BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
Has anyone done it to retrofit a newer engine to an older XJ? What distributor would you use? Would any HO one work?
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
Putting a dizzy in an 00-01 4.0
- Thread starter BIGSLVRXJ
- Start date
Slo-Sho
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The 2nd most regulated state.
Never having seen a 00-01 I6 myself...I know that my 97 engine has the oil pump driven off the distributor, how is it done in the newer ones? I'd be looking for bolt hole locations between the two for compatability.
BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
I'm not real sure, my bro has an '01 and I've looked at the coil packs before but I've never been able to figure how the oil pump works on it. I know the hole for the dizzy is there and IIRC it's just blocked off. Since I have access to a bunch of 00s and 01s in the junkyard I was thinking about putting one in my '90, but I don't think it would know how to act with coil packs.:explosionSlo-Sho said:
Fred85
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Orange, VA
guess i'll be the first to ask why you'd put outdated technology in place of modern more maintenance free stuff???
BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
Which are you saying is outdated? Distributors?Fred85 said:
BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
Thanks for pointing that out 87manche. Yeah I would use the coil packs if I could but that would mean the whole front end harness swap which I have no desire to do.87manche said:
Happens to the best of us man.casm said:
Dr. Dyno
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Al Ain, UAE
BigBlackHeep said:
You can still use your existing distributor in a newer block (including the distributorless '00+ models).
dynorockcg
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Durham, NC
BigBlackHeep said:
What does IIRC stand for?
black2door
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Spfd. MO
If I Remember Correctly
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.
I don't think the dizzy housings changed much on the way up - at least, the mountings didn't. For some odd reason, the RENIX dizzy carries a Ford OEM number (haven't found out what else fits... AMC = All Makes Compatible!) but I don't think ChryCo found a reason to change that out.
If you do this, can I perhaps talk you out of the oil pump drive you won't need? I've got lots of ideas wanting for "test subjects," and the more I can gather, the happer I can get...
5-90
I don't think the dizzy housings changed much on the way up - at least, the mountings didn't. For some odd reason, the RENIX dizzy carries a Ford OEM number (haven't found out what else fits... AMC = All Makes Compatible!) but I don't think ChryCo found a reason to change that out.
If you do this, can I perhaps talk you out of the oil pump drive you won't need? I've got lots of ideas wanting for "test subjects," and the more I can gather, the happer I can get...
5-90
BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
You mean I can use a Renix one in all the HO ones? I thought they were slightly different.Dr. Dyno said:
You'll be the first one to know if/when I do this Jon.5-90 said:
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
I know there are different internals, I just haven't had the two housings side-by-side to compare.
All else being equal, tho, I'd sooner keep the RENIX block (stronger casting, better material,) throw on the OBD-I cylinder head (#7120,) and the OBD-II mains brace and studs. Clearance the brace to work with the 12-counterweight AMC258 crankshaft, and go from there...
5-90
All else being equal, tho, I'd sooner keep the RENIX block (stronger casting, better material,) throw on the OBD-I cylinder head (#7120,) and the OBD-II mains brace and studs. Clearance the brace to work with the 12-counterweight AMC258 crankshaft, and go from there...
5-90
BIGSLVRXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
I guess the new head is my main reason right now for doing something. I've got the 99+ intake but without the ports lining up the intake doesn't do much. At the same time though, I don't want the 0331 head so I guess maybe you're right on that sticking with the Renix engine and using a newer head. What does the OBD-II main brace and studs mean? Is that what made the 00-01 engines quieter?5-90 said:
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Milestones with the AMC242 cylinder head...
1987 - #2686 - introduced in RENIX form. Temperature sensor port at driver's side rear top.
1991 - #7120 - Revised for OBD-I by ChryCo. Intake ports raised ~5/8"
1996 - #0630 - Revised again for OBD-II release. Minor revisions, lightening of casting for NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) reasons. Temperature sensor port deleted (unmachined)
1999(ZJ/WJ, TJ)/2000(XJ) - #0331 - Revised again for distributorless (DIS) ignition. Casting lightened further, same reason. Bosses added, drilled, & tapped for mounting coil rail. NOTE - not only is this the "end-of-production" head (1999/2000 to 2007,) but it's also the one that is "prone to cracking" between #3 & #4 cylinders. You'll see some "#0331 club" posts around here and on the Strokers board...
2007 - End of AMC242 production life.
Milestones with the AMC242 engine block... (I don't have these casting numbers off the top of my head...)
1987 - Introduced by AMC
1991 - Slight revision by Chrysler. Block casting lightened 25-30# (NVH crap.) Boss went unmachined for knock sensor (driver's side oil pan rail.)
1996 - Brace for main bearing caps added, main bearing cap hardware modified to accept. Transfer of hardware allows stud to be used on earlier engines - may also need main caps (in that case, you'll want to get the caps align bored and honed before you try to assemble the short block.) Block also lightened another 15# or so - NVH again.
