shortnose CJ5 with V8

well i have my 71CJ5 down to the frame. i'm hopeing that i'll be able to finance a complete re-build in the next 1 to 1 1/2 years.

currently i've been playing with either:

1)4.0L, AX15, NP231, Dana44 front/rear w/5.38gears

2)97+ TJ 4cyl, AX15, NP231, Dana44 front/rear w/5.38gears

3)chevy 4.3L, ??, ??, ??

but now my wife and me have been talking, and we just started wondering..................since i'm building this from ground up, why not put in a Chevy 305 or 350???

so my question is...................have any of you guys put V8's in a shortnose CJ??? what were the biggest changes/mods to make it work??? what drivetrain are you running??? would you do it again/recommend it???

 

I put a chev 283 in a 67. If I remember correctly the water pump has to be short and I used a flex fan, the radiator to front grill space went from 8 or so inches to 1, the engine was a little tilted-to the rear to allow the front diff to travel and not hit the harmonic balencer/pully, the dist is very close to the fire wall (not neccesarily a bad thing-stays drier that way) I had a 350TH and a tnx case off a 4X4 truck, the rear driveline was Short.
I threw a couple of extra leafs in the front spring set up, went from 13 to 15 IIRC. Engine mounts were no problem, width is good, easy to get to the spark plugs. You will need to get a drive line shop to put together a heavier tube and yolk combo, the torque difference will pretzel the old one the first time you get in a hurry. I ran inside the frame headers with glass packs ending infront of the rear wheels.
It was a great rig, wish I never sold it.
I think a 327/283 would have all the power you will ever need, the 350's have had overheating problems, and the smaller engines have all sorts of performance enhancements available plus are pre smog. The earlier engines are simpler, dont have all the electronics and airpumps etc.
KISS
I'd say do it.
Thats if you aren't in the keep it original club

 

The Chevy V8 was very popular swap to the early CJ-5 20 to 30 years ago. Today it seems like the V6s are more popular because they are easier to fit in the engine compartment, and they are now inexpensive and readily available. Novak has a good write-up about SBC swaps into CJs http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/cj5_55-71_swap.htm

 

I have a 350 in Speedy. PO put it in. Lot of fun having one in there, but a 4.3 would be waaaaaay more practical. More room, a little better on fuel consumption and still plenty of power.

 

I would agree with the V-6 vs the V-8. If I were ever to do a retro mod type build/swap, it would be a 4.3 swap. I've heard of folks on this board talking of the V-8s being too much power for the drive trains if you wheel to hard and don't upgrade other parts of the system (axles, trans, T/C etc...). Someone with more knowledge will pipe in I'm sure.

Of course, having three :v6: I see no reason to ever do a swap. Their perfect as is

 

Modern Jeep drivetrain don't even consider, they are too long. Personally I say Chevy V-6 because it is much easier to fit, I measured mine at around 22inches long IIRC. It is up to you V-6 or V-8. But whatever you choose go with a chevy tranny since that will cut out one adapter you need to buy.

 

not quite sure if i understand............i'm not just swaping the engine, but the entire drivetrain including driveshafts. so if i went with a V8, i would match the tranny/t-case to it, so there shouldn't be a problem with that.

you mean the AX15, NP231 would be to long??? the 22" you measured, from what to what is that measurement???



i was looking at the grill/radiator on my CJ, and there is like 6" or so between the radiator and the front of the grill, so i was thinking about either cutting the "shroud/box" down and move the radiator to about 2 inches from the grill. either that or i would relocate it completely. that way i could move the engine forward a couple inches, which would move the tranny/t-case forward too. then i'll move the front axle forward about 2", and the rear axle back about 2".

my wife and me are going to some used car lots in the next couple of days with a tape measure, so i can get some measurements of different "pre-matched" drivetrain setups, and then i'll get some measurements of some individual parts and see what numbers i come up with using different combos.

 

I looked into it and they were much longer then the stock drivetrain, maybe it could be done but not the easiest swap. That measurement was from the flywheel to the waterpump pulley( I am running the short smallblock waterpump).

 

are the 327/283 the carburated version of the 4.3L??? i got into cars as fuel injection was already quite common. i don't know squat about carburators, so i like to keep my stuff computer controlled. i grew up with nothing but electronics and computers in every aspect of my life, and feel more comfortable around computer controlled fuel injection. i have the equiptment to work with it and understand most of it.

 

no, they are V-8's.

