Original Posted By: rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta)
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more jeep> Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.>> Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff allthe time. And things are looking pretty good.>>First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rearmain bearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4inches. This vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.>>Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about>2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So thetotal surface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerablygreater.>>Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style ofthe old ford.>>Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.>>The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. Acivilian crank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.>>compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.>>>From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost thepower of the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.>It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at thefactory. And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm,install the recommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and installheaders.>>>Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase inrpm to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with theadditions already mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of thisengine up to match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, Ithink??>>At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane sothere is much time to think about it.>The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.>>OiL Can Bob>>>http://www.mailexcite.com>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: more jeep
Pietenpol-List: more jeep
Original Posted By: oil can
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: more jeep
Original Posted By: oil can
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: more jeep
Original Posted By: oil can
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: more jeep
Original Posted By: Steve W
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines. Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all the time.And things are looking pretty good.First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear main bearingson the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches. Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the total surfacearea of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford. Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine up tomatch that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so there ismuch time to think about it. The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.OiL Can Bobhttp://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: more jeep
Original Posted By: Jim Sury
Steve wrote:Parts? How much does it weigh compaires to the "A" and how easy is it tofind.Steveoil can wrote:> > Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.> > Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all thetime. And things are looking pretty good.> > First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear mainbearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.> > Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about> 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the totalsurface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.> > Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford.> > Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.> > The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.> > compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.> > >From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the powerof the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.> It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.> > > Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine upto match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??> > At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so thereis much time to think about it.> The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.> > OiL Can Bob> > http://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:Parts? How much does it weigh compaires to the "A" and how easy is it tofind.Steveoil can wrote:> > Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.> > Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all thetime. And things are looking pretty good.> > First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear mainbearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches. Thisvs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.> > Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about> 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the totalsurface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.> > Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style of theold ford.> > Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.> > The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.> > compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.> > >From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the powerof the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.> It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.> > > Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase in rpmto maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine upto match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??> > At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so thereis much time to think about it.> The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.> > OiL Can Bob> > http://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: more jeep
Original Posted By: Brent Reed
Jeep "power carb" The Jeep engines I've worked on usually upgradedthe Ball & Ballcarbonizer to a Holley single barrel from one of the Ford Falcon series ofpowerplants.. They're OK carbonizers for the application, but there mustbe something better for an aircraft application.. I would spen a considerable amount of time on research beforeusing a reground cam.. torque is already available at the bottom end ofthe spin cycle with the stock configuration. Headers? Of course, you'll want to fabricate some kind ofheaders to avoid the cast iron exhaust manifold! Probably a totally newintake, slso..Best, Rich________________________________________________________________________________
