1. Registration trouble? Please use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom right corner of the page and your issue will be resolved.
    Dismiss Notice

Obsolete F134 ?

Discussion in 'Early CJ5 and CJ6 Tech' started by Arnold Layne, May 28, 2015.

  1. May 29, 2015
    uncamonkey

    uncamonkey Member

    Greeley CO
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,104
    I did a 198 V6 conversion in 1971. the L134 had been rebuilt by us but we never could get the rear main seal to work and nobody else could either. It would outrun F heads.
    LSS, I replaced all of the drivetrain and added an OD. Even with the 5:38 gears, it would run at close to 2x the speed limit.I Don't know, the speedo would hit the pin at 0 and start bouncing in the MB, speedo went to 70, no GPS then. and never got clocked by the PO's. Other than for a correct restoration, I never missed that 134.
    (as far as I could figure, It would do over 100 mph, don't tell anyone).
     
  2. May 30, 2015
    Southtowns27

    Southtowns27 Custom Title

    The Backhills of...
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    536
    If it really does have low mileage, just run it! Or at least get it running and try driving it first. You may find that it needs nothing more than a tuneup and you'll save lots of $$$
     
  3. May 30, 2015
    Arnold Layne

    Arnold Layne Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    213
    Well, I think this has been a fairly thorough flogging of the subject. I do understand the limitations of the 134 and I'm in no hurry, my V6 Jeep has not seen 55mph since I have owned it and I have another V6 Jeep on the way, so getting higher performance out of this one is not an issue for me. If it was wicked expensive I would be looking at a 4cyl. Chevy. I am not at all a fan of waking dormant engines. A few years, yeah, but this one is nearly thirty years and I bet the engine had not budged 'til I grabbed the front pulley to see if it was stuck. I used to do it a lot, and even though some of them ran okay none of them amounted to anything that I would call a healthy engine. It's got 47K miles on now, I really don't see it being any good in the long run. A bunch of people on another forum I frequent seem to think if they soak a stuck engine with ATF and force it to turn then the poor thing is ready to go back into real service. And it makes me want to scream! Yeah, I know this one isn't stuck, it's a real pet peeve of mine. We will see, I might try to light it anyway. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm interested in a restoration/preservation more than a hot rod. Thanks
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  4. May 30, 2015
    Arnold Layne

    Arnold Layne Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    213
  5. May 30, 2015
    timgr

    timgr We stand on the shoulders of giants. 2022 Sponsor

    Medford Mass USA
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    23,596
    You're welcome.

    If I were thinking about a 4-cylinder to replace the F134, I would seriously consider the AMC 150 cid 4-cylinder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_straight-4_engine

    It has the same bell pattern as the GM LR2 2.8L V6, and would be easy to adapt to the T-90 (I think). The last versions used the excellent Mopar MPFI, which could be easily carried over from the donor vehicle. 130 HP, nearly twice that of the F134, and 38% more than the GM 3.0L.
     
  6. May 30, 2015
    gunner

    gunner Member

    Washington state...
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    596
    The GM 3.0 gets its increase in cubic inches mostly from a longer stroke than the 153 (2.5L). It's an extremely tough engine- used countless hours in industrial equipment and routinely at wide open throttle in marine applications. IIRC, it has 5 main bearings. It also comes able to hook up a MPFI. In a CJ- flatfender or round fender- I think it's the most natural looking replacement for a Fhead and the route I'll go if the engine in my A1 ever dies. Uses the same tranny adaptors to a T90 as does the SBC. But unless originality is important, it's difficult to argue with putting in a 4.3

    Tim, I'd be surprised if the AMC 150 produced that much more HP over an engine with 31 more cubic inches. I think GM is understating things, maybe since the motor is meant for industrial and marine applications and doesn't have to impress the auto crowd. The real downside to a GM 3.0 is the cost. They aren't easy to find in good used condition. Most of the marine engines have been beat and have cracked blocks. The industrial ones have mind-boggling hours on them. I recently had a chance to get one with almost no hours on it that came from a generator. But we were in the middle of a move and had no place to put it (or anything to put it in, come to think of it). Another thing- you need to find a postal or a Nova or OMC pan- the 3.0 normally came with a front sump pan.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2015
  7. May 31, 2015
    54Willys

    54Willys New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Messages:
    14
  8. May 31, 2015
    scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Asheboro, NC
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2014
    Messages:
    428
    [​IMG]There are times...
     
