"Powered by Ford" Grand Wagoneer...

[FoxFord33]

Hello! Welcome to the project thread for my 1990 Jeep (AMC/Chrysler/GM/FoMoCo) Grand Wagoneer.

 

A quick introduction, in case you didn't know, these vehicles were quirky to say the least! After the classic lines of the outward appearance, this is what attracts me to them even more. I, like some of you, am a fan of automobiles in general, but don't have a favorite brand. That is a good thing for a GW owner, since they have parts from all of the "Big Three." Wells ignition module also used by Ford, MotorCraft 2150 carb, Singer window switches from a 75 Grenada from the look of things... Add to that the steering column from an 88 Caprice Classic, and the transmission from a 90 Dodge Ram Truck, and stir it together, pouring it into the classic mold designed by Brooks Stevens in 1963, and you get the Grand Wagoneer that I drive daily.

 

I am, however, partial to the Ford powertrain which includes the fuel-injected version of the old-style blocks: the 5.0/5.8, and the computer-controlled transmission of the same era: the E4OD. Others have done engine swaps before me on these outstanding vehicles, but usually they are from the same sheepfold who put LS motors into everything. That would be easy, since there is plenty of documentation on that subject, but I have a dream (cue inspirational music). I have a dream that one day, old, aesthetically-pleasing design can go hand-in-hand with modern, computer-controlled drivetrains. I have a dream that doing things that are unheard-of can work well, even though it was never documented before. I will need help (that's enough inspirational music, probably the record scratch sound now...) with most of this.

 

I have decided that this list should go here for anyone who is looking for it later.

 

 

You people have shown that you are experts in more than just Ford. You are experts in many many brands and applications. So that is why I am putting this here, on a site dedicated to being the best resource for Bullnose Ford Trucks. You people know, I imagine, almost everything that I will need to ask. So here is my project. I will be asking, and I thank you all in advance for your input and opinions.

[Gary Lewis]

I'm in! But I missed the inspirational music. I kept hearing MLK.

Do you want me to move the discussion from the Lounge here? Easily done.

[FoxFord33]

Current Stage: beginning phase. Discussion of possibilities and solutions to forseen problems.

I already have the Grand Wagoneer, and everything that comes with it. So what do I want? I want to replace the drivetrain with an electronically controlled one so that the vehicle will be modernized. I want to also make it as simply as possible, so perhaps lever-controlled TC instead of vacuum motor (which is not working right now anyway). Twin sticks is an oft-used "upgrade" for these vehicles. I know from experience that the 5.0 is no pushover, being able in my last one with 200k+ miles to tow Gary's heavy trailer. So an even fresher one ought to be even more robust. I don't plan to do heavy towing, anyway, so... but I want the drivetrain to be a little abuse-proofed. E4OD has been touted as both "a problem-prone transmission" and "an excellent transmission which stands up to heavy wear and tear," so that's a spectrum... but my old one in my truck was great. I know if one puts the right parts into an E4OD, it can do whatever you want it to. Plus, it's computer-controlled, so that's the attraction to it. This is all with the caveat: "Unless a better idea exists."

Let's define "better:" Cheaper, stronger, cheaper, less prone to break, cheaper, requiring less maintenance, cheaper, and cheaper. I am willing to do some up-front preparation such as rebuilding said transmission or engine in order to make it fit the "better" metric. But only insomuch as it doesn't cost a mint. So, I have a lot of faith in my abilities and your expertise, and less money than that.

Right now I am leaning toward 5.0, E4OD, and trying to retain the NP229. It is Left-hand drop (driver's side). So, do any of my readers have a "better" idea?

[Gary Lewis]

Current Stage: beginning phase. Discussion of possibilities and solutions to forseen problems.

I already have the Grand Wagoneer, and everything that comes with it. So what do I want? I want to replace the drivetrain with an electronically controlled one so that the vehicle will be modernized. I want to also make it as simply as possible, so perhaps lever-controlled TC instead of vacuum motor (which is not working right now anyway). Twin sticks is an oft-used "upgrade" for these vehicles. I know from experience that the 5.0 is no pushover, being able in my last one with 200k+ miles to tow Gary's heavy trailer. So an even fresher one ought to be even more robust. I don't plan to do heavy towing, anyway, so... but I want the drivetrain to be a little abuse-proofed. E4OD has been touted as both "a problem-prone transmission" and "an excellent transmission which stands up to heavy wear and tear," so that's a spectrum... but my old one in my truck was great. I know if one puts the right parts into an E4OD, it can do whatever you want it to. Plus, it's computer-controlled, so that's the attraction to it. This is all with the caveat: "Unless a better idea exists."

