What did you do to your ZJ today? - Page 1262 - JeepForum.com

 76Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #18916 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 09:31 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,418
Apparently the 44RE has a first gear ratio 2.74:1. Take the torque output the 5.2 has and multiply it by that. 300 ft. lb. x 2.74 is 822 ft. lb. The 242 is good for 1486 ft. lb. Depending on the 5.2 you get, you'll have a different 249. 93-95 have the standard 249 and 96-98 have the 249OD. I don't have proof of this as of now, but I did a lot of extensive reading on it in the past. I can't recall where I got all the information from, but it was confirmed on here by other members. Regardless, paired with the 44RE, the 5.2 should not detonate a 242.




97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #18917 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 09:36 AM
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,556
Add in torque converter multiplication too, so probably about 1200 ft. lbs. at the t-case input at most. But, the 242 is only that weak in 4FT (center diff is the weak point). In the other modes, it's just as strong as a 231, AFAIK.
comptiger5000 is offline  
post #18918 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 09:48 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,418
I can't find anything in the FSM that specifically spells out what the torque converter is capable of...

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #18919 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 10:22 AM
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post
I can't find anything in the FSM that specifically spells out what the torque converter is capable of...
They don't spell it out exactly, but it should be somewhere in the 1.5 - 2.0 range for multiplication, I doubt it's over 1.8 for a 4.0 or 5.2 converter. The 5.9 converter is a bit looser and might be closer to 2.0.
comptiger5000 is offline  
post #18920 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 10:35 AM
Roskoe
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Palm Coast
Posts: 543
Seen this really nice bumper build driving back from the store
Attached Thumbnails
IMAG0413.jpg  

"aut viam inveniam aut faciam"

I hate when old people poke me at weddings, point and whisper, "You're next." So I've started doing the same thing to them at funerals
Roskoe is offline  
post #18921 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 10:54 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by comptiger5000 View Post
They don't spell it out exactly, but it should be somewhere in the 1.5 - 2.0 range for multiplication, I doubt it's over 1.8 for a 4.0 or 5.2 converter. The 5.9 converter is a bit looser and might be closer to 2.0.
AFAIK, the transfercases are measured in their full time mode if they are considered a full time case. The 249 and 242 are both considered full time cases. At 1.8 times multiplication, the torque converter comes pretty close to maxing out a 242 in full time. Obviously, it would be stronger in 2 wheel, 4 PT, or 4 low. And you'd never blow it up in neutral

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #18922 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:01 AM
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post
AFAIK, the transfercases are measured in their full time mode if they are considered a full time case. The 249 and 242 are both considered full time cases. At 1.8 times multiplication, the torque converter comes pretty close to maxing out a 242 in full time. Obviously, it would be stronger in 2 wheel, 4 PT, or 4 low. And you'd never blow it up in neutral
FWIW, I've done a couple of brakestand drag strip launches in 4FT with the modded 5.9 (which could have potentially put 2000 ft. lbs. through the t-case). The case has 200k on it and hasn't broken yet. Keep in mind, the ratings are conservative, and a ZJ is lighter than the max weight rating for the case, so it'll take a bit more power before something gives. Heck, people have had 249s (and possibly 242s) live behind supercharged niners.
comptiger5000 is offline  
post #18923 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:14 AM
ZJMTL
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,251
I wouldn't mind doing a 242 swap but I'm not 100% sure if my case that I have right now is alright internally. I actually would have no problem with the 249 except for having to replace it if the VC ****s the bed. Any idea around what mileage the VCs start to go?

'96 Laredo Build Thread - http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/zjmtls-project-thread-daily-driver-weekend-getaway-vehicle-1360544/
ZJMTL is offline  
post #18924 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:22 AM
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,556
It depends a lot on how it was cared for. I've heard of them going before 100k and lasting past 160k. But as someone else said, you could use the 242 from your current Jeep if desired and throw the 249 in there.
comptiger5000 is offline  
post #18925 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:30 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,418
I've heard the VCs can go from anywhere from about 85k on up. It really depends on how the PO(s) drove it. The more the VC heats up, the more power you get at the front axle, until it reaches 50/50. The axles spinning at different rates cause the VC fluid to heat up. Heating the fluid causes the axles to start to lock together. Heating the fluid breaks down the fluid. It's designed to fail. That's why Chrysler switched to the 247 with progressive coupling. From what I understand, that uses clutches and bands. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #18926 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:30 AM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,314
I was reading someplace, I forget where, that you should not leave the 242 in full time all of the time because it will stretch the chain. I don't know how true that is.
PolkaPower is offline  
post #18927 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:32 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
I was reading someplace, I forget where, that you should not leave the 242 in full time all of the time because it will stretch the chain. I don't know how true that is.
I've read that as well. Maybe we possibly read the same information. Can anyone bring any light onto this?

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #18928 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:38 AM
ZJMTL
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,251
Hahaha, typical Chrysler design with the 249.

I'll have to see what happens. For now I'm still limping around in my '96 in 2wd.

'96 Laredo Build Thread - http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/zjmtls-project-thread-daily-driver-weekend-getaway-vehicle-1360544/
ZJMTL is offline  
post #18929 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:41 AM
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
2016 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington
Posts: 3,727
I've heard that chain stretch thing, but I'm fairly certain it's a myth that sprouts from the NP249 chain being a tiny bit wider. I know I've certainly never had any problems.

If it's any help, the NP242 was the transfer case in the H1, which is much heavier and more diesel-equipped than the ZJ. This version of the case had a different shifter that didn't let it go into 2WD. As far as I've been able to find, that is the only difference between the Jeep and Hummer cases. In any case, it definitely bolts onto the back of a 4L80E, which is a heavy duty transmission, so take it as you may.

1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited
2016 Wrangler Unlimited Sahara Edition

Signature rules are dumb
SchizophrenicMC is offline  
post #18930 of 44378 Old 01-09-2013, 11:48 AM
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,556
The Hummer 242 was a tweaked 242HD, so it's a good bit stronger than a regular 242.

The chain stretch is probably not much of an issue, but I don't use 4FT much, as I find it to be a pretty worthless mode (I regret not swapping a 231).
comptiger5000 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Jeep Forums Replies Last Post
Almost ran out of gas today SYCOHEMI WK Grand Cherokee & XK Commander Forum 37 04-29-2016 10:36 PM
Let me tell you what I did not do today husker_zj ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 9 03-19-2013 01:09 PM
got my 94 ZJ today, and did my first mod Saleen4971 ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 10 09-22-2009 12:52 AM
Hey, Today is 5.9 day! CAHotRodBoy ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 5 05-09-2005 09:35 PM
Have you had your V-8 today?? Myrtle Beach ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 12 04-30-2005 01:28 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome