared to OEM. Is it high, low, one out of a large sample set that makes those numbers?

It's all about trends.

As for the tranny, two counter points.

First, someone does make an adapter for the AW4 to SBC. I forget who but it is out there (AA?). Will the transmission work without the engine ECU? Dunno. The AW4shifting mod may work ok depending on what you want the Jeep to do. It wouldn't work for my expectations - I'm about as far away from bush buggies as you can get.

Also, buying an engine with trans is not a large burden and I would be inclined to go that route regardless of whether the former was workable or not. The new GM stuff is not getting its excellent mileage numbers by getting sloppy with the shift program. Also, going with the engine's OEM trans and t-case takes away the adapter costs.

Don't get me wrong. Strokers are really cool. The idea that they make great low end torque is a valid one. To say it makes better low end torque compared to a similar 2V V8 is kinda off the page though. For as long as I can remember everyone has always used "V8" and "great low end torque" in the same context. Maybe the newer DOHC 4V and SOHC 2V stuff doesn't follow that trend but in general I think you'd be hard pressed to find a V8 of any configuration that didn't have great low end torque - even the hyper car stuff.

What was the OP's question again? Something about putting a ChryCo V8 into an XJ?

 

[Slo-Sho]

The 306ft/lbs. is that dyno'd in 4th gear (1:1) ratio or 3rd gear? What size tires do you run? Rear gearing?

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Back to the origional question, you could get the 4.7 to work with enough time and money. with everything you need and no setbacks, maybe a weekend of sold work with no drinking. That said, I would still chose a 383 04 400 sbc stroker motor instead, better after market parts selection.

 

[BBeach]

The 306ft/lbs. is that dyno'd in 4th gear (1:1) ratio or 3rd gear? What size tires do you run? Rear gearing?

I could be wrong but it doesnt really matter which gear,tire size, gearing, etc he's in for the torque number. Dynos measure thrust which convert to power and torque through various equations. I dynoed my jeep before and had them dyno between 3rd (1:1) and 2nd (1.53:1) and there was no difference in power or torque. Dynos measure torque at the engine "after drivetrain losses" and power is always the same no matter what the gear. Im personally a fan of I-6's, bmw's, supras and of course jeeps.

 

[xj92]

I like the 4.0 and am deciding whether to stroke it when the time comes. I also love the fact that my uncle's 200x Tahoe gets 18mpg on the highway though, and am wondering what kind of mileage you'd get on a lighter xj while still having lots of power. Low-end torque is great, but you can also adjust things on the rig based on the torque curve, specifically the axle gearing for the street, and axle & transfer case gearing for the trail to put your rpm's where they need to be.

 

[alex22]

Back to the origional question, you could get the 4.7 to work with enough time and money. with everything you need and no setbacks, maybe a weekend of sold work with no drinking. That said, I would still chose a 383 04 400 sbc stroker motor instead, better after market parts selection.

No drinking? Now we all know that everything fits better after a few beers.:jester:

I have stated my feelings on the modular for d V8's, But I do like what I see with the LT and LS series engines. There are alot of mods to be had for these engines.

~Alex

 

[JJacobs]

Mine is an AMC- the only engine that will bolt up to the AW4. I ran it like that for awhile, actually- now that I have a TH400 I really miss overdrive. Badly. Rest assured that an AW4 in good working order will do just fine behind a V-8.

However- AMC's are not a popular swap because they're carbureted, old, low-tech engines. They can be built to do whatever you want with enough $$. A guy that is handy with wiring and tuning could get an AMC 360 hooked up with Megasquirt EFI in front of an AW4 for pretty cheap, but it's not going to get the mileage of a modern 8.

 

[Dr. Dyno]

Valid points. That said, your dyno numbers are not SAE J1349 numbers either.
I forget, did you dyno before making mods?

That's true. My dyno numbers were corrected to the DIN standard (68*F, 29.92"Hg, zero relative humidity) so they're 3% higher than SAEJ1349. The run was done in 3rd gear with stock 27.4" tires and 3.07:1 diff. ratio.
I don't have a previous dyno run with my old 4.0 to compare it to, but my best estimate with my old 4.0 in bone stock form is 155rwhp/198rwtq so the stroker numbers are 28% higher.

 

[Root Moose]

Not to pick nits but the Toyota 1UZ will bolt to the AW4 as well. Need to take the bell housing from the donor Toyota.

Or so I've been told.

When you were running the AW4 was the transmission still capable of running in fully auto mode? Just kept the trans TCU with the trans and it worked?

