Official 4.0 swap thread - Page 24 - 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 CJ Forum > Official 4.0 swap thread

Introducing MONSTALINER™ UV Permanent DIY Roll On Bed LineOconeeoffroad.com Prothane bushing sale Blowing out inventPoison spyder items @ oconee off road 706 534 9955

Reply
Unread 08-06-2013, 03:30 PM   #346
Skerr
<*////><
 
Skerr's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: White Springs, Florida
Posts: 8,887
Has anyone had problems with the clutch not working after the swap? I either slept through that part of this swap, or I skipped over it, but I never saw where anyone had this problem. My clutch fork is hitting the back edge of the square window in the bellhousing. In other words, you can't depress the clutch pedal far enough to activate the clutch. The reason for this is the 4.0 flywheel is 400/1000s thinner than the 258 flywheel. This allows the throwout bearing to sit farther back. I have searched for a longer TO bearing, but to no avail. Novak makes one, but they are retooling, and they are at least two weeks away before running them. The other option is an adjustable pivot ball.

Where did I go wrong? What did you guys do to avoid this problem?

We are using an XJ 4.0, XJ manual flywheel, modified 258 bellhousing (for CPS), T18 tranny, diaphragm clutch set.

__________________
Kerrdog
Go Fish! <*////><

But the right word at the right time... "Hey, give me a little hug!" That's the difference between lightning and a harmless lightning bug!
Skerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 05:17 AM   #347
NelsonATC
Registered User
1980 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 423
My initial thought is that something is missing. That small of a variation in the thickness of the flywheel should not translate to the clutch fork hitting, and meeting a longer throwout bearing.

Is it possible that you either forgot to put in the pivot ball behind the clutch fork, or it fell out? I usually use JB Weld, or epoxy, to hold them in place while I am positioning everything. It doesn't last forever, but by the time the epoxy lets go, the ball is firmly seated behind the clutch fork and won't go anywhere.

As far as getting a larger throw out bearing, take your current throwout, bring it to the parts store, and find something a little longer. They do make them for various applications.

I am running a T176 and a 4.0 flywheel, and had no issues.
__________________
Mike
1980 CJ7
NelsonATC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 03:41 PM   #348
Skerr
<*////><
 
Skerr's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: White Springs, Florida
Posts: 8,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonATC View Post
My initial thought is that something is missing. That small of a variation in the thickness of the flywheel should not translate to the clutch fork hitting, and meeting a longer throwout bearing.

Is it possible that you either forgot to put in the pivot ball behind the clutch fork, or it fell out? I usually use JB Weld, or epoxy, to hold them in place while I am positioning everything. It doesn't last forever, but by the time the epoxy lets go, the ball is firmly seated behind the clutch fork and won't go anywhere.

As far as getting a larger throw out bearing, take your current throwout, bring it to the parts store, and find something a little longer. They do make them for various applications.

I am running a T176 and a 4.0 flywheel, and had no issues.
Thanks, Nelson. The pivot ball is in place, and I have no explanation for this malady! There is more to this story, but I won't post it up here. It can be read in Clay's Build Thread... the last few pages. Going with an adjustable ball stud. I will keep ya'll posted.
__________________
Kerrdog
Go Fish! <*////><

But the right word at the right time... "Hey, give me a little hug!" That's the difference between lightning and a harmless lightning bug!
Skerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 05:12 PM   #349
Matt1981CJ7
Web Wheeler
 
Matt1981CJ7's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Elbert, CO
Posts: 10,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonATC View Post
My initial thought is that something is missing. That small of a variation in the thickness of the flywheel should not translate to the clutch fork hitting, and meeting a longer throwout bearing.
Assuming Scott's measurements are accurate, the 4.0 flywheel is nearly 7/16" thinner then the 258's.

That's not a "small variation" in my book.

Matt
Matt1981CJ7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 06:24 PM   #350
Skerr
<*////><
 
Skerr's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: White Springs, Florida
Posts: 8,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1981CJ7 View Post
Assuming Scott's measurements are accurate, the 4.0 flywheel is nearly 7/16" thinner then the 258's.

