Notices
Modified JK Tech Tech related bulletin board forum regarding subjects such as suspension, tires & wheels, steering, bumpers, skid plates, drive train, cages, on-board air and other useful modifications that will help improve the performance and protection of your Jeep JK Wrangler (Rubicon, Sahara, Unlimited and X) on the trail.

PLEASE DO NOT START SHOW & TELL TYPE THREADS IN THIS FORUM

Engine ups grades

Thread Tools
 
Old 01-11-2009, 08:25 AM
  #31  
JK Super Freak
 
CIJeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scarp


When I ask the local Machinist about this building motor he rolled his eyes and said get a decent base to start with.

He had rebuilt a couple of these motors and made the bottom end statement.
I hope you had the sense to remind him these are "truck engines" and have basically been around for years.

The first go around for this engine was in 69 and I had one then, sans the electronics. The bottom end is fine, if it wasn't then all the supercharger kits would be blowing out the bottom end, period. I can see someone crying about the 60 deg versus the 90 or whatever, but there are no facts to support a weak bottom end ATM.

The other thing some of you are forgetting is the cost of adapters to fit engines to the drive train, whether or not the drive train will support it. Having to give up the option of a stick for the auto, and so on.

Modifying the engine would cut down these costs considerably. Then again it might point out weak trannies, transfer cases, etc.
Old 01-11-2009, 08:43 AM
  #32  
JK Enthusiast
 
scarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

3.8L: The 3.8L shares the same block with the 3.3L year-by-year. The only difference is the larger bore. The 3.8L never was used in the LH cars, though, so the two extra bosses on the right side (that’s on the back side when the engine is installed transversely) of the ’93 and later 3.8L castings are always machined down almost flush with the block, too.

There have been reports of significant core shift on all of these blocks, so it can be risky to bore the 3.8L blocks very far oversize. It’s better to bore a 3.3L block up to a 3.8L standard than to bore a 3.8L block oversize unless you check all the cylinders with an ultrasonic tester to make sure there aren’t any thin spots that will cause problems.

There are some main caps that have a wide groove for the bearing tang and others that have a narrow groove. If you use the bearings with the wide tang, you may have to file the cap to make sure they will fit from time-to-time. If you use the ones with the narrow tang, you will have to crowd the tang to the front in order to position the bearing correctly in the wide slot.

The 3.8L rod is shorter than the 3.3L rod in order to compensate for the longer stroke with the same deck height. Look for a 4448904 or 4654356 casting. There have been reports of a few 3.8L rods literally breaking in half , so they should all be carefully inspected and probably even Magnafluxed.™ And, if there’s one broken rod in a motor, it would be wise to double check the rest of the set or throw them all away to play it safe.

Hmmmm

Can't seem to find better flowing heads so custom port job would be needed. Big $$$$

Can't seem to find aftermarket cam so it must be a custom regrind. Big $$$$

Again IMO it would be cheaper to start with a good base with aftermarket support.

But then what do I know about building a stout motor.



406 SBC 10.31 @ 135 mph on motor 9.63 @ 146 mph on juice
Old 01-11-2009, 08:54 AM
  #33  
JK Enthusiast
 
scarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CIJeep
I hope you had the sense to remind him these are "truck engines" and have basically been around for years.

The first go around for this engine was in 69 and I had one then, sans the electronics. The bottom end is fine, if it wasn't then all the supercharger kits would be blowing out the bottom end, period. I can see someone crying about the 60 deg versus the 90 or whatever, but there are no facts to support a weak bottom end ATM.

The other thing some of you are forgetting is the cost of adapters to fit engines to the drive train, whether or not the drive train will support it. Having to give up the option of a stick for the auto, and so on.

Modifying the engine would cut down these costs considerably. Then again it might point out weak trannies, transfer cases, etc.


Chrysler introduced a whole new family of 60 degree V6 engines beginning with the 3.3L OHV in 1990. It was followed by the 3.8L OHV in 1991 and the 3.5L SOHC that came out in 1993. All three of these engines have performed well and provided good service, but the industry continues to change so quickly they were soon replaced in the cars by another family of SOHC and DOHC engines that were introduced in 1998!
1969?
Old 01-11-2009, 09:25 AM
  #34  
JK Freak
 
08SaharaM6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 07424
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scarp
Hmmmm

Can't seem to find better flowing heads so custom port job would be needed. Big $$$$

Can't seem to find aftermarket cam so it must be a custom regrind. Big $$$$

Again IMO it would be cheaper to start with a good base with aftermarket support.

But then what do I know about building a stout motor.



406 SBC 10.31 @ 135 mph on motor 9.63 @ 146 mph on juice
You have to realize some people always have to think their way is always right. I was just throwing info out there for people to do what they want with it. My brother builds engines, but I am not gonna sit here with the knowledge he gives me and argue whether or not to throw money into a 3.8 build up. I know you can get power out of a v6, I have seen it done but you are going to spend just as much or more doing it.

Nice drag truck by the way, is that a Chevy Luv?
Old 01-11-2009, 10:02 AM
  #35  
JK Super Freak
 
CIJeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scarp




1969?
Yes, check out the engine, no alum heads but the basic design was there. I had one. It was the engine that Chrysler used for their current designs.

Oh, and the bottom end of the current design evidently can hold together in racing condiion at 500 hp of turbo driven force. Weak bottom end? I don't think so.



