"232" crank in "242"
09-09-2010, 03:10 AM
#17
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: VA & OBX
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: "242"
were the stokers at or did every one have some one else do it for them at a shop? going for the built not bought deal, well i should have something by Christmas 
hope fully
hope fully
09-09-2010, 06:05 AM
#19
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Year: 1988
Model: Cherokee
Engine: AMC242
Crank notes:
The 4cw crank will give you better throttle response at the expense of having less rotational mass (lower rotating inertia) - not a problem for an automatic, but it can make standing starts with a clutch a bit touchy.
The 12cw crank will lose some throttle response for you, but the additional rotational mass will help with standing starts (again, with a clutch.) It also helps with low-speed motion (climbing/crawling/hauling) due to the increased rotational inertia.
So, whether you go with a 4cw or a 12cw is really going to depend on your anticipated use, if you have ready access to both (when I finally do stroke mine, I plan to put a 12cw in it. But, I have a five-speed and it's going to be a working truck...)
There's very little difference in actual strength between the two - the only difference is in the number of counterweights cast into the crank. The crankpins and cheeks are otherwise the same. Most manufacturers have been going to lightweight parts over the last thirty years or so to help in their compliance with Federal CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) mandates.
The 4cw crank will give you better throttle response at the expense of having less rotational mass (lower rotating inertia) - not a problem for an automatic, but it can make standing starts with a clutch a bit touchy.
The 12cw crank will lose some throttle response for you, but the additional rotational mass will help with standing starts (again, with a clutch.) It also helps with low-speed motion (climbing/crawling/hauling) due to the increased rotational inertia.
So, whether you go with a 4cw or a 12cw is really going to depend on your anticipated use, if you have ready access to both (when I finally do stroke mine, I plan to put a 12cw in it. But, I have a five-speed and it's going to be a working truck...)
There's very little difference in actual strength between the two - the only difference is in the number of counterweights cast into the crank. The crankpins and cheeks are otherwise the same. Most manufacturers have been going to lightweight parts over the last thirty years or so to help in their compliance with Federal CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) mandates.
09-10-2010, 08:54 AM
#20
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: VA & OBX
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: "242"
good advice an much appreciated only thing to do now is find a machine shop to trust in blueprinting it. there is a place close by tho that specializes in aircraft piston type engines an other custom work so guess it wouldn't hurt to ask.
09-10-2010, 09:54 AM
#21
CF Veteran
try looking around on jeepstrokers.com
You have to register to use the search function, but you could just as easily use google
or whatever. If you keep the "site:jeepstrokers.com" part it will only search that site.
This is something I found on there:
Ill definately be keeping an eye on this, my jeep needs a rebuild and this looks good. (232 crank, stock bore/pistons/headgasket, comp cams mild cam) I wonder how well it would run on e85 with the higher compression? The renix has a knock sensor too, so If you run too low of octane it will automatically cut timing. I see a high flow cat, 2.5" exhaust, cone filter, and neon/ford injectors coming out of it too. Still a pretty cheap build.
You have to register to use the search function, but you could just as easily use google
232 crank site:jeepstrokers.com
This is something I found on there:
Looks like with bone stock everything (no overbore just drill honing a good block) factory sized 13cc dish this nets a 9.47:1 CR at zero deck putting quench below head gasket thickness if you wanted a higher performance 4.0 (4.05L) with higher compression and quench could be up near .030 to base a build off this would be ultra low buck.
...
This is kind of one of those things that makes you scratch your head... WTF did AMC shorten the stroke of the 4.0 by .09" and worsen quench when all they had to do was reuse the 232 crank and deepen the dish and alter the piston top a bit to get somewhere around .050 or .040 quench? I guess in the late 70's early 80's they wanted .080-ish quench... maybe due to rod stretch and notoriously sloppy 1970's factory tolerances that most of those engineers would have been used to dealing with in those days... who knows.
...
This is kind of one of those things that makes you scratch your head... WTF did AMC shorten the stroke of the 4.0 by .09" and worsen quench when all they had to do was reuse the 232 crank and deepen the dish and alter the piston top a bit to get somewhere around .050 or .040 quench? I guess in the late 70's early 80's they wanted .080-ish quench... maybe due to rod stretch and notoriously sloppy 1970's factory tolerances that most of those engineers would have been used to dealing with in those days... who knows.
09-10-2010, 11:11 AM
#22
CF Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 21,168
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Year: 1987
Engine: Check
I know for sure it would require a significantly higher amount of fuel, as e85 isn't as effecient. Its something like 15-20% more fuel cosumed. You may need to upgrade the fuel pump, I'm not sure what the stockers can handle. Oh, and the rest of the fuel system would need to be addressed. Fuel lines, tank, etc. e85 will clean you out real good!
I also know it would really help with detonation, e85 is really crazy stuff. I did some research when considering it for a turbo car I was building.
I also know it would really help with detonation, e85 is really crazy stuff. I did some research when considering it for a turbo car I was building.
09-10-2010, 11:46 AM
#25
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: VA & OBX
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: "242"
try looking around on jeepstrokers.com
You have to register to use the search function, but you could just as easily use google or whatever. If you keep the "site:jeepstrokers.com" part it will only search that site.
This is something I found on there:
Ill definately be keeping an eye on this, my jeep needs a rebuild and this looks good. (232 crank, stock bore/pistons/headgasket, comp cams mild cam) I wonder how well it would run on e85 with the higher compression? The renix has a knock sensor too, so If you run too low of octane it will automatically cut timing. I see a high flow cat, 2.5" exhaust, cone filter, and neon/ford injectors coming out of it too. Still a pretty cheap build.
You have to register to use the search function, but you could just as easily use google or whatever. If you keep the "site:jeepstrokers.com" part it will only search that site.
This is something I found on there:
Ill definately be keeping an eye on this, my jeep needs a rebuild and this looks good. (232 crank, stock bore/pistons/headgasket, comp cams mild cam) I wonder how well it would run on e85 with the higher compression? The renix has a knock sensor too, so If you run too low of octane it will automatically cut timing. I see a high flow cat, 2.5" exhaust, cone filter, and neon/ford injectors coming out of it too. Still a pretty cheap build.
Also on another note, online around a week ago came across a thread that i cant find any more stated the block an pistons were redesigned after 97. the new pistons had a new carbon skirt an a coating added to them any one heard of or seen this before?
09-11-2010, 03:13 PM
#27
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: VA & OBX
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: "242"
09-11-2010, 10:33 PM
#29
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Scituate Ma
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1994
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
assuming your engine is all within stock spec with a 3.5 stroke 235 crank the pistons will be .0184 out of the hole and with .051 head gasket and a Mopar performance cam shoud give you 4.06 liter 9.68 static/8.59 dynamic compression ratio, .0326 quench and 48deg intake closing angle.The dynamic CR intake closing angle will change with different cam choices.As for 4 verses 12 counter weight crank the 4 would be good for a high rpm screamer while the 12 would make good low end grunt as for 12 being stronger than the 4 they both have the same crank journals just the 12 has more mass to spin .Good luck would be interesting to see what HP & torque it makes
