The CJ3A Page CJ3B.info

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Write the word between words Jeep from this JeepWILLYSJeep?:
How many slot has a GPW grill?  7 - 9 - 11:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: garage gnome
« on: May 09, 2013, 08:42:07 PM »

An Isuzu 4BD-1T or 2T would be a better swap. More HP and more tranny options since it can be adapted to an SBC bell or a SBF bell. And it will fit in a low hood flatty. It will be close, but will work. I thought about doing this to the Jalopy before I rebuilt another 225 V6 for it.
Posted by: rooney77
« on: May 09, 2013, 08:10:45 PM »

Why do you say that? A mechanically injected engine will burn oil. Even the TDI motors can have "runaway" from a blown turbo seal sending oil into the cylinders and the motor will keep running even when the fuel is shutoff.
Posted by: Jeff_M
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:07:11 PM »

Quote
I dig it. Course I'm biased since I'm putting a diesel in my MB. There is a guy in the willys section on pirate4x4 building a flatty with this motor.

Definitely something I'd consider doing. It would be nice to be able to burn used motor oil as fuel. :D


Wouldn't work, sorry.  :'(
Posted by: rooney77
« on: May 08, 2013, 11:11:16 PM »

I dig it. Course I'm biased since I'm putting a diesel in my MB. There is a guy in the willys section on pirate4x4 building a flatty with this motor.

Definitely something I'd consider doing. It would be nice to be able to burn used motor oil as fuel. :D
Posted by: Gunslinger
« on: March 30, 2013, 02:14:50 PM »

That specific Kubota might not be the right motor for a project, it is convienent that all of the attachments are available.  I was looking at a Yanmar conversion at one time when I was having all kinds of motor trouble.  There are several 3 cylinder diesels available that are popular with agriculture, marine and stationary applications.  I think the 3 cylinder would be a nice fit, especially one of the larger ones, horsepower and torque,  But as the same with the sbc you would have to fabricate all of your own attachment points and linkages.  Never easy.
Posted by: duffer
« on: March 29, 2013, 10:49:23 AM »

Just an opinionated old fart, but I just don't see any real "upgrade" with that.  Marginally better torque and no doubt much better mileage, but less drivable for most uses.

I have had 4 Benz diesels over the years, starting with a 190Db, then a 240D, followed by a 300SD (617 turbo), and the last a 300CD (also 617 turbo).  Each and every one was a royal pain in the posterior when temps got below zero F.  The non-turbo 190 and 240 D were totally gutless and I well remember being in 2nd gear on I70 in CO trying to keep 20 mph while everyone is zooming by at 75 mph and watching my butt hoping not to have to hit the ditch to keep from getting a plastic/metal enema.  The 617 turbos were WAY better, but with a highly significant turbo lag that caused a big drivability issue.  However, once spooled up, those engines have enough torque to do just about anything, including going over both I70 and I90 passes at 75 mph.

For less money-probably a lot less money, there could be a small block Chevy under there, custom built to suit your driving style and needs, something that has two to three times the torque and gets 50% better mileage than the L head.  If you are going to hack it anyway, I just can't see that the tractor motor has any real merit.
Posted by: Jeff_M
« on: March 29, 2013, 07:24:59 AM »

Quote
Here's one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W6QrFM6nyg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzMbGuLSTU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZPsPQs3wR4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNVfYaS7tcs

That looks to be the same one in QuebecJeep's ad, only because there appears to be a small siren mounted on the fender next to the alternator, both in the ad and the videos.   I must be dreaming.  :-)
Posted by: Comanche_County
« on: March 27, 2013, 10:42:32 PM »

The air intake goes back under the cowl, I wonder what kinda air filter he's running.
Posted by: Ryan_M
« on: March 27, 2013, 07:24:54 PM »

Here's one in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W6QrFM6nyg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzMbGuLSTU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZPsPQs3wR4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNVfYaS7tcs
Posted by: gmcjr
« on: March 27, 2013, 11:36:21 AM »

I'm guessing you would have to have a OD with a diesel, just to be a gear spiltter, so you wouldn't lose as much rpms between shifts. Just a thought.



I wonder what the weight difference would be?
Posted by: Jeff_M
« on: March 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM »

I agree with gmcjr.  Fuel mileage, coolness.  There is no way a diesel conversion in a flatfender could ever be "cost-effective."  
Posted by: gmcjr
« on: March 27, 2013, 10:07:21 AM »

Imho, I'm no expert by no means, but the advantage to me would be mileage, and the coolness factor of having a diesel jeep, the kubotas I've delt with are very fuel efficient and very reliable. I would think a turbo charged model would be better than a L head at higher elevations. But, most kubotas, like most small diesels, run at 3,000 rpms max, and really dont have any power to about 2300 or so. that would mean 45 MPH with stock gearing and transmission, without a OD, and have other drivability issues. I'm sure there are fixes for these issues, but rebuilding a l head isn't that expensive. Again, just my uneducated, just judging by experience opinon.
Posted by: garage gnome
« on: March 27, 2013, 07:48:36 AM »

So these engines for this modification have less HP than the Lhead? Do they get better milage than the Lhead? Sorry for all these questions, I'm trying to justify spending a grand on the kit and another couple grand on an engine. So far torque is the only thing I'm seeing.
Posted by: Jeff_M
« on: March 27, 2013, 07:33:23 AM »

A quick look at a conversion chart I found online reveals that the "ps" figures shown on the Kubota pdf are very close to hp figures, which means the turbo diesel (as shown in the pic) would have about 45-55 hp and over 100 lbs of torque.  Pretty nice.
Posted by: garage gnome
« on: March 26, 2013, 10:03:48 PM »

How much HP and torque do these kubota engines put out?