Don't get me wrong, I'd never say that anyone should shun a good V8, it is just that there are other options and the engine is capable of them.
Old 01-11-2009, 10:11 AM
  #36  
JK Super Freak
 
CIJeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scarp
Hmmmm

Can't seem to find better flowing heads so custom port job would be needed. Big $$$$

Can't seem to find aftermarket cam so it must be a custom regrind. Big $$$$

Again IMO it would be cheaper to start with a good base with aftermarket support.

But then what do I know about building a stout motor.

406 SBC 10.31 @ 135 mph on motor 9.63 @ 146 mph on juice
I had a 63 triumph with a H&M 289 "stocker" that did better. Also have had a few other goodies over the years. All that aside.........

Introduced in 1990, the 3.3L was the first Mopar designed and built V6 engine to see duty in front wheel drive Chrysler vehicles. [A 3.9 liter engine, based on the LA series V8s, was the first Chrysler made V6, but it only saw truck duty.] The 3.3 was even successful as a 255-horsepower racing engine (as used in Shelby Can Am cars).......

The 3.8 New Yorker/Imperials is slightly more powerful and are much better from dead stop (idle) to highway speeds. The local ricers try to hide from the 3.8s as they are surprised by the power of a stock, heavy car....
The 3.3 Shelby also had a 500HP version.

I'm not touting running small blocks over big cubes, just saying that there are other reasonable options and for 18 freaking grand I can make custom parts for one small block that would match or beat the big cuber. (providing the drive train can take it)

So if someone wants to stick with what they've got and pump it up a bit then why deny them the pleasure and deny them the possibility? Hmmmm?

Why the hell do you think there is bracket racing?
Old 01-11-2009, 10:18 AM
  #37  
JK Super Freak
 
CIJeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Before some of you guys get your panties tied in a bunch let me say that I am not opposed to big engines, big power, and that I also know the possibility of getting big power out of small cubes.

Why deny someones desire to pump it up a bit without going crazy?
Old 01-11-2009, 10:40 AM
  #38  
JK Enthusiast
 
scarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CIJeep
I had a 63 triumph with a H&M 289 "stocker" that did better. Also have had a few other goodies over the years. All that aside.........



The 3.3 Shelby also had a 500HP version.

I'm not touting running small blocks over big cubes, just saying that there are other reasonable options and for 18 freaking grand I can make custom parts for one small block that would match or beat the big cuber. (providing the drive train can take it)

So if someone wants to stick with what they've got and pump it up a bit then why deny them the pleasure and deny them the possibility? Hmmmm?

Why the hell do you think there is bracket racing?
OMG dude get a clue.

The 3.9 truck motor was a 90 degree v6 not related what so ever with the 60 degree v6.

Nice link you used though. www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

even in that same link.

Jim Gathmann wrote: "when the 3.3 and 3.8 were tested for turbo applications, the engine blew its self to bits.
The problem was that the 3.3/3.8s would literally break apart on the bottom end during what Chrysler has called 'moderate boost.'"


I am done with this as you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.


Old 01-11-2009, 11:03 AM
  #39  
JK Super Freak
 
CIJeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scarp
OMG dude get a clue.

The 3.9 truck motor was a 90 degree v6 not related what so ever with the 60 degree v6.

Nice link you used though. www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

even in that same link.






I am done with this as you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

The "Dauntless" 225 V6 engine was introduced in 1966 in the CJ and C101 models. The V6 configuration of the engine makes it very compact which is a big plus in tight Jeep engine compartments. Kaiser purchased the tooling to build the 225 from Buick and later, AMC sold the tooling back to Buick.

Type and Description
Six-cylinder, 60° V-type, liquid-cooled. New US-engineered engine based on a proven basic design.
Displacement 230.5 cu. in. (3778 cu. cm)
You should check your facts before you open your mouth. I won't bore you with the rest of the details of the engine I quoted above. I also had one of these. Also in regards to your "fact" you quoted from the Mopar site, you might want to do a little more reading, then explain to everyone why the Shelby engine held together, eh?

Oh, that's right, you're done with me, lol, buh bye!
Old 01-11-2009, 11:33 AM
  #40  
JK Enthusiast
 
scarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Oh this is too good to pass up.

The only thing the 225 BUICK v6 had in common with the 3.3/3.8 mopar was it was a 60 degree design period.

the reason the shelby held together is right there in the link.

255 hp.

the 500 hp was never tested.

originally the plan was to produce two versions of this race car, a 255 hp version and a roughly-500 hp model, the 255 hp version being the entry circuit.
since the circuit did not do well enough, the 500hp version of the circuit never came to exist.
Internally, the engine uses forged rods, J&E Mayle pistons (which make 11:1 compression ratio), a forged crank, and a slightly different cam. The valves were slightly bigger, and the heads were ported and tuned by Shelby's shop. The Can-Am engine had a special Shelby Dodge upper intake manifold, a special Shelby Dodge throttle body with twin intakes (pictured), and a special version of the Mopar 3.3 PCM (which had this engine redlining at 6800 rpm).The exhaust system
is pretty much just high diameter, low restriction tubing with larger exhaust valves. Fuel used is 100 octane (unleaded), however I have been told that some of these engines did run higher octane fuel at the track.
see all that forged stuff and intake/heads etc. for 255 hp? 50 more than the 3.8

Try to find all that stuff today for a 3.8 for less than a good hemi.


Quick Reply: Engine ups grades



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:29 AM.