 

[JJacobs]

Yes, it used the tcu and was fully automatic. Had to splice in about 9 wires or so if I remember right.

 

[Root Moose]

Awesome, thanks.

 

[1bolt]

Man what an f*ed up thread. Some of you need to understand the difference between flywheel and wheel horse power. Those Chysler numbers on the first page are LOWER than a Golen strokers output and their torque curves are horrible compared to any stroker's I've seen.

Those Mustang numbers are from a 3 valve overhead cam engine! Stick to pushrod engines at least. Or compare BMW's screamin multi valve OHC I6 to the Ford modular.

I've owned a 4.6 4v DOHC Cobra. 320 is the factory rating and its a *little* conservative It is ALSO a flywheel number. The 4 valve all aluminum 4.6 is very well known in Mustang circles to be basically tapped out of potential until you put a blower on it (03-04 Terminator Cobra 380hp ALSO flywheel numbers, and yes usually about 20 to 25hp too conservative).

If you want to compare apples to apples look at pushrod ford 302 and Chevy 305 flywheel numbers. There are strokers out there putting down (wheel) more than those mills flywheel ratings! And with .3 to .4 less displacement! (not to mention all the other design handicaps)

If you want another fun fact to think about the Mustang 302's were roller valve train from the factory and put out 225 FLYWHEEL hp and 300 ft·lb

Compare to JP magazines's Golen build up: 268 hp and 324 ft·lb
that is also flywheel. apples to apples.

Another "fun fact" the 87–92 GM 350:
225–245 hp and 330–345 ft·lb (factory flywheel numbers)

Now last but not least, who gives a crap that a well done Stroker
can put out more than a late model small block, or less than a modern overhead cam multi valve completely rollerized motor. I agree with someone else who said what a bunch of b***s**t. The value is in getting 200 wheel HP and a fresh engine in an XJ without touching the drive train or wiring harness.

 

[FoMoCo]

Man what an f*ed up thread. Some of you need to understand the difference between flywheel and wheel horse power. Those Chysler numbers on the first page are LOWER than a Golen strokers output and their torque curves are horrible compared to any stroker's I've seen.

Those Mustang numbers are from a 3 valve overhead cam engine! Stick to pushrod engines at least. Or compare BMW's screamin multi valve OHC I6 to the Ford modular.

I've owned a 4.6 4v DOHC Cobra. 320 is the factory rating and its a *little* conservative It is ALSO a flywheel number. The 4 valve all aluminum 4.6 is very well known in Mustang circles to be basically tapped out of potential until you put a blower on it (03-04 Terminator Cobra 380hp ALSO flywheel numbers, and yes usually about 20 to 25hp too conservative).

If you want to compare apples to apples look at pushrod ford 302 and Chevy 305 flywheel numbers. There are strokers out there putting down (wheel) more than those mills flywheel ratings! And with .3 to .4 less displacement! (not to mention all the other design handicaps)

If you want another fun fact to think about the Mustang 302's were roller valve train from the factory and put out 225 FLYWHEEL hp and 300 ft·lb

Compare to JP magazines's Golen build up: 268 hp and 324 ft·lb
that is also flywheel. apples to apples.

Another "fun fact" the 87–92 GM 350:
225–245 hp and 330–345 ft·lb (factory flywheel numbers)

Now last but not least, who gives a crap that a well done Stroker
can put out more than a late model small block, or less than a modern overhead cam multi valve completely rollerized motor. I agree with someone else who said what a bunch of b***s**t. The value is in getting 200 wheel HP and a fresh engine in an XJ without touching the drive train or wiring harness.

well said!
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

 

[Dr. Dyno]

The value is in getting 200 wheel HP and a fresh engine in an XJ without touching the drive train or wiring harness.

Yes indeed. Here's my most recent dyno run with a revised intake:

200whp, 254wtq, a flat torque curve, and very snappy throttle response. I'm happy.

 

[gradon]

Did your crane"s horsepower level off the same?

 

[Darky]

I just want a 6.1 Hemi crate engine backed by a 545rfe in my XJ. I'd get some SRT8 badges.
Or a Liberty or Bluetec WK diesel.
I've seen mileage figures for a 5.7 Hemi/545rfe swapped TJ done by AEV. The TJ got better mileage by something like 3-4 mpg w/the V8 swapped in. It wasn't a formal test like the EPA uses, but it was the author/tester's experienced mileage. The extra gear on the highway and the engines extra power kept it from working as hard.