3.4L to 4.0L jeep!!
08-19-2005, 09:08 PM
#23
Registered User
Originally Posted by elnip
The 4.5l I-6 1FZ-FE in the FZJ-80 Cruiser is not like that. It's a "crossflow"
4 valve aluminum head. Just throwing in my $.02!
4 valve aluminum head. Just throwing in my $.02!
the reason a lot of those engines had the intake and exhaust on the same side is because of the cam, lifters and pushrods were on the other side and ports wouldn't have to be routed around them. however the design stuck around for some OHC engines, like toyota's 8R and 18R and nissan's famous L series.
08-19-2005, 10:06 PM
#24
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by kyle_22r
and i don't think you can count a 4 valve engine as "conventional".
the reason a lot of those engines had the intake and exhaust on the same side is because of the cam, lifters and pushrods were on the oth
er side and ports wouldn't have to be routed around them. however the design stuck around for some OHC engines, like toyota's 8R and 18R and nissan's famous L series.
the reason a lot of those engines had the intake and exhaust on the same side is because of the cam, lifters and pushrods were on the oth
er side and ports wouldn't have to be routed around them. however the design stuck around for some OHC engines, like toyota's 8R and 18R and nissan's famous L series.
And I agree as far as having the intake and exhaust on the same side because of the cam ect. placement....BUT these were throw back from the 60's in design and the 20R was progressive over the 18R. The 20R came out in 75' The design that "stuck" was the Iron Duke in the Jeep (AMC) as far as JEEPtm..is concerned..
to quote;
"that said, i like the jeep 4.0, but it eats exhaust manifolds. i guess there's an aluminum head out there for it now, kinda cool"
You are correct as far as eating manifolds, I have 2 friends that have replaced cracked exhaust manifolds on their 4.0l Jeeps and the 4.7l Stroker is probably a smokin' motor BUT (and here is my disagreement) your statement that a 4 valve motor is not "conventional" is way behind. Show Me different......................................... ...........
08-19-2005, 11:28 PM
#25
Registered User
actually if you wanna get technical, the AMC 150 and the chevy 151 are different engines 
i think they both suck, if you want a heavy iron head 4 banger, get the pontiac version 
and about the 20R being progressive, that's just how toyota engine families are. but the 3R had pushrods, and the 8R and 18R were OHC, but they still had the typical old school manifold arrangement.
i think they both suck, if you want a heavy iron head 4 banger, get the pontiac version and about the 20R being progressive, that's just how toyota engine families are. but the 3R had pushrods, and the 8R and 18R were OHC, but they still had the typical old school manifold arrangement.
08-20-2005, 07:38 AM
#27
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by kyle_22r
actually if you wanna get technical, the AMC 150 and the chevy 151 are different engines i think they both suck, if you want a heavy iron head 4 banger, get the pontiac version
and about the 20R being progressive, that's just how toyota engine families are. but the 3R had pushrods, and the 8R and 18R were OHC, but they still had the typical old school manifold arrangement.
i think they both suck, if you want a heavy iron head 4 banger, get the pontiac version and about the 20R being progressive, that's just how toyota engine families are. but the 3R had pushrods, and the 8R and 18R were OHC, but they still had the typical old school manifold arrangement.
As for me coming off cross last post, I blame it to numerous
last night! They sure were good,though
08-20-2005, 09:53 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original question, the straight 6 with its wonderful torque is a great motor for wheeling, and jeep bashing aside the jeep motor is a really good motor. If for example, you just happened to have one available it turns out to be a pretty easy swap in theory. The AX15 and the R150F are basically the same transmission, so it wouldn't be hard to put it in. The usual swap stuff, motor mounts and the like and of course electrical stuff.
Length might be a problem though. I think I'd go Supra before I went 4.0 jeep.
Length might be a problem though. I think I'd go Supra before I went 4.0 jeep.
08-20-2005, 12:16 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the Jeep bashing...because they bash you guys too (for the garbage 3.0 and the IFS) 
But saying the 4.0 is crap is just ignorant. The design has been around for decades, and it has a lot of great torque. In my ZJ, I could keep the RPM's below 2000 and move around town just fine. My 4Runner barely moves before 3000 And, geared down to 4.56 (from 3.55 stock), with full exhaust and intake, I could leave 10 feet of rubber, even with 33/12.5's. All with 140k+ abused, hard miles.
That said, in a Jeep, I'd much rather have the 5.9L V8, and in a Yota, I'd much rather have the 7mgte or the 3.4. They all have their goodsides and bad sides.
But saying the 4.0 is crap is just ignorant. The design has been around for decades, and it has a lot of great torque. In my ZJ, I could keep the RPM's below 2000 and move around town just fine. My 4Runner barely moves before 3000 And, geared down to 4.56 (from 3.55 stock), with full exhaust and intake, I could leave 10 feet of rubber, even with 33/12.5's. All with 140k+ abused, hard miles.That said, in a Jeep, I'd much rather have the 5.9L V8, and in a Yota, I'd much rather have the 7mgte or the 3.4. They all have their goodsides and bad sides.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
IntoTheVoid
Trip-Trail Reports & Photos
42
10-24-2015 04:54 PM
LCE_Performance
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
0
10-01-2015 01:03 PM
meatballs
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
0
09-16-2015 06:25 PM