  9. May 31, 2015
    oldtime

    oldtime oldtime

    St. Charles,...
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,466
    Yes the term OBSOLETE does an excellent job of describing both the Go-Devil and the Hurricane engines.
    There are two main reasons why they should be considered as OBSOLETE.
    First reason is that they were designed to operate on the absolute poorest grades of fuel.
    They were intended to run on crude uncracked petroleum (69 octane) or worse if and when that was required.
    I have myself run them in a severe pinch through remote stretches of the desert on nothing but kerosene
    To accomplish this task the early Jeep engines used an especially low compression ratio.
    Todays fuel is far more refined allowing greater energy from the fuel supply which the Willys engines cannot take full advantage of.
    For that basic reason the Willys fuel utiliztion is certainly OBSOLETE.

    Secondly these Willy's engines were designed with a long stroke in order to gain fuel economy and increase the available torque.
    They have excellent torque for their size but know it comes at a cost.
    The cost of increased torque without increasing the displacement is realized as a loss of potential HP.
    If the stroke had been shortened and the bore increased then that would allow for a change of the "RPM ranging" to yield somewhat increased road speeds.

    In truth these engines are no better nor are they any worse than any other engine ever designed.
    They are only DIFFERENT and they are OBSOLETE by todays far different expectations.
    Think about this ...
    Say we were able to travel back in time with our current technology ...
    Being in the 1940's and trying to utilize our current modern engines would cause very much grief.
    Modern engines would be considered as fully impractical during the wartime of the 1940's.

    Bottom line is they are excellent engines yet they are obsolete by todays common found standards.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  10. May 31, 2015
    Alan28

    Alan28 Well-Known Member 2022 Sponsor

    Châtillon en...
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,327
    My Hurriane is a pleasure to drive. I had to change some components, ignition, checking carb, etc..; and now I just push the Start button ( I added a start button, don't like the turning key system) and ... poum-poum- it runs, calmly.

    The CJ5 is not really made for speed :D and is sensitive - needs a fine touch for driving - risk of roll over.... to say that it is good to drive it slowly, on slow ways;
    for speed driving I take an other car.

    I am sure that is some hours and with some cheap parts your engine will start and run calmly. If not, sell the Jeep! Do not waste your time, buy an other one...
     
  11. May 31, 2015
    Drive28

    Drive28 Member

    Cape Cod...
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Messages:
    108
    oldtime....I agree with you....todays expectations are far different!

    Alan28....like you, I totally enjoy driving my Hurricane powered CJ5. The driving experience is exactly what I would expect from a 50s or early 60s CJ........it is a vehicle frozen in time..........and I am a preservationist.
     
  12. May 31, 2015
    Southtowns27

    Southtowns27 Custom Title

    The Backhills of...
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    536
    So I shouldn't be doing this then? [​IMG]
     
  13. May 31, 2015
    4x4Dad

    4x4Dad New Member

    Yorba Linda, CA
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    12
    Holy smokes!

    At minimum, don't take a pic while doing that! Otherwise, power on, big man!
     
  14. Jun 1, 2015
    uncamonkey

    uncamonkey Member

    Greeley CO
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,104
    I know I did it but really can't recomend running that fast. It occured to me later that I only had 9" brakes on the MB. Steering was all dialed in so it tracked right The 3B has 11" brakes and the Commano has 10" power brakes. both will do over 85 with the V6s. I cruise around 50 in the 3B and might push the Commando up to 65. We had an old 2A with a 332 SBC, cam, headers, right heads and a 4BBL On a dirt road if you mashed the go pedal, you were pretty much concerned with keeping the Jeep on the road up to about 50MPH. I have no idea how fast it would run. When I had the MB over 100 was over 40 years ago, young and stupid. Still stupid I suppose.
     
New Posts