2007 - End of AMC242 production life.
AMC used a "high-nickel" iron alloy (about 5% by weight) when they cast their engines, making them rather tough and more resistant to abrasion by the piston rings. ChryCo used less nickel - it was cheaper.
AMC cast much thicker cylinder walls than ChryCo did - which also accounts for the durability of the RENIX block. I've done sonic checks on RENIX and OBD-I AMC242 blocks - the AMC block averaged .075" thicker cylinder walls (and .100" thicker head deck!) than the ChryCo - which is why some RENIX blocks can survive being bored out to 4.000", and ChryCo blocks would immediately ruined. Typically, .100" is the MINIMUM thickness allowed for iron engine block cylinder walls.
So, a mix of parts would be "building the perfect beast" - NVH honestly doesn't play a factor when building for performance (it should not,) and material choices are important (more for engine blocks than cylinder heads - heads aren't subject to as much abrasion or scraping wear.)
I specify the "12-cw" AMC258 crankshaft because throttle response isn't as important to me, and it saves me having a heavier flywheel made or the OEMR one machined to accept an inertia ring. If I was building a street machine, I'd get the four-weight AMC258 crankshaft to improve throttle response, and I'd probably use an automatic, or have the back of the flywheel fly-cut slightly (reducing, say, four or five pounds - I'd have to see what taking .050-.075" off would do with the area I'm thinking of...) - "slightly" to reduce weight without really losing strength. (Now you know why I know so much about raw materials...)
The main brace will make the bottom end more rigid (less crank flex,) but won't really help to make things "quieter." The inline six is a smooth-running mill from the off, but I do have a problem with NVH revisions on a truck or a working vehicle (while you should have it run fairly smooth, it's not a damn Lincoln, y'know?)
5-90
1987 - #2686 - introduced in RENIX form. Temperature sensor port at driver's side rear top.
1991 - #7120 - Revised for OBD-I by ChryCo. Intake ports raised ~5/8"
1996 - #0630 - Revised again for OBD-II release. Minor revisions, lightening of casting for NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) reasons. Temperature sensor port deleted (unmachined)
1999(ZJ/WJ, TJ)/2000(XJ) - #0331 - Revised again for distributorless (DIS) ignition. Casting lightened further, same reason. Bosses added, drilled, & tapped for mounting coil rail. NOTE - not only is this the "end-of-production" head (1999/2000 to 2007,) but it's also the one that is "prone to cracking" between #3 & #4 cylinders. You'll see some "#0331 club" posts around here and on the Strokers board...
2007 - End of AMC242 production life.
Milestones with the AMC242 engine block... (I don't have these casting numbers off the top of my head...)
1987 - Introduced by AMC
1991 - Slight revision by Chrysler. Block casting lightened 25-30# (NVH crap.) Boss went unmachined for knock sensor (driver's side oil pan rail.)
1996 - Brace for main bearing caps added, main bearing cap hardware modified to accept. Transfer of hardware allows stud to be used on earlier engines - may also need main caps (in that case, you'll want to get the caps align bored and honed before you try to assemble the short block.) Block also lightened another 15# or so - NVH again.
2007 - End of AMC242 production life.
AMC used a "high-nickel" iron alloy (about 5% by weight) when they cast their engines, making them rather tough and more resistant to abrasion by the piston rings. ChryCo used less nickel - it was cheaper.
AMC cast much thicker cylinder walls than ChryCo did - which also accounts for the durability of the RENIX block. I've done sonic checks on RENIX and OBD-I AMC242 blocks - the AMC block averaged .075" thicker cylinder walls (and .100" thicker head deck!) than the ChryCo - which is why some RENIX blocks can survive being bored out to 4.000", and ChryCo blocks would immediately ruined. Typically, .100" is the MINIMUM thickness allowed for iron engine block cylinder walls.
So, a mix of parts would be "building the perfect beast" - NVH honestly doesn't play a factor when building for performance (it should not,) and material choices are important (more for engine blocks than cylinder heads - heads aren't subject to as much abrasion or scraping wear.)
I specify the "12-cw" AMC258 crankshaft because throttle response isn't as important to me, and it saves me having a heavier flywheel made or the OEMR one machined to accept an inertia ring. If I was building a street machine, I'd get the four-weight AMC258 crankshaft to improve throttle response, and I'd probably use an automatic, or have the back of the flywheel fly-cut slightly (reducing, say, four or five pounds - I'd have to see what taking .050-.075" off would do with the area I'm thinking of...) - "slightly" to reduce weight without really losing strength. (Now you know why I know so much about raw materials...)
The main brace will make the bottom end more rigid (less crank flex,) but won't really help to make things "quieter." The inline six is a smooth-running mill from the off, but I do have a problem with NVH revisions on a truck or a working vehicle (while you should have it run fairly smooth, it's not a damn Lincoln, y'know?)
5-90