That's not a "small variation" in my book.

Matt
Matt, it's 400/1000s, so .4".
__________________
Kerrdog
Go Fish! <*////><

But the right word at the right time... "Hey, give me a little hug!" That's the difference between lightning and a harmless lightning bug!
Skerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 06:24 PM   #351
billybooster2
Web Wheeler
1983 CJ8 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cow Mountain, CA
Posts: 1,093
That makes it 80% of 1/2 inch!
billybooster2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 07:54 PM   #352
row684
Registered User
1984 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logan, UT
Posts: 691
Or 2/5ths of an inch if you reduce 400/1000ths completely.
row684 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2013, 08:02 PM   #353
billybooster2
Web Wheeler
1983 CJ8 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cow Mountain, CA
Posts: 1,093
Round it up to a furlong
billybooster2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-08-2013, 06:48 AM   #354
Matt1981CJ7
Web Wheeler
 
Matt1981CJ7's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Elbert, CO
Posts: 10,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skerr View Post
Matt, it's 400/1000s, so .4".
So it's a hair under 7/16". Correct?

Or has my grade school mathematics failed me?

Matt
Matt1981CJ7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-08-2013, 10:01 AM   #355
NelsonATC
Registered User
1980 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 423
Okay, I'll give you that.

But something is amiss with the flywheel. Mine did not have any impactful variation in thickness on my setup. I used a flywheel from a 99 TJ that I had resurfaced.
__________________
Mike
1980 CJ7
NelsonATC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-08-2013, 12:42 PM   #356
SLO_Ken
Registered User
1986 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonATC View Post
Okay, I'll give you that.

But something is amiss with the flywheel. Mine did not have any impactful variation in thickness on my setup. I used a flywheel from a 99 TJ that I had resurfaced.
I agree. I used a new Luk flywheel when I did mine a few months ago. I definitely think I would have noticed almost 1/2" difference in thickness. That's close to 30%!
SLO_Ken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-08-2013, 03:59 PM   #357
Skerr
<*////><
 
Skerr's Avatar
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: White Springs, Florida
Posts: 8,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybooster2 View Post
That makes it 80% of 1/2 inch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by row684 View Post
Or 2/5ths of an inch if you reduce 400/1000ths completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybooster2 View Post
Round it up to a furlong


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1981CJ7 View Post
So it's a hair under 7/16". Correct?

Or has my grade school mathematics failed me?

Matt
Sorry Matt. It was dumb to correct you. It just goes to show my state of mind. I wasn't thinking!

Thanks for the smile Gentlemen!
__________________
Kerrdog
Go Fish! <*////><

But the right word at the right time... "Hey, give me a little hug!" That's the difference between lightning and a harmless lightning bug!
Skerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2013, 03:13 PM   #358
Gigemags05
Registered User
1980 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigemags05
I completed this swap using the hesco cps relocation kit. Now, I think my cps is going out. Does anyone know if I can use an after market cps from the parts store or do I have to replace it with a hesco cps?
I replaced the cps and am still having the issue. The jeep starts and runs fine then suddenly dies.

It looks like its throwing code 73 and 75, but I can't find those anywhere for a 1992 4.0

I'm at a complete loss.
Gigemags05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2013, 03:42 PM   #359
NelsonATC
Registered User
1980 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 423
I had a similar problem with a friends rate down the trail the other day. He has an early 90's XJ. The problem ended up being the ballast resistor. Once we bypassed it, he had no other problems.

I eliminated the ballast resistor when I send out my wiring harness, but if for some reason you kept yours ( and you used an XJ harness), that may be the problem.
__________________
Mike
1980 CJ7
NelsonATC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2013, 03:51 PM   #360
Gigemags05
Registered User
1980 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 632
My harness is from hesco and they eliminate the ballast resistor.

The fuel pump primes and seems to be in good working order.
Gigemags05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
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.