hows this for torque?

[Yagan]

I was researching this engine as my dad has one in his CH Chrysler. Its bolted to a TF727 trans. How hard would this be to drop into an FSJ considering its got the TF in place? Check out the torque numbers.

My Dads has about 70000 original kms on it. The body is about to fall off it but the donk is lively and smooth.

================================================== ==============
360 V8:

• Capacity: 360 cubic inches (5.9 litres)
• Type: Conventional, watercooled four stroke, reciprocating piston type with 8 cylinders
• Configuration: Front mounted, longitudinal, OHV, 90° Vee, "wedge" head
• Head: Pushrod and rocker actuated ohv with two valves per cylinder
• Fuel System: Holley two barrel downdraft type carburettor
• Bore and Stroke: 4.00 x 3.58 inches (101.6 x 90.932 mm)
• Power: 255 bhp (190 kW) at 4400 rpm
• Torque: 360 lb-ft (488 Nm) at 2400 rpm
• Compression Ratio: 9.2:1
• Valve Timing
  • Intake
    • opens: 16° BTC
    • closes: 56° ABC
    • duration: 252°
  • Exhaust
    • opens: 60° BBC
    • closes: 16° ATC
    • duration: 256°
• Firing Order: 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2
• Radiator Capacity: 26 pints
• Oil Pan
  • Without filter: 6.6 pints
  • With filter: 8.3 pints

================================================== ===================
Run down on the Engine back ground:
The New 360 V8



Both the sedan and Hardtop versions could be ordered with a choice of 265 Hemi, through to the newly introduced ?360? V8, this stonking 5.9 litre unit being rated at 190kW (255 bhp) and was manufactured at Chrysler?s Lonsdale (South Australia) facility. The 360 was a further development of the Fireball 318, the increase in power and size gained by using a larger bore and stroke, while the fitment of a two-barrel carburettor ensured the engine offered better performance, and worse economy if pushed hard. Whichever engine was chosen, Chrysler then mated it to an imported ?TorqueFlite? three speed automatic transmission, the locally manufactured version deemed less smooth.

[joe]

The 727 in a FSJ has an AMC bolt patterned case so it won't bolt up to a Chryco motor.

[Southern Gorilla]

The 727 in a FSJ has an AMC bolt patterned case so it won't bolt up to a Chryco motor.

100% correct.
But there is still a simple way to do it IF the FSJ already has a TF727 in it. The tailhousings of the transmissions are interchangeable. So keep the Mopar 727 bolted to the engine and the AMC 727 bolted to the T-case and then graft the two together. Somebody around here has pictures to prove it. I've seen the thread, but have no idea where to look for it.

[Yagan]

100% correct.
But there is still a simple way to do it IF the FSJ already has a TF727 in it. The tailhousings of the transmissions are interchangeable. So keep the Mopar 727 bolted to the engine and the AMC 727 bolted to the T-case and then graft the two together. Somebody around here has pictures to prove it. I've seen the thread, but have no idea where to look for it.

Thats what I was thinking. Yeah my cherokee has the TF727 as its an 81.

I would have thought that the tail housings interchange. So that swap would likely involve modified motor mounts, tailshatf interchange and wiring/piping.

Thats pretty doable for a swap.

I like the way the alternator sits way up high on them to the right. Like an oldschool motor where the alts were always up high.

Altenator location design has just gotten worse and worse as time has gone on.

I reckon 360ft/lbs of torque at 2400rpm would haul the FSJ ok. Thats bang on peak torque at my highway speed of 100kms/hr.

I guess the only thing I would lose is my lock-up TC. I believe I have that as I have the 5000lbs factory tow pack. The 71 vintage TF727 would not have that. It has been rebuilt recently however the trans. Its probably only done 5000kms since rebuild.

Looks like its got a big sump size at 8.6pints. I wonder if that would cause clearance issues? probably need a diferent sump to the road car sump right?

