Moses Ludel
-
Posts
4,447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Store
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Moses Ludel
-
-
zidodcigalah...You're thorough as usual. The missing balls do need to be found. The colored ball(s) are often intended to distinguish a ball size that is different than the others. I can see the silvery metal, and it looks like aluminum. The yellow pieces would be brass.
Brass, if not very fine, is from bushings like the front pump or bronze thrust washers. Aluminum, as you share, can be from the transmission case or valve body. I would look at the accumulator pistons and clutch apply bores in the transmission case. The accumulator pistons often bind in these bores or chafe the bore over time. Look for accumulator damage and accumulator bore damage. (These are the band apply bores.)
Other aluminum sources would be the band adjuster threads, again part of the aluminum transmission case, and the gear train clutch pistons or plates. These piston/plates are #4 and #26 in the Mopar parts schematic for your transmission (below):
If you have the FSM, you have this photo of the valve body ball positions. Note that there should be seven check balls total. One is 11/32" diameter; the other six are 1/4" diameter. Measure the diameters to confirm size:
When you have the teardown completed, check all thrusts, the bores and edges of the clutch basket. Look at clutch steel and friction plates plus the clutch pressure plates for metal sloughing. You'll have more details and clarity.
Moses
-
Mike...Smart use of joints and angles, the pitman arm is low while the gear tucks nicely at the frame. I like the through-hole and sleeve in the crossmember for the steering shaft. 3" square tubing looks suitable for replacing the OEM crossmember, plus you added the forward frame horn cross-brace—also smart. The steering shaft support bearing is essential with the extra joint. With manual steering there is more force on the steering shaft.
Your short tie-rod (drag link) looks close to the tie-rod, which is optimal for reducing bump steer. Make sure the drag link and long tie-rod do not interfere with each other over the full cycling of the suspension and turning. Also, during wheel and linkage alignment, be sure to have the steering gear at its over-center position when the front wheels point straight ahead. Each tie-rod tapered ball stud should be centered in its joint before tightening clamps.
If you have the right steering column position and angle, you nailed it! The floorboard support plate looks good, smack between the pedals. How does this look from the driver's seat? If you're happy, I'm thrilled. Wise to use the Advance Adapters kit as a starting point. As you say, there are plenty of parts in the kit.
Great upgrade...Thanks for sharing!
Moses
-
Mike M...Well thought out and researched approach. Yes, the Model 20 is noted for its taller low range ratio (2:1), though there are aftermarket gear reduction kits available for a lower geared low range. If the passenger drop 208 will work, it's much less expensive, and the 208 chain drive TC is plenty strong for this application...You've thought out the solution of a BOP to Chevrolet adapter ring, be sure that the stack height (crankshaft/flexplate location, transmission input shaft depth and converter fit) is correct.
Yes, the Cutlass has a TH-200-4R. Fab'ing the crossmember for the 700R-4 should not be difficult, I usually build-in a better skid plate at the same time. If you need wiring for 700R-4 kickdown, etc., Painless has a popular kit with harness for these swaps. Also, if the '86 700R-4 has never been rebuilt, there are some recommended upgrades. Before the late eighties (1988-89), the 700R-4 underwent several changes, including a front pump seal fix to prevent the seal from popping loose. Your unit may have these upgrades already. Others impact the longevity of the unit.
Howell would be a good resource for confirming injector size compatibility between the 350/5.7L and the 4.3L V-6. If the 4.3L injector is the only difference, and if it's a direct fit to the 350 throttle body, that would be simple enough. (You could source a 4.3L replacement injector.) Your will need a V-6 ECM and wiring harness, and the 4.3L could be a source. Unlike multi-port/sequential fuel injection, throttle body injection would not create a problem as far as the cylinder firing order goes. It simply needs to know the #1 cylinder TDC reference. Regardless, both the Buick 3.8L and Chevy 4.3L use a 1-6-5-4-3-2 firing order. (Confirm cylinder bank numbering.)...You will need to sort out the distributor/ECM interface, and this could be an issue. If the ESC distributor won't work as a trigger, there are crankshaft trigger/sensors available from Edelbrock, Holley, MSD and others, though that's another cost. You do need a crankshaft reference signal for TDC on #1 cylinder.
Confirm that the 350 V-8 sensors and wiring are compatible with a 4.3L wiring harness and ECM. Howell does make a standalone 4.3L wiring harness, you'll need to confirm cost and such. Harnesses can get spendy.