Jeep "power carb" The Jeep engines I've worked on usually upgradedthe Ball & Ballcarbonizer to a Holley single barrel from one of the Ford Falcon series ofpowerplants.. They're OK carbonizers for the application, but there mustbe something better for an aircraft application.. I would spen a considerable amount of time on research beforeusing a reground cam.. torque is already available at the bottom end ofthe spin cycle with the stock configuration. Headers? Of course, you'll want to fabricate some kind ofheaders to avoid the cast iron exhaust manifold! Probably a totally newintake, slso..Best, Rich________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: more jeep
Original Posted By: Paris Wilcox
--I don't know how much the jeep engine weighs, but I have seen both. The 134Ljeep is an honest 1/3 shorter than the model "a", and since both have about thesame throw, they are both as tall.High compression heads are also available, and if cast from aluminium, that wouldtake even more weight off.Another item I learned is that both front and rear mains are the same length, soa propeller could be mounted from either end, which ever is the easiest.As for availability, they made them by the million during ww11, and according tomy brother in law...a long time engine professional, the jeep engine is veryeasy to come by, as are parts.oil can bob On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:09:21 Steve W wrote:>Steve wrote:>Parts? How much does it weigh compaires to the "A" and how easy is it to>find.>>Steve>>>oil can wrote:>> >> Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.>> >> Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all thetime. And things are looking pretty good.>> >> First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear mainbearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches.This vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.>> >> Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about>> 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the totalsurface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.>> >> Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style ofthe old ford.>> >> Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.>> >> The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.>> >> compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.>> >> >From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the powerof the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.>> It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.>> >> >> Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase inrpm to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine upto match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??>> >> At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so thereis much time to think about it.>> The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.>> >> OiL Can Bob>> >> http://www.mailexcite.com>http://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
--I don't know how much the jeep engine weighs, but I have seen both. The 134Ljeep is an honest 1/3 shorter than the model "a", and since both have about thesame throw, they are both as tall.High compression heads are also available, and if cast from aluminium, that wouldtake even more weight off.Another item I learned is that both front and rear mains are the same length, soa propeller could be mounted from either end, which ever is the easiest.As for availability, they made them by the million during ww11, and according tomy brother in law...a long time engine professional, the jeep engine is veryeasy to come by, as are parts.oil can bob On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:09:21 Steve W wrote:>Steve wrote:>Parts? How much does it weigh compaires to the "A" and how easy is it to>find.>>Steve>>>oil can wrote:>> >> Jeep engines, jeep engines, jeep engines.>> >> Geez...can't I talk about anything else! I'm finding out more stuff all thetime. And things are looking pretty good.>> >> First off, (according to my brother in law's brother) the front and rear mainbearings on the 134 cid jeep engine are both the same length, 2-3/4 inches.This vs the rear main of the model "A" of around 3 inches.>> >> Also the crank is (I dont have my book handy) about>> 2-5/8 in diameter at the mains, vs about 1-1/2 for the model"A". So the totalsurface area of the jeep crank at the mains should be considerably greater.>> >> Next, the bearings themselves are of modern design, not the babbot style ofthe old ford.>> >> Jeep has an oil pump, so pressure to the bearings.>> >> The crank is statically, and dinamically ballanced for smoother running. A civiliancrank is also available which fits, and is even smoother running.>> >> compression ratio is 6:1 with heads available for up to 9:1.>> >> >From my reading (Piet web page)experiments have been done to boost the powerof the ford "A". new pistons, carbs, cam gring, modern bearings, etc.>> It seems that with the jeep engine, most of this has been done at the factory.And if a fellow was in search of more power, he could up the rpm, install therecommended Jeep "power Carb", maybe do a cam grind, and install headers.>> >> >> Lastly,at 2000 rpm, with 105 ft*lbs of torque already, a small increase inrpm to maybe 2500 (max rpm stated for this engine is 4000) along with the additionsalready mentioned, one could probably raise the torque of this engine upto match that of the continental c-65 which is .....125 ft*lbs, I think??>> >> At any rate, I've still at least 1-1/2 years left to build my plane so thereis much time to think about it.>> The jeep engine is looking better and better all the time.>> >> OiL Can Bob>> >> http://www.mailexcite.com>http://www.mailexcite.com________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: more jeep
Original Posted By: Paris Wilcox
To Oil Can Bob And the restThe jeep engine has a smaller bore than the Model A. The A is 200.5 cu. In.stock. "There ain't no replacement for displacement!"I won't say that it can't be done; but look around to see if you can find atorque curve for the Jeep and compare it to the Model A. The A produces maxtorque at a low rpm. (1000) This allows it to swing a large diameter prop.The Jeep may wel have the same Horsepower but I'll bet it is at a higherrpm.John Mc________________________________________________________________________________
To Oil Can Bob And the restThe jeep engine has a smaller bore than the Model A. The A is 200.5 cu. In.stock. "There ain't no replacement for displacement!"I won't say that it can't be done; but look around to see if you can find atorque curve for the Jeep and compare it to the Model A. The A produces maxtorque at a low rpm. (1000) This allows it to swing a large diameter prop.The Jeep may wel have the same Horsepower but I'll bet it is at a higherrpm.John Mc________________________________________________________________________________