[Southern Gorilla]

Honestly, I couldn't tell you any more than what I've already posted. The only reason I know that much is because I learned it while trying to figure out if a 440 would be an easy swap.

Here's the thread with the details. The pictures are towards the bottom.

http://www.ifsja.org/forums/vb/showthread.php?t=119205&highlight=tf727+swap

[Carnuck]

BJs offroad has the conversion motor mounts (last I checked) and you take the tail stock and output shaft from the Jeep 727, dismantle the Dodge 727 and install it (the shaft is held in by a snap ring in the middle of the trans)
Then there is the rad, exhaust, electrical, etc to do.

[Stuka]

The numbers you quote are GROSS HP numbers, not NET. The NET numbers for that engine are much lower and nearly identical to what an AMC V8 puts out. There is really no point in doing the swap IMHO unless you got the whole setup for free and it doesn't need any work. Although if they are more common there then AMC V8's, then maybe its cheaper to use. I know a lot of people down there swap in other make engines for this reason.

[Yagan]

yeah Stuka, cheers. The oenny dropped on that point some time ago. I agree with your point.

As with most guys I observe and try to make judgements on potential swap plausible options etc.

To be honest with you I just have not seen an option worth going through with yet. Just my optinion. I could be wrong.

But my gut at this stage is just saying - make it run reliably and be happy.

So thats the goal for the time being. If there was a head and shoulders standout swap otion that say doubled mileage and reliability then one would have to think about it.

I haven't seen it yet. Marginal mileage increases and double electrical complexity are not really upgrades I get excited about.

A good simple old diesle like Jeepin pete's NOS rig would be probably the very best option. But then I really don't know if I can tolerate a deisel especially in this car.

One of my cars runs a modern deisel. As modern as i gets. VGT, CRD, Intercooled....everything. So i can speak on an informed basis.

THEY STILL SUCK. THEY STILL SOUND LIKE CRAP. THEY STILL USE A SH*% LOAD OF FUEL WHEN TOWING - LIKE 17-20L/100KMS.

Only thing they are good for is consistantly low fuel consumption and durability. And yes they are important factors ofcourse. but for an FSJ i just don't know if I would ever want to drive a deisel.

[Tinkerjeep]

I was researching this engine as my dad has one in his CH Chrysler. Its bolted to a TF727 trans. How hard would this be to drop into an FSJ considering its got the TF in place? Check out the torque numbers.

My Dads has about 70000 original kms on it. The body is about to fall off it but the donk is lively and smooth.

================================================== ==============
360 V8:

• Capacity: 360 cubic inches (5.9 litres)
• Type: Conventional, watercooled four stroke, reciprocating piston type with 8 cylinders
• Configuration: Front mounted, longitudinal, OHV, 90° Vee, "wedge" head
• Head: Pushrod and rocker actuated ohv with two valves per cylinder
• Fuel System: Holley two barrel downdraft type carburettor
• Bore and Stroke: 4.00 x 3.58 inches (101.6 x 90.932 mm)
• Power: 255 bhp (190 kW) at 4400 rpm
• Torque: 360 lb-ft (488 Nm) at 2400 rpm
• Compression Ratio: 9.2:1
• Valve Timing
  • Intake
    • opens: 16° BTC
    • closes: 56° ABC
    • duration: 252°
  • Exhaust
    • opens: 60° BBC
    • closes: 16° ATC
    • duration: 256°
• Firing Order: 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2
• Radiator Capacity: 26 pints
• Oil Pan
  • Without filter: 6.6 pints
  • With filter: 8.3 pints

================================================== ===================
Run down on the Engine back ground:
The New 360 V8



Both the sedan and Hardtop versions could be ordered with a choice of 265 Hemi, through to the newly introduced “360” V8, this stonking 5.9 litre unit being rated at 190kW (255 bhp) and was manufactured at Chrysler’s Lonsdale (South Australia) facility. The 360 was a further development of the Fireball 318, the increase in power and size gained by using a larger bore and stroke, while the fitment of a two-barrel carburettor ensured the engine offered better performance, and worse economy if pushed hard. Whichever engine was chosen, Chrysler then mated it to an imported “TorqueFlite” three speed automatic transmission, the locally manufactured version deemed less smooth.