 

The 283V8 (1964 version) in Shaggy has given me no problems with the drive train. I can't speak as to the modern drive trains, though. The older iron seems to be beefier. If I were to do it today, I would probably put in a computerized modern V6 just for the improved gas mileage and more room under the hood (easier fit). But since Shaggy won't be my DD and I don't know how to convert to a computerized engine, I'll stick with the V8.

tommy b

 

I'd expect any drivetrain from a Wrangler to be too long, since their wheelbase is 10" longer than a CJ-5. Rear driveshaft length is a prime consideration in these swaps - even the stock configurations have a very short driveshaft, and any amount of lift exacerbates the problem. Using a complete drivetrain from a longer wheelbase vehicle is generally impractical, both for the length and the offset of the front driveshaft. The distance between the frame rails is narrow, and practical choices of transfer case include the Dana 18, 20 and 300. The Dana 18 is a good choice generally becasue the offset rear driveshaft reduces the rear driveshaft angle.

 

:iagree:
And don't the modern Jeeps have issues with too short of rear driveshafts anyway?

 

First question, was your original 71 model jeep a 4 cylinder or a v6?
2nd neither one of the above 2 options would I consider viable swaps into early cj5's, they are long and when you compare a dana 18 to an NP231 you just went downhill as far as strength goes. The modern dana axles will drop on the drivers side instead of the passenger side. The only reason they drop on htis side is because they are chain drive instead of gear drive. A v8 in a jeep is very possible, the buick 350 v8 is almost a direct bolt in if your jeep was originally a v6 model.
Don't be afraid of a carburetor as they are far simpler to repair than EFI units especially a modern one with all the wiring that goes with it. If your not good at wiring you're setting yourself up for alot of hard learned lessons and alot of complication. If you ever intend to wheel this jeep stick with something a little more tried and true. The 4.3 v6 (non vortec) is good, the throttle body EFI is simpler than most, the motors are plentiful, go with an sm420 /sm465 granny geared 4speed and mate it to your original dana18 and use your stock axles, this drivetrain will be far superior to most jeeps. The factory rear axle in your 71 is one of the strongest axles ever put in a jeep. the front dana 27 is also very capable. No real reason to go modern as the aluminum drivetrains are considered to generally be weaker than most of the older iron or they create other problems.

 

I agree mostly, except I would not put a Buick 300/340/350 V8 in a CJ - except for really rare exceptions, the V6 CJs all came with T86s or T14s, and IMO the Buick V8 is too much engine for these transmissions. However, these V8s are a great match for a V6 Jeepster with a TH400.

Also, you cna find examples of modern chain-drive transfer cases (TCs) that drop on the driver's side (DSD), and that drop on the passenger's side (PSD). I'm pretty sure there's no technical advantage to either, except for compatibility to other components. For example, in 1980 Jeep switched from the TH400 to the TF727 in Wagoneers, and the TF727 pan sticks way out on the passenger side, so all Wagoneers 1980 and later are DSD, while earlier Wagoneers are PSD. Prior to 1980, Jeep paired the TH400 with the BW1339 TC, a chain-driven model. AFAIK the drop is picked based on the overall design, not for some inherent advantage of PSD over DSD or vice-versa.

 

i'm building this on a budget since i've been unemployed for almost 2 years due to medical reasons and so what i'm looking to do is build it with VERY COMMON parts that i can get for nickles and dimes.

so whatever i set in, will be matched from engine to axles.

now while i realize that the np231 and other t-cases aren't as strong as the spicer18 i had in there, the important factor for me is that i can nickle and dime 231's and can usually get parts in a matter of minutes if i have to.

i do realize that i sold a VERY GOOD drivetrain combo, but i just couldn't afford the "rare parts prices" that it takes to keep it running.

as i mentioned, i wanted an old cj for it's looks. nobody is going to know what drivetrain is in it unless i open the hood.

 

ok no offense, but am i just not explaining myself correctly???

i'm NOT using ANY of the factory drivetrain components. so i WILL NOT need any adapters if i plan my drivetrain correctly.

and i don't recall finding alot of T98's and spicer 18's in my local salvage yard and the jeep guys that live near me. but 231's are plenty around here and go anywhere from $100-$250.

and axles i get relatively cheap too. i usually don't pay more than $100 per axle, or sometimes buy entire vehicles for several hundred dollars, pull the axles and sell the rest to get my money back.

(it helps to have connections at dealerships, parts stores, salvage yards)