What did you do to your ZJ today? - Page 1262 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum > What did you do to your ZJ today?

The Original 3/8" Ruffstuff Diff Cover!The Ruffstuff NOT Universal 4 Link Kit!Flush Mount LED Bumper Lights, CREE

Reply
Unread 01-09-2013, 09:31 AM   #18916
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,051
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, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 09:36 AM   #18917
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,276
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 09:48 AM   #18918
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,051
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, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 10:22 AM   #18919
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,276
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 10:35 AM   #18920
Roskoe
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Palm Coast, FL
Posts: 541
Seen this really nice bumper build driving back from the store
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 10:54 AM   #18921
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,051
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, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:01 AM   #18922
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,276
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:14 AM   #18923
ZJMTL
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montreal, Quebec
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:22 AM   #18924
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,276
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:30 AM   #18925
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,051
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, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:30 AM   #18926
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,738
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:32 AM   #18927
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,051
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, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:38 AM   #18928
ZJMTL
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Montreal, Quebec
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:41 AM   #18929
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,312
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.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-09-2013, 11:48 AM   #18930
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,276
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 With Quote
Reply

Tags
door latch
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.