those numbers sound like what the AMC 401 produced around 1972 - net power/torque. I'm NOT a firm believer in Mother Mopar's Motors. BUT, If you got it, and its in good shape, it should be a markable improvement over a stock AMC 360 from 1981. Those made crap power/torque from the factory. Even the once-mighty AMC 401 was pretty neutered by the late 1970s...and died in the end of 1978.

The TF727...good question. I always thought the tailhousing area was the same in all models...just the bell housings changed...even between small-block Dodge engines and bog-block Dodge engines...but I could be wrong.

[Yagan]

those numbers sound like what the AMC 401 produced around 1972 - net power/torque. I'm NOT a firm believer in Mother Mopar's Motors. BUT, If you got it, and its in good shape, it should be a markable improvement over a stock AMC 360 from 1981. Those made crap power/torque from the factory. Even the once-mighty AMC 401 was pretty neutered by the late 1970s...and died in the end of 1978.

The TF727...good question. I always thought the tailhousing area was the same in all models...just the bell housings changed...even between small-block Dodge engines and bog-block Dodge engines...but I could be wrong.

Yeah Tinkerjeep inetersting. I should have said already that I have driven it. Quite a bit. Its got a fair bit of pep. When its tuned right it goes pretty well. Not night and day diference to the 360 in my 81. But a bit. It goes out of tune easy.

I notice the compression ratio is up a bit on them and that plus sans all the smog gear no doubt thats where the extra pep comes from.

What attracted me to it is: From the internet reading I have done they have an enviable, possibly the best that i can see reputaion. People, especialy old timers tend to really rate them very high.

Then there is that 8.3 pint sump(you now i'm a bit obsessed with sump size)

Where as the AMC motors one has to be honest and say that there are serious question marks over some aspects of design.

Lets be honest. Oiling and watering are key aspects of engine operation. Stock AMC 360's have large question marks over both. Yes both refinable and fixable to certain extents.

But...BUT...if one is really honest with oneself then for sure these are not things one really ever wants to have to deal with. They should be sorted from the plant.

Thats what engineering is all about. And the issues the AMC V8 motors have say a couple of clear things to me;
1. nearly got it right in the engineering department first shot at it.
2. never had enough budget to change what was glaringly obviously lacking.

This is totally understandable. This is what companies are like. Engineers do not always get it bang on and companies regularly slowly leak to death and go broke. Thats the world we live in.

Yeah so long story short what I was really looking for with the fireball 360 was something like an AMC V8 with no oiling or watering issues. Simple really.

[Carnuck]

those numbers sound like what the AMC 401 produced around 1972 - net power/torque. I'm NOT a firm believer in Mother Mopar's Motors. BUT, If you got it, and its in good shape, it should be a markable improvement over a stock AMC 360 from 1981. Those made crap power/torque from the factory. Even the once-mighty AMC 401 was pretty neutered by the late 1970s...and died in the end of 1978.

The TF727...good question. I always thought the tailhousing area was the same in all models...just the bell housings changed...even between small-block Dodge engines and bog-block Dodge engines...but I could be wrong.

The 2wd output shaft is longer than 4x4.

[the original Honcho]

BJs offroad has the conversion motor mounts (last I checked) and you take the tail stock and output shaft from the Jeep 727, dismantle the Dodge 727 and install it (the shaft is held in by a snap ring in the middle of the trans)
Then there is the rad, exhaust, electrical, etc to do.

My cousin did this to my uncles SWEET '81 Cherokee Laredo years ago with a 318. My dad was talking to him about it recently, he said was getting 18 mpg city with it, 22 highway

[Tinkerjeep]

Yeah Tinkerjeep inetersting. I should have said already that I have driven it. Quite a bit. Its got a fair bit of pep. When its tuned right it goes pretty well. Not night and day diference to the 360 in my 81. But a bit. It goes out of tune easy.