Let's define "better:" Cheaper, stronger, cheaper, less prone to break, cheaper, requiring less maintenance, cheaper, and cheaper. I am willing to do some up-front preparation such as rebuilding said transmission or engine in order to make it fit the "better" metric. But only insomuch as it doesn't cost a mint. So, I have a lot of faith in my abilities and your expertise, and less money than that.

Right now I am leaning toward 5.0, E4OD, and trying to retain the NP229. It is Left-hand drop (driver's side). So, do any of my readers have a "better" idea?

What's the bolt pattern from it to the tranny? Chizzler or Ford? If you go with the E4OD, and I think that's a good "modern" transmission, you'll obviously need a Ford-pattern t-case.

As for an E4OD being able to be strong, I don't have proof yet, but the one in Dad's truck was built to easily withstand its 400 HP/500 lb-ft. And the Turner's V10-powered motor home has one in it. Granted they've had some problems with it, but think of the huge weight difference!

Is there an easy solution to convert the vacuum shifting to lever on the NP229? If so, then maybe you could convert to that. But the vacuum system isn't all that complicated and the levers to go mechanical are rather large. And, the Bullnose ones come through the top of the transmission tunnel. However, I should have the later mechanism, and it come through the side of the transmission tunnel.

I still think a wrecked donor 4wd truck is the way for you to go. You'd have all of the pieces you need from an EFI and transmission standpoint, and you will be very surprised how many times you'll have to go back and get more pieces.

What about the hubs? Have you figured out how they work?

 

[FuzzFace2]

What's the bolt pattern from it to the tranny? Chizzler or Ford? If you go with the E4OD, and I think that's a good "modern" transmission, you'll obviously need a Ford-pattern t-case.

As for an E4OD being able to be strong, I don't have proof yet, but the one in Dad's truck was built to easily withstand its 400 HP/500 lb-ft. And the Turner's V10-powered motor home has one in it. Granted they've had some problems with it, but think of the huge weight difference!

Is there an easy solution to convert the vacuum shifting to lever on the NP229? If so, then maybe you could convert to that. But the vacuum system isn't all that complicated and the levers to go mechanical are rather large. And, the Bullnose ones come through the top of the transmission tunnel. However, I should have the later mechanism, and it come through the side of the transmission tunnel.

I still think a wrecked donor 4wd truck is the way for you to go. You'd have all of the pieces you need from an EFI and transmission standpoint, and you will be very surprised how many times you'll have to go back and get more pieces.

What about the hubs? Have you figured out how they work?

On the NP229 transfer I want to say it will be a full time 4x4 case and no locking hubs or even a front axle disconnect but could be wrong.

I also want to say if the above is right it is a single speed case, no low gearing.

When you flip the (vacuum) switch a (vacuum) motor moved the lever on the case to "lock".

IIRC one of the GM cases was like this but you moved a shifter stick, but think it also had a low range.

It would have a high & high lock, think neutral, low & low lock - no locking hubs. If a drive shaft was removed the truck would not move unless shifted to "lock".

I also want to say the transfer case did not have a GM / Chry / Ford / Dodge pattern as they used an adapter between the transfer case & transmission. This adapter would have the transmission side pattern, in this case for the TF727 transmission tail shaft housing.

 

Note: this AMC TF727 is a Chry TF727 in every way OTHER THAN the motor side bell housing bolt pattern and that is AMC in this case.

Also being a 4x4 trans the output shaft is a shorter 4x4 part so to be used in a 4x2 you would need to swap this 4x4 output shaft out for the 4x2 and tail housing to go with it.

So with that said how much of what I said of your transfer case is true of the single speed and no locking hubs? If you want a low range you might look for one that has it and needing locking hubs, change yours for locking type for better MPG.

Does Novak or Advance Adaptors make any adaptors & spud shafts for the AOD or EAOD and if so to what transfer cases? I think this is where the trouble will be to mate the transfer & trany together.

Dave ----

[FuzzFace2]

On the NP229 transfer I want to say it will be a full time 4x4 case and no locking hubs or even a front axle disconnect but could be wrong.

I also want to say if the above is right it is a single speed case, no low gearing.

When you flip the (vacuum) switch a (vacuum) motor moved the lever on the case to "lock".

IIRC one of the GM cases was like this but you moved a shifter stick, but think it also had a low range.

It would have a high & high lock, think neutral, low & low lock - no locking hubs. If a drive shaft was removed the truck would not move unless shifted to "lock".

I also want to say the transfer case did not have a GM / Chry / Ford / Dodge pattern as they used an adapter between the transfer case & transmission. This adapter would have the transmission side pattern, in this case for the TF727 transmission tail shaft housing.