Ah, you did mean 3.0L pistons with this purpose in mind. I like the later 231 for its even fire crankshaft and reliability. The Cutlass 3.8L is the right source, it's rear wheel drive configuration. 10:1 may require higher octane fuel unless the knock sensor can offset the compression boost. I build these engines at 8.7:1 to 9:1 maximum, which enables use of lower octane unleaded fuel. Any camshaft choice should target low end torque and mid-range power. 4,500-5,000 rpm would be the maximum rpm you'll ever need, especially with overdrive. Yes, my traditional choice was CompCams' 252H grind, which is now obsolete for many applications. CompCams has re-profiled niche camshafts for bottom end power. My goal in any case is more valve lift than stock with mild duration, a camshaft that produces high manifold vacuum at idle and lower rpm.
The 252 V-6 version of the Buick V-6 was available with a four-barrel (spread bore) manifold. That's an OEM solution. Otherwise, you'll be seeking an aftermarket performance alternative. Be sure to use a dual-plane manifold. The ESC distributor and ECM compatibility should be explored. GM TBI functions from a combined fuel-and-spark management ECM. Again, Howell may have insight into this ESC distributor. (You'll keep the Howell tech line busy.) Let us know how this sorts out.
I like your approach with the power steering and disc brake conversion. Open knuckle is the only way to go from both a service standpoint and turning radius. You'll have improved steering geometry, too, a smart approach.
An OEM proportioning valve would be my approach, I've used aftermarket manual valves, they essentially damp down the rear brake apply pressure and lack the ability to apply the front disc brakes in sync with rear drum brakes. (The OEM valves "hold-off" front disc pressure until the rear brake shoes' spring tension is overcome and the shoes contact the drums; this balances the brake apply.) OEM valves also proportion the pressure front and rear to help reduce risk of rear brake lock-up or nose-diving with the front brakes. A manual proportioning valve simply reduces rear pressure overall to prevent rear wheel/brake lock-up. This reduces brake effectiveness.
An OEM combination valve will also signal a front or rear hydraulic system failure with a light installed at the dash. I use an OEM combination valve for a vehicle with similar weight, wheelbase length and disc front/drum rear or four-wheel disc brake system—whichever you decide to run. Disc front/drum rear is easier on your budget and works fine. Water fording does require warming up/drying the rear brakes after a stream crossing. This can be done by dragging your E-brake briefly at a slow speed.
Again, you've done your homework and will do a thorough job. Please share photos, this sounds like a clean swap and build of a classic and popular Jeep 4x4!
Moses
-
A focused resource, the link will be useful to other Binder restorers. Thanks for sharing!
-
This is not a bad path. The 700R4 would need to be from a 4x4 truck or adapted with an Advance Adapters kit to the Jeepster's Dana/Spicer 20 transfer case. You mention the NP208. Be aware of the drop side (right or left) to the front axle. The Jeepster uses a Dana/Spicer 20 transfer case that drops to the right side at the front axle. An NP208 drops to the left side. The transfer case's front drop side must match the front axle's differential location.
I'm not clear whether you're rebuilding the Buick 3.8L V-6 from the '84 Cutlass? You describe the pistons as "3.0". Do you mean 0.030" oversized for a 231 Buick V-6?
The TBI could work if you have the ECM and all of the sensors. Many swap the entire 350 V-8 into a Jeepster. Does the Jeepster have manual steering? A GM/Saginaw rotary valve integral power steering gear is a popular conversion for these vehicles. I have used the slower ratio GM "big car" (4-turns lock-to-lock) steering gears for this kind of application.
Advance Adapters makes adapters for mating the 700R4 to the Jeepster transfer case. Most use the 700R4 overdrive (4-speed) transmission or a 3-speed THM350 or 400. The Jeepsters of that era actually used a THM400 3-speed automatic behind the 225 (Buick) Dauntless V-6. This was exceptionally strong for the vehicle's size, weight and engine output. GM 4x4 pickups of that period got the lighter duty THM350. The 700R4 would have the advantage of overdrive.
Anyway, I would like to know more about the parts you're considering: the engine, transmission, transfer case and induction system. If you do run a 231/3.8L Buick V-6, I would use a TBI system from a 4.3L Chevy V-6. Howell (https://howellefi.com/) makes a wiring harness and other parts for GM TBI conversions. You would need an ECM and all related sensors. The Chevy 350 TBI V-8 with all of its sensors and ECM might be an easier swap if you want TBI. Advance Adapters has motor mount brackets and other swap parts. You would need exhaust system, cooling system, wiring harness and fuel supply system pieces suited for EFI/TBI and a larger output engine.
-
You did the right test for the EGR: a vacuum pump applying directly to the EGR valve (whether on the engine or off the engine). The solenoid sounds operational if your vacuum hoses are hooked up correctly. I agree that you're in a holding pattern until you get an EGR that works properly. Bench test it before installing the valve.
EGR is strongest from just off idle to the mid-range rpm that you describe. EGR does help prevent detonation (ping) by diluting the intake stream with spent exhaust/hydrocarbons. This cools the upper cylinders to prevent NOx production. If the EGR does not operate, the engine's upper cylinders run hot and also lean, which can cause detonation and piston shake.
Since spark timing is fully controlled by the ECU, and presuming that the distributor housing is at its OEM fixed location, there should not be an issue with too much spark advance. Too much advance would be another cause of ping/detonation.
Get the EGR to function correctly. The EGR solenoid is triggered by the ECU and will either work properly or not. When the EGR gets a power signal from the ECU, the solenoid closes to prevent vacuum from reaching the EGR valve. As you discovered, when there is no signal from the ECU (plug disconnected at solenoid or power off mode from the ECU), the solenoid opens, and apply vacuum flows to the EGR valve. This opens the valve.
The EGR valve will close at an idle as dictated by the ECU. 15 in/hg vacuum is okay, the minimum you should have to the solenoid. Hose routing is important.
Is compression normal in this engine? Manifold vacuum should be higher than 15 in/hg when tested directly at the intake manifold while idling. I'd want to see at least 18 in/hg.
-
I believe you've got it right. On a conventional cab, the OEM main tank filler is behind the passenger door just below the bed sill level. The filler at the right front fender is auxiliary. The arrangement can easily lead to confusion. However, models without the auxiliary tank have only the filler behind the passenger door. If this were a Crew cab, the layout would be different.
-
Excellent on both counts: the right gauge cluster and floor pans. Pleased that there is still support for these models. They deserve it! Is the gauge cluster from a recycling yard or a specific I-H parts source?
-
Clever bump stop solution...The spring shop can work through the issues. Smart move.
-
Well, you certainly have maximum articulation for leaf springs front and rear! Are the hangers at the rear springs now aligned properly, or are they still offset? These hanger photos are the current alignment or from the past?
If you pursue a rear spring stack upgrade, the main and second leafs are crucial to anti-wrap. Think of these two leafs in the stack as the "torsion bars". A custom spring build can make the stack a "progressive" spring rate, increasing load capacity as the springs compress. There is also room to build ride quality and articulation into the equation. You're on it with regard to the "balance" here. The spring shop needs to understand your expectations. A scale/weight ticket would be helpful.
-
Understood...I search the internet constantly and can network to find these details quickly...Glad that helped.
-
Presumably, tdu659 is referring to the throttle body valve/plate...
-
RareCJ8...Your photos are excellent and helpful. The driveline looks well built, joints are massive and more than adequate for this application. The pinion angle at the rear axle is too many degrees for a CV driveline. Again, I'd want to see a 1.5-2.0 degree U-joint angle at the rear pinion joint. The CV double-Cardan joints are self-cancelling, so no should be no issue there.
The CV joints and center yoke do not appear to bind or rub, though that is an obvious concern with 23-degrees of static driveline slope. As the suspension/axle move downward, the slope is even greater.
This is a "spring over" axle and rear spring configuration. The GM 1500 rear leaf springs are designed for a spring over arrangement, so nothing's unusual. The leafs look stout and level. Regardless, the axle wants to rotate and twist/wrap these rear springs under torque application. The springs aren't offsetting the axle housing's rotational force.
These springs look relatively flat, very little arch as if fully loaded. I'd want to know the vehicle's rear axle weight/load and the weight capacity of these springs. The local truck scales can provide an accurate read on the front and rear axle's weight with the Jeep normally loaded. A spring shop has listings for the spring rate of these OEM replacement 1/2-ton GM truck rear springs.
