Want comments, drivetrain experiment.

OK guys I want before I take the leap to get feedback on this setup:

4.0, Borg Warner T-5, Klune-V, Dana 300 (4-1), and dana 44's front and rear.

I know I have to cut the floor and move the exhaust to get the Dana 300 to fit since the output is on the pass. side but I already have it.

The T-5 is behind a 258 and that is the question I have. I can fab up the sensor hole and mounting bracket but will the T-5 hold up to the 4.0? I know it is a little more power than the 258 but less cubes, what do you guys think?

Also I am going to graft in the back end of the XJ the rear of an MJ bed and then cut the back out and have a canvas shop make a cover. Anybody had any thoughts about this before, or am I barking up the wrong tree?


Just a few things that have been biting at my head for a while.

The 258 has a longer stroke than the 4.0L, so regardless of published numbers, I think in real world terms it probably produced about the same amount of torque. Also, if you're running a 4:1 low range you'll be stressing the transmission less than with a stock 2.72:1 low range. I think it'll live, although for the amount of work you have mapped out I don't understand why you don't go for an AX-15.

I already have the entire drivetrain out of another vehicle. In other words no cost. But the more I think about it the more I think the T-5 will hold up. Thanks

Simon

I second Eagle, with that torque multiplication you would be pushing the limits of that tranny, IMO since your doing all this work might as well just upgrade your tranny. you can grab an AX-15 in the 500$ range and you wont need any special adapters from engine to tranny or tranny to Klune, your klune will bolt up to the ax15. hope this helps

Karmir, I think you misunderstood my post. The torque multiplication here HELPS the tranny, it doesn't put more stress on it. Transfer case is after the tranny, so the effect is just like lower axle gears -- more mechanical advantage means the engine and tranny have less work to produce the same torque at the wheels.

Jeep used the T-5 behind the 258 (4.2L for you metric types) in the Wrangler so I think it will live behind a stock 4.0L especially when running a 4:1 low range, but I think Simon will have to be gentle with the stupid peddle on the street.

I am going to stick with the T-5. A different T-5 was used in front of the 5.0 in the Ford mustang. The only difference is the first gear ratio and bearings. It was called the World Class T-5. I have seen them handle 350hp motors. So I think this one might last well.

I will also be running 35 BFG M/T's and 4.88 gearing so I think there won't be much strain on it.

oh sorry I misunderstood sorry eagle.
Ive seen the T-5 up close... Those things are so tiny!

What kind of 4.0L (Renix or Mopar)?

You will need to cut the bellhousing of the T-5 for the CPS (or use a Mopar or HESCO balancer CPS kit) to keep the MPI. You will want to keep the MPI. There is no kit or web page to show how to cut and drill the bellhousing for the CPS (IIRC, Frank on the AMC web-ring and Strokers group on yahoo has done this before). Make sure the 4.0L crank is machined to accept a pilot bushing (a Jeep thing).

The Jeep wide-ratio T-5 is much weaker than the World Class Mustang close-ratio T-5. The physical gear size in the Jeep T-5 changes the bearing sizes and increases the failure rate of the input shaft bearing and wear on the input shaft gear and cluster gear. 80K easy miles is about what to expect for life from the Jeep T-5 (many cheap CJ-7's are due to failed T-5's). The Stang WC T-5 uses ATF for fluid, the Jeep will grenade with ATF and must use the expensive synthetic Mopar gear oil with additives (or a premium quality synthetic gear lube like Mobil 1 with additives). These two BW transmissions share a name but are quite different. The AX-15 is considered to be better, as is the newer NV3500 (and the NV4500 much better). The AW4 auto that is likely to be behind the 4.0L is considered bulletproof for this kind of setup (and has the CPS mount).

The KluneV should allow you to clock the D300 to drivers side (or the original CJ style passenger side) driveshaft configuration (whatever the front axle needs). The stock D300 output shaft is weaker than a NV231 with a quality large bearing SYE (AA or JB). The D300 has the advantage of cheap twin-stick options (2-4/L-H) and there are now large output shaft options as well.

The gear reduction of a low 1st T-5 + Klune (2.72 or 4.0) + D300 (2.6 or 3.5 or 4.0) will easily challenge the stock D300 output shaft. How you drive makes a big difference on the life of this combination (an auto and easy foot will live much longer, so qualify no-breakage testimonials from auto drivers).

With this gear train the pinion shaft of the rear D44 will be on the edge of it's torque limit as well.

Look around , as more than a few bobbed XJ/MJ bed configurations have been built. The length you will need for the drivetrain can be easily fit in what you propose.

The configuration can be made to work (a step before the next phase where you will add the HD trans & rear axle).

I have had the combo behind my 258 for 25,000 miles and it has held up. SO has the amc 20 onepiece shafts though. I will stick with it until I have a problem then slide a 4500 in. I will not use an auto, leak the fluid and it burns up and you aren't going anywhere, they overheat too.

If this configuration has survived 25K with the M20 it will probably survive well with the D44 (you must have an easy foot, and smooth driving style).

Auto concerns are much like locker concerns (part of the "dark side" of wheeling, IMO) without valid detail behind the drawbacks (many hate an auto based on opinion, but fail to produce facts). All my current 2WD's have manual transmissions and 4-wheel independent suspensions, and all my 4x4's have autos (just right on both configurations for my usage, even if most of my old bracket cars had autos). I have never had an auto leave me stranded off-road, and I have strapped many clutchless manuals off of Baja sand beaches dodging an incomming tide ... or the day after the tide drowned the clutchless wonder (a sad record for the manual fans).

It sounds like you are committed on the project, good luck, keep us posted on the progress.

You are correct in saying that a correctly setup auto can function well, especially with the torque multiplication. In the world I drive in I like gearing and solid components. In a perfect world, I would rather have a 4.7 six, nv4500, klune and an atlas. But I already have it so I can upgrade later. As to the side the diff is on, it is no trouble to swap sides, and I already have the axles. I will update on the progress, I think it will be interesting. The sensor won't be a problem. As for smooth driving and a easy right foot, that was learnt the hard way.

Ed A. Stevens said:

The KluneV should allow you to clock the D300 to drivers side (or the original CJ style passenger side) driveshaft configuration (whatever the front axle needs).

Click to expand...

Ed, I believe that you would still need a flip kit or fab a new shifter assembly if you wanted to go driver's side drop.

I know this isn't simonsxj's plan but I want to clarify it for anybody else reading this.

TN William said:

Ed, I believe that you would still need a flip kit or fab a new shifter assembly if you wanted to go driver's side drop.

I know this isn't simonsxj's plan but I want to clarify it for anybody else reading this.

Click to expand...

A flip kit with heavy access cover plate and the shifter linkage -- I ignored the details when I read the drivetrain was out of something else (CJ?). The shifters would move the the drivers side too (maybe a problem?). I have read about a few flipped D300's, but no feedback if they were happy (not like the Atlas feedback).

Thanks for the help .

simonsxj will probably not have much clutch problems to worry about with the gear reduction (I like stick shift 4x4's but hate to drive them after going to the dark side).