Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

The 262"^3 Chevy V-8 small block was built in 1975. The Chevy "small block"
V-6s were produced in 200, 229 and 4.3L sizes and all were odd-fire V-6s.
Any of them would make excellent Jeep motors. See:
http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...l_block_v6.htm
--
jeff (the other one)

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:415AFD5E.A7BCD20F@cox.net...
> That was 265" in the '55 Chevy, and I use the 400" Siamese four
> bolt in my CJ-2A: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm The 383" is not
> production, but a 350 block with 400" crank, and resized mains. The
> Chevy 232" V6 is Buick. Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Ted Azito wrote:
> >
> > SB Chevs came in at least ten different sizes from 262 to 400 cid.
> > Plus the four cylinder Chevy II (which takes SB rods,pistons,a head,et
> > al) plus the 90 degree V6 Chevy which takes many SB Chev parts too.
> > You want to spell out every possible combination-including aftermarket
> > ones like Sesco, the 377 and 383, et al-you could. It would just make
> > you look dumber. OTOH....

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

Hi Jeff,
I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
evened the crank journals, but made it weaker. Yes, it makes and
excellent Jeep motor: http://www.apple.queensu.ca/cj3b/EngineSwap.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> The 262"^3 Chevy V-8 small block was built in 1975. The Chevy "small block"
> V-6s were produced in 200, 229 and 4.3L sizes and all were odd-fire V-6s.
> Any of them would make excellent Jeep motors. See:
> http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...l_block_v6.htm
> --
> jeff (the other one)
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:415AFD5E.A7BCD20F@cox.net...
> > That was 265" in the '55 Chevy, and I use the 400" Siamese four
> > bolt in my CJ-2A: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm The 383" is not
> > production, but a 350 block with 400" crank, and resized mains. The
> > Chevy 232" V6 is Buick. Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:--------------------
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > SB Chevs came in at least ten different sizes from 262 to 400 cid.
> > > Plus the four cylinder Chevy II (which takes SB rods,pistons,a head,et
> > > al) plus the 90 degree V6 Chevy which takes many SB Chev parts too.
> > > You want to spell out every possible combination-including aftermarket
> > > ones like Sesco, the 377 and 383, et al-you could. It would just make
> > > you look dumber. OTOH....

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

Hi Jeff,
I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
evened the crank journals, but made it weaker. Yes, it makes and
excellent Jeep motor: http://www.apple.queensu.ca/cj3b/EngineSwap.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> The 262"^3 Chevy V-8 small block was built in 1975. The Chevy "small block"
> V-6s were produced in 200, 229 and 4.3L sizes and all were odd-fire V-6s.
> Any of them would make excellent Jeep motors. See:
> http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...l_block_v6.htm
> --
> jeff (the other one)
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:415AFD5E.A7BCD20F@cox.net...
> > That was 265" in the '55 Chevy, and I use the 400" Siamese four
> > bolt in my CJ-2A: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm The 383" is not
> > production, but a 350 block with 400" crank, and resized mains. The
> > Chevy 232" V6 is Buick. Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:--------------------
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > SB Chevs came in at least ten different sizes from 262 to 400 cid.
> > > Plus the four cylinder Chevy II (which takes SB rods,pistons,a head,et
> > > al) plus the 90 degree V6 Chevy which takes many SB Chev parts too.
> > > You want to spell out every possible combination-including aftermarket
> > > ones like Sesco, the 377 and 383, et al-you could. It would just make
> > > you look dumber. OTOH....

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

Hi Jeff,
I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
evened the crank journals, but made it weaker. Yes, it makes and
excellent Jeep motor: http://www.apple.queensu.ca/cj3b/EngineSwap.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> The 262"^3 Chevy V-8 small block was built in 1975. The Chevy "small block"
> V-6s were produced in 200, 229 and 4.3L sizes and all were odd-fire V-6s.
> Any of them would make excellent Jeep motors. See:
> http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge...l_block_v6.htm
> --
> jeff (the other one)
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:415AFD5E.A7BCD20F@cox.net...
> > That was 265" in the '55 Chevy, and I use the 400" Siamese four
> > bolt in my CJ-2A: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm The 383" is not
> > production, but a 350 block with 400" crank, and resized mains. The
> > Chevy 232" V6 is Buick. Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:--------------------
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > SB Chevs came in at least ten different sizes from 262 to 400 cid.
> > > Plus the four cylinder Chevy II (which takes SB rods,pistons,a head,et
> > > al) plus the 90 degree V6 Chevy which takes many SB Chev parts too.
> > > You want to spell out every possible combination-including aftermarket
> > > ones like Sesco, the 377 and 383, et al-you could. It would just make
> > > you look dumber. OTOH....

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:<415B1CB6.D78275CD@cox.net>...
> Hi Jeff,
> I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
> http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
> But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
> course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
> Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
> evened the crank journals, but made it weaker.

There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).

The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
Bringing up the Buick is like licking your balls then your ass like
the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
old sneaky snake, have you?

I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
I'll miss it.

A little.

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:<415B1CB6.D78275CD@cox.net>...
> Hi Jeff,
> I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
> http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
> But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
> course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
> Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
> evened the crank journals, but made it weaker.

There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).

The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
Bringing up the Buick is like licking your balls then your ass like
the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
old sneaky snake, have you?

I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
I'll miss it.

A little.

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:<415B1CB6.D78275CD@cox.net>...
> Hi Jeff,
> I see they did product a 262" for that one year, '75:
> http://www.----------.com/chevEngines.jpg
> But the term "small block" refers to only Chevrolet V8s, that of
> course, are not the big block, 396" to 454 Rat motors. Only the Buick,
> Jeep engines were odd fire, when Chevy bought the patents back they
> evened the crank journals, but made it weaker.

There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).

The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
Bringing up the Buick is like licking your balls then your ass like
the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
old sneaky snake, have you?

I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
I'll miss it.

A little.

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.


My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.


My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.

Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@cox.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.


My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.