 

Note: this AMC TF727 is a Chry TF727 in every way OTHER THAN the motor side bell housing bolt pattern and that is AMC in this case.

Also being a 4x4 trans the output shaft is a shorter 4x4 part so to be used in a 4x2 you would need to swap this 4x4 output shaft out for the 4x2 and tail housing to go with it.

So with that said how much of what I said of your transfer case is true of the single speed and no locking hubs? If you want a low range you might look for one that has it and needing locking hubs, change yours for locking type for better MPG.

Does Novak or Advance Adaptors make any adaptors & spud shafts for the AOD or EAOD and if so to what transfer cases? I think this is where the trouble will be to mate the transfer & trany together.

Dave ----

Oh on the Bricklin the switch from AMC to Ford power I believe was because AMC went on strike and he needed motors and Ford had them.

Now I don't know this for sure but I want to say the frame mounts were changed, think they were all welded as I never looked that close at them on an AMC power car, not that you could see them from up top LOL.

So he would have just made that little change to drop in the Ford motor.

You may want to look into CJ5 & CJ7 motor mount kits as I think someone made Ford frame mounts to drop in the 302 into them.

Your frame I am sure is a little wider than the CJ's, cant remember now its been so long playing with the CJ's and 73 or 74 Wagoner, but want to say Jeep just made 1 of the frame mounts a little longer on 1 side for the Wagoner to fit the AMC motors in. I also want to say the frame mounts bolt in.

If you could get a kit for a CJ you would just need to do the same, 1 side longer.

Dave ----

[Gary Lewis]

On the NP229 transfer I want to say it will be a full time 4x4 case and no locking hubs or even a front axle disconnect but could be wrong.

I also want to say if the above is right it is a single speed case, no low gearing.

When you flip the (vacuum) switch a (vacuum) motor moved the lever on the case to "lock".

IIRC one of the GM cases was like this but you moved a shifter stick, but think it also had a low range.

It would have a high & high lock, think neutral, low & low lock - no locking hubs. If a drive shaft was removed the truck would not move unless shifted to "lock".

I also want to say the transfer case did not have a GM / Chry / Ford / Dodge pattern as they used an adapter between the transfer case & transmission. This adapter would have the transmission side pattern, in this case for the TF727 transmission tail shaft housing.

 

Note: this AMC TF727 is a Chry TF727 in every way OTHER THAN the motor side bell housing bolt pattern and that is AMC in this case.

Also being a 4x4 trans the output shaft is a shorter 4x4 part so to be used in a 4x2 you would need to swap this 4x4 output shaft out for the 4x2 and tail housing to go with it.

So with that said how much of what I said of your transfer case is true of the single speed and no locking hubs? If you want a low range you might look for one that has it and needing locking hubs, change yours for locking type for better MPG.

Does Novak or Advance Adaptors make any adaptors & spud shafts for the AOD or EAOD and if so to what transfer cases? I think this is where the trouble will be to mate the transfer & trany together.

Dave ----

Novak says this of the NP228 & 229:

The NP228 had a direct-drive 2wd mode. It used an internal, open differential for four-wheel-drive mode and high range and featured a fully locked mode in four-wheel-drive, low range. It featured vacuum actuation for mode operation and a conventional shifter linkage for range operation. This transfer case was used in the XJ Cherokees as the optional in lieu of the NP207.

The NP229 was similar to the NP228, but it featured an internal viscous coupling for full-time operation. This transfer case was offered in the FSJ Grand Wagoneer.

I think what this is saying is that the 229 has both high and low range, but that it is always in 4wd mode, and that is done via the viscous coupling. But Steve says that the coupling is not replaceable. So my suggestion is that he change that t-case out to something else, and I have an NP208 I've offered him.

As for the hubs, it appears that Steve's hubs are locked all the time. So if he changes to a part-time t-case, like the NP208, I think he will need to see if there are replacement hubs that can be locked and un-locked.

[FoxFord33]

...the 229 has both high and low range, but that it is always in 4wd mode, and that is done via the viscous coupling...

This is correct. There is-from factory-a vacuum switch on the dash for 2WD and 4WD, and there is a lever through the side of the trans tunnel for Hi - N - Lo ranges. So with the right (read: rigged) linkage, I could retain that range lever with a 208, ditch the timebomb unobtainium VC 229, and perhaps even use the vacuum switch to operate it, or make the switch into an electrical switch behind the fascia...Depending on how the 208 is/can be actuated (I haven't looked it up yet, but I will after posting!).

There are hub kits for this, as this is simply a D44 front end, and it has been done several times before. So what do you all recommend? Warn? depends on availability, I imagine.