Let's start here. These rear springs may be incapable of resisting the heavy axle assembly's rotation force. Your axle ratio(s) and tire size/unsprung weight also come into play here...If the vehicle's rear weight on the axle and the spring capacity don't align, the main leafs may not be stiff enough to resist spring wrap.
Moses
-
There are two outlets at Winnipeg. Like the Calgary sources, I found this one by simply going to the official POR-15 website (https://www.por15.com):
Chase Auto Body Supplies
1338 Border Street, Winnipeg R3H 0M9
Phone: 1-800-486-3111
-
If you're looking for POR-15, it's likely available throughout Canada to avoid the shipping hassle...Here are two Calgary sources:
Global Auto Body Supplies, Ltd.
Phone: 403-930-7899
Calgary Body Shop Supplies, Ltd.
Phone: 403-287-2372
-
Some use POR-15 to neutralize the rust and serve as a primer base. There are other, similar products. Check out Eastwood Company (online) for some ideas and possible videos.
-
The box cover makes sense, that's a straight bed for its age. If the sheet metal is sound, you can easily restore and paint this bed...
-
CJChris...So, you're installing a 4.0L in a CJ7? You want to know whether the OEM CJ 5/16" fuel pipe is adequate fuel flow to the fuel rail? 5/16" fuel flow should be adequate for a stock 4.0L engine. The pressure is fuel pump and rail regulator controlled, which compensates for the fuel line size. Your concern would be 5/16" fuel line gph fuel volume flow, and the stock 4.0L will not "starve" with a 5/16" fuel line. The Mopar EFI Conversion Kit for the 4.2L relies on OEM 1980-86 CJ and early (1987-90) YJ 4.2L chassis fuel lines.
The 1994 4.0L MPI/EFI system is two-rail with a pressure regulator at the rail. You need a return line, and I am guessing you'll use the OEM Jeep fuel return line to the tank? You do need a return line with two-rail EFI. The CJs with a BBD carburetor and three pipe fuel filter have that return line to the tank.
An external pump is not an issue as long as it's close to the 4.0L OEM fuel pump pressure. These are high pressure pumps. Pump pressure specs are in a 1994 YJ Wrangler or XJ Cherokee FSM. Replacement pump catalogs offer these specs as well...Make sure your fuel supply line connections and any hoses can handle EFI/high pressure. (The carbureted CJ was a light pressure mechanical fuel pump.) Any line, hose or fittings between the high pressure fuel pump and rail must handle the pressure.
Moses
-
RareCJ8...So the wild card might be the new, longer truck springs? A few cell phone pics of the springs, their frame mounts and hangers, and the angle of the stacks would be helpful. I'd like to see how the springs align with the frame at curb/static height and the arch of the installed springs. Leaf springs, as you know, double as a "torsion" member to keep a hypoid/beam axle from rotating. Let's see if the spring installation or alignment is failing to do so and why. You never had this problem before the spring install. A CV driveline is an improvement, not a detriment. The rear U-joint and pinion yoke/driveline angle is off, but it sounds like there's more going on here.
Moses
-
I'm surprised at how straight the bed floor looks. Wheel wells, too. You can take your time assessing the truck's condition now. Out of the weather...Yea!
-
So back to my points, RareCJ8. The rear CV driveline has the CV at the transfer case end. Those double-Cardan joints self-cancel each other’s angles. Regardless of driveshaft slope angle, you need 1.5-2.0 degrees of pinion shaft-to-driveshaft angle.
When you rotate the axle upward to set the pinion joint angle, you also shorten the space between the transfer case and rear axle pinion yoke. The driveshaft is then too long for the space between the transfer case output yoke and the rear pinion yoke. This creates bind. If you have a slip coupler in the rear driveshaft, the shaft could be bottoming in the slip joint. Either way, if the shaft is too long, you will have severe binding as the shaft rotates. Given the amount of angle change you applied, the shaft shortened considerably. If the rear driveshaft needs to be shortened be sure to have a slip joint built into the assembly. End goal is a rear pinion angle of 1.5-2.0 degrees.
When you measure for shaft length and the pinion angle, the rear pinion angle should be 1.5-2.0 degrees with the Jeep setting on level ground and full weight on the springs and axles. This is “curb height”, which is the baseline for driveshaft fitting. Do not measure with the vehicle lifted by the frame. If springs and axles are hanging, the measurement will be too long. From what you describe, it sounds like the rear driveshaft is too long for the pinion angle you are trying to achieve.
As for how to rotate the axle for the 1.5-2.0 degree pinion angle, you can use steel shims or relocate the spring perches. If the steel shims will not rotate the axle far enough, you would need to relocate the spring perches.
Regarding spacer blocks with a slope to replace the shims, that’s an option. My Ram 3500 has angled spacer blocks as part of the 4” lift kit. Longer U-bolts, accordingly. I never get spring wrap or any other issues. When the driveline is the correct length for curb height, and pinion joint angle is correct, there should be no wrap-up with stiff springs. If your springs are not up to stiffness, you can have spring stacks built to reduce risk of wrap-up. I’m not clear what springs you run, they should be ¾-ton truck capacity at least.
Modifying the rear springs with a stiffer main leaf and lighter secondary leafs could resist spring wrap and still provide reasonable ride quality. Here, a spring shop takes rear vehicle weight (loaded and unloaded) into consideration. The spring sag with the load could indicate too light a spring rate, although I know you carry a substantial trail gear load.
Stiffer rear springs or main leafs would level the Jeep and also provide some anti-wrap capability. (Spring arch can be configured for your front/rear ride height correction in the process.) The stiff main leaf at each side would act like a rear traction bar. If the driveline/rear pinion is at the correct angle, driveshaft sized to proper length, a slip coupler on the rear driveline, etc., and the rear spring wrap persists, you could consider anti-wrap bars or the fulcrum solutions.
In looking over the offerings at Summit Racing, there are many traction solutions to counter spring wrap. As you suggest, this is a last resort. Correct all other issues before considering traction bars, fulcrums, etc.
Moses
-
Rare CJ8...I know your chassis is modified with 3/4-ton truck axles (Sterling at the rear.) If you mean that the rear U-joint angle measures 6-degrees, that could be the problem. When you run a CV at the transfer case end, each of the double Cardan joints cancel each other, i.e. the “angle” of that joint becomes irrelevant. When you do a CV at the transfer case end, the rear axle pinion shaft-to-driveline angle should be 1.5 to 2.0 degrees with the vehicle resting on the ground, axles fully weighted. This is the upward canted pinion so common with CV drivelines.
Essentially, you could run 0-degrees at the pinion shaft/yoke end, but this would not enable the rear U-joint’s needles to rotate, resulting in rapid wear of the single-Cardan rear U-joint. The 1.5-2.0 degree angle is simply to keep the U-joint’s bearing cap needles rotating. Again, the CV is always self-cancelling angles; the rear axle shaft pinion is then set close to a straight line with the sloping driveshaft (1.5 to 2.0 degrees rear U-joint angle maximum).
This could account for both the axle wrap and the tearing up of the rear driveline. Also, if you're running Jeep springs at the back, the main leafs could be too weak to resist spring wrap, a contributing factor. Modifying the rear springs with a stiff main leaf and lighter secondary leafs could resist spring wrap. The stiff main leaf would act like a traction bar.
If the rear driveline joints are at correct angles, if the driveshaft is the proper length with the axle pinion angle set, and if you have a properly centered slip coupler on this rear CV driveline, the spring wrap and shaft binding should go away. If the spring wrap persists, Summit Racing and others have a variety of traction bar solutions.
Link and coil suspension is an option, but as you share, expensive. I would start by correcting the rear pinion joint angle and the driveshaft length.
Moses
-
The truck's safe and ready when you are...School, kids, I-H project—sounds like a full plate!
-
Now the project can unfold with your tools at hand...Congrats!
1956 Willys CJ3B Rebuild and Restoration
in Vintage Jeep® Vehicles 1941-71
Posted
Extension to the end of December well deserved! What a cool color, Mike! Nice work there, it looks great. Very thorough effort top and bottom, which should seal seams well. In your climate, any effort to block the effects of moisture is smart, and this should do it! This should be rugged and easier to keep clean...You did wear a respirator, right?
I can see the steering column and wheel in this view. Looks optimal! The Saginaw manual gear should be fairly slow lock-to-lock, which you want. Check the ratio. If faster, the steering wheel might be small and create overly sensitive steering response. If so, Grant made (makes?) a large diameter wheel that is near the OEM Willys steering wheel diameter. You'll see that wheel in my Jeep® CJ Rebuilder's Manual.
Moses