I notice the compression ratio is up a bit on them and that plus sans all the smog gear no doubt thats where the extra pep comes from.

What attracted me to it is: From the internet reading I have done they have an enviable, possibly the best that i can see reputaion. People, especialy old timers tend to really rate them very high.

Then there is that 8.3 pint sump(you now i'm a bit obsessed with sump size)

Where as the AMC motors one has to be honest and say that there are serious question marks over some aspects of design.

Lets be honest. Oiling and watering are key aspects of engine operation. Stock AMC 360's have large question marks over both. Yes both refinable and fixable to certain extents.

But...BUT...if one is really honest with oneself then for sure these are not things one really ever wants to have to deal with. They should be sorted from the plant.

Thats what engineering is all about. And the issues the AMC V8 motors have say a couple of clear things to me;
1. nearly got it right in the engineering department first shot at it.
2. never had enough budget to change what was glaringly obviously lacking.

This is totally understandable. This is what companies are like. Engineers do not always get it bang on and companies regularly slowly leak to death and go broke. Thats the world we live in.

Yeah so long story short what I was really looking for with the fireball 360 was something like an AMC V8 with no oiling or watering issues. Simple really.

Understandable points. and not entirely unfounded, however, unless running at sustained 3500 rpm or higher for long periods of time...and honestly - with the gearing in the 81, that would be like 80+mph! the 3.73:1s in my J20 put 4000rpm with 30-31" tires dang near 95-100mph.

The 360 admittedly is not as bullet proof as a 390 or 401...and I have heard of more overheating from overbored 401s (like .040" to .060" overbore) and the "cam-walking" issue seems prevalent in the 360s.

Are AMC motors as refined as the "newer" Ford/Dodge/GM motors...no. The former were engineered in the late 60s and staid pretty static as the latter was tweaked slightly...and got fuel injection. but they did have some good engineering that outshone the "big-three" in several areas. As a truck motor the 360 and 401 made better power than the same displacement motors offered by the "big three" in the same years. The GM 350 and 400 and Ford 400 were notorious for being dogs. If you want reliable, tough and powerful...get your hands on mid 1970s International Harvester 345 or 392 V8. Strong, heavy blocks and heads -good power...ran like diesels.

Your 360 in your Wag...if stock...is terribly choked, you can install electronic (Jacobs impresses me with their book on ignition systems) ignition systems that are "smart" and take ignition technology to an intelligent, dynamic level instead of relying on "average" calculated ignition timing curves. Once that is done - you can remove alot of the smog/"mileage" crap...if its lawful to do so down under...and will see improvement across the board. Overheating and oiling issues in the smogged engines are partially induced by smog-mitigation and mileage "boosters" added to an obsolete carbureted engine.

[Tinkerjeep]

The 2wd output shaft is longer than 4x4.

okay...I get that. But the actual rear-end of the TF727 housing is the same?

[Tinkerjeep]

My cousin did this to my uncles SWEET '81 Cherokee Laredo years ago with a 318. My dad was talking to him about it recently, he said was getting 18 mpg city with it, 22 highway

But what power is it making and what gears does it have?

I have a road test from 1975 between the Wag and Cherk and one makes 2-3 mpg more than the the other...but loses 0-60 performance. both have 360s/TH400s. Quadratrac. How was it done? Different ring and pinion ratios.

The 258 Wags/J10s got 15-16 mpg but they also had manual trannies. there is a 1-2mpg GAIN by going manual tranny over auto tranny. Even in a 360. or 401.

What's important to you? build for mileage and neuter your motor when pulling a hill. build for power and pay more at the pump.

Mechanical engineering is an exercise in compromise.


ADDED -OR BUILD FOR POWER AND MILEAGE AND PAY FOR UNOBTAINIUM PARTS!