The 229 can be mated to almost any trans because FuzzFace is correct: there is a plate/adapter from transmission to transfer case. But! if I use the 208 with E4OD, not an issue... Besides the obvious one I'm concerned about: overall length and interference with body.

They say the E4OD is a long booger, and it's true. but when looking at the actual measurements, it's still measured in inches and not miles, so it could probably be made to fit. I just worry a bit about interference with the floorboard/tunnel. I don't worry a whole bunch, because there is plenty of space beneath the hood, and Novak has already made motor mounts for a Ford for this vehicle which are adjustable. Which means I should have room for adjustment. And if I have to change the floors, that is what I will do, because at that stage, I will have probably measured and imagined and visualized all I could before getting a drivetrain, so the options will be use what I will have bought or don't! I will decide it's too late to turn back and plow ahead. Gotta take the seats out anyway to address a few issues.

I think there were some more questions I could have answered, but I forgot, and I will hit them in another post!

[FoxFord33]

You may want to look into CJ5 & CJ7 motor mount kits as I think someone made Ford frame mounts to drop in the 302 into them.

Your frame I am sure is a little wider than the CJ's, cant remember now its been so long playing with the CJ's and 73 or 74 Wagoner, but want to say Jeep just made 1 of the frame mounts a little longer on 1 side for the Wagoner to fit the AMC motors in. I also want to say the frame mounts bolt in.

If you could get a kit for a CJ you would just need to do the same, 1 side longer.

Dave ----

Exactly! This is what they do at the engine mount mfr's. It does bolt into the frame, and then an optional weld can be laid along the top edge to the frame since that is how the factory ones are now.

The ethereal plan right now is to use some of these motor mounts for the wide frame Jeep and adjust as needed.

[FoxFord33]

...the 229 has both high and low range, but that it is always in 4wd mode, and that is done via the viscous coupling...

This is correct. There is-from factory-a vacuum switch on the dash for 2WD and 4WD, and there is a lever through the side of the trans tunnel for Hi - N - Lo ranges. So with the right (read: rigged) linkage, I could retain that range lever with a 208, ditch the timebomb unobtainium VC 229, and perhaps even use the vacuum switch to operate it, or make the switch into an electrical switch behind the fascia...Depending on how the 208 is/can be actuated (I haven't looked it up yet, but I will after posting!).

There are hub kits for this, as this is simply a D44 front end, and it has been done several times before. So what do you all recommend? Warn? depends on availability, I imagine.

The 229 can be mated to almost any trans because FuzzFace is correct: there is a plate/adapter from transmission to transfer case. But! if I use the 208 with E4OD, not an issue... Besides the obvious one I'm concerned about: overall length and interference with body.

They say the E4OD is a long booger, and it's true. but when looking at the actual measurements, it's still measured in inches and not miles, so it could probably be made to fit. I just worry a bit about interference with the floorboard/tunnel. I don't worry a whole bunch, because there is plenty of space beneath the hood, and Novak has already made motor mounts for a Ford for this vehicle which are adjustable. Which means I should have room for adjustment. And if I have to change the floors, that is what I will do, because at that stage, I will have probably measured and imagined and visualized all I could before getting a drivetrain, so the options will be use what I will have bought or don't! I will decide it's too late to turn back and plow ahead. Gotta take the seats out anyway to address a few issues.

I think there were some more questions I could have answered, but I forgot, and I will hit them in another post!

Found some stuff RE: NP229 vs NP208.

A quote from Slick Willie on IFSJA forum:

" As far as strength, I can't vouch for differences, but I know the 208 is a strong case, and it's smaller and lighter than the 229."

And Wilsmick says:

"Swap considerations:

- I know I'll need to lengthen my rear DS to swap in NP208.

- As long as the NP208 comes out of another jeep it should be 23 spline input and bolt right in.

- shift linkage for NP208 (from another jeep) should be the same as my NP229 linkage. If I go with a NP208, I can just remove (cap-off) the vacuum stuff."

So then, It seems like size won't be an issue. If the 229 would fit, the 208 would also fit, but require more rear driveshaft and presumably use the same linkage on the floor (with consideration for overall linkage adjustment/fab with engine/trans change). The spline count will be Ford-Ford, so same difference with Wilsmick's Jeep-Jeep thing. (Edit: and! I would have had to do a different shaft to fit the 229 to Ford trans, so none of that now!)

At this point, all signs point to "do this swap during engine/trans swap because you don't want to get another rear shaft after the 229 can't be fixed for whatever future reason and you change to 208 anyway." I'm sure that was difficult to fit inside the magic 8 ball, but that's what it said, so...