Newer 4cyl Into CJ5?

True but I wouldn't waste my money on a donor vehicle that didn't run well. My mustang for instance - its an 87, runs/drives excellent with no smoke and even compression. The body was crap, but came with 2 Cowl Induction hoods, Complete GT40 Heads & Intake Manifold, and an Extra Set of Pony Wheels. I bought it for $700, and its been parted out to a bare shell (interior and all sheet metal is gone), I've made $1300 selling off the parts - netting me a profit of $600 + an entire Fuel injected Driveline for my 1968 car.

This is correct but I like to build my vehicles not buy them. I don't want to go too crazy - or I'd go with a V8 - so I was thinking a newer 4cyl/AX5/Dana300 would possibly be the simplest option while returning decent fuel economy, cheap to operate, and the overdrive for longer cruises.

This isn't my primary vehicle, but nothing is close in Maine. My drive to work is 35 miles and theres nothing like a top/doors off cruise in a CJ. I don't think theres anything wrong with wanting some better road manners/reliability to go along with that.

Good point about the overdrive, as far as the noise - sure it gets annoying but at the same time I'm maxxing out the little thing just trying to cruise to work at the speed limit. I can't imagine it'll be happy there for very long. And as mentioned, I have other cars.

Great to hear, do you have a thread going about your build? Same here in regards to the tranny, I wheeled with some friends who swore by those little 4cyl/5 speeds. This will be a cruiser and not off road much. My tires are 31's so there won't be much strain on it.

I'm honestly not sure, I'll have to crawl under there and figure it out. I still don't have it on the road yet, just been buzzing around my property and up/down my street.

 

By the way, I never mentioned driving it on the highway - our backroads/normal roads to work and the stores are 50mph zones. My 35 mile drive to work includes no highway at all, but the speed limit (and rate of traffic speed) is anywhere from 50-60mph at most points. My closest supermarket is a good 20-25 minutes away LOL.

 

"I've been curious about using a Ford, maybe Ranger, 4 cyl. I believe the early 90's FI engines share the same bell housing bolt pattern as the early Pinto 2300 engines. Seems like it should be as easy. almost, as the Pinto conversion, mechanically. Not sure about the actual physical size, with the FI plenum, etc., etc. Or, I could be completely out in left field....................again."

I have a Ford Ranger engine for my 1961 CJ5 and IMO that is the best engine conversion for a street driven CJ5. It is almost the same size as the F134, can use all the original fuel lines until you hit the engine compartment and the weight is almost the same.

What people don't tell you. You have to have the radiator reworked because the hoses are in a different place (that or use the Ranger radiator), the throttle linkage has to be changed and the clutch now works in the opposite directions so the bar that the cable attaches to needs a new tang welded on. Other than that it is pretty straight forward and if you want, the 2.3 can make a lot of power. My engine is making right at 115hp which is more than enough if the Jeep is running stock size tires (I have 235/75/15's) But, it can easily make more HP/Torgue than a stock Dauntless V6. I have not yet driven mine on the road so I cannot tell you what the MPG will be but I will surprised if it is below 20 MPG since the donor truck was getting right at 25 MPG (this guess is including a WARN OD)

The transmission from the Ford Ranger is a complete no go IMO - they are junk to begin with and they are long. Novak adapter is the way to go - the right bell housing is the one from a Pinto or the small Mustang.

Also the engine must be a LIMA 2.3 not the Mazda version

 

I was torn between a ranger 2.3l/2.5 and the gm 4.3, the ability to get almost any engine part off the local parts shelf was the deciding factor. the 2.3 is relatively common, features every fuel induction system, carb, tbi, mpi, turbo. the 2.3/2.5 is ohc and a volvo head conversion can provide dohc.
just stay away from the odd engines, there is normally a reason they are "odd" and uncommon, parts become more expensive, install becomes less supported.

 

The Volvo head is way more trouble than its worth, unless you like never-ending projects. We've got a 2.3 turbo in our race car, that would be a total hoot in a cj. It gets the merkur moving pretty well, and parts are mostly easy to find. Tons of adapters available too.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

Keep in mind the rpm range of the engine and intended use. A 2.3 is a good high revving engine that works well in a lightweight Jeep, but doesn't make much torque at low rpm. Great for mud, sand, highway, etc, but not so good for slow speed trail running. Gotta match the engine to the use of the vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone

 

The 2.3 Ford engines does make a good low end torque, way more than the Fhead any day and no one seems to think that engine has a problem doing slow trail crawls. Truth is the 2.3 is not far off you average V6. The 2.3 that comes in the Ford Ranger has been designed to be a truck engine, it works fine as a slow speed trail running engine.

 

The 2.0/2.3 were designed as subcompact car engines to be an economical and dependable engine in competition with other like vehicles in the early '70's. It does this very well. It later was used in the Ranger when the compact truck market started as it was an economical and dependable engine, if slightly underpowered. It was already in production and made sense to use it. Later versions used in the Ranger are derivations of these engines. It was never "designed as a truck engine".
Having worked on lots of cars equipped with the 2.3 (including Turbocoupes and SVO Mustangs) these trucks at Ford dealerships and later on, driven them in Jeeps, Sandrails, etc, my experience has been they are great engines, in their element. They certainly don't make the same low end torque as a good V-6.
Again, you need to match the engine to the use of the vehicle. If what you have works for you, then great!



Sent from my iPhone

 

No Nick, it most definitely was re-designed to be a truck engine, the LIMA engine put in the Ford Ranger was intended to be a truck engine from the time they decided to put the engine in them. They went through the head and changed the chamber (several times), reworked both manifolds and they even changed the cam - it most definitely was not a sub compact engine. Your comment is like saying a V8 was never designed to be a truck engine simply because it hit performance cars first....


Have you ever been 4 wheeling in a Ford Ranger 4x4? Did it seem like you were in something with a car engine?

So yes your history of where the LIMA engine began is correct, it started in the Pinto/Fox Mustang that is where it ends. When considering if an engine is a good fit or not you have to consider the whole picture. The engine in a Ford Ranger is perfectly matched for the use it would get in a CJ. I said nothing about making the same torque as a good V6, I said they make the same torque as the average V6 you see people using.

Bottom line I said they are better than the Fhead/Lhead which is the discussion. Personally I think they are better than a V8/V6 for a CJ running stock drive train and tires, but that is just a preference. My opinion there comes down to physical size of the engine and the gas mileage. That and how much cheaper the swap is when everything is thrown in.

Read this if you want the truth about the LIMA engines -
http://www.imagebam.com/image/aaf988178655973

Note: they start making power at around 1800 rpm, the Vortex 4.3 (the most common V6 swap besides the maybe the Dauntless) starts making power at around 2300 rpm. Of course when a 4.3 is newly built it is making about 250lbs where as the 2.3 LIMA is making right at 140lbs so that is not close. Bring those RPMs down to around 1000 though and you will see the gap is not nearly as wide as you might expect. That is where my comment comes from. Not really saying the 2.3l compares that well on HP/Torque numbers, just that it compares well for CJ use.