Author Topic: Project: 1982 SX/4 Turbo Stroker (Read 27127 times)

jonb8 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 31, 2013, 09:22:58 AM »

Great work, It's odd that the NP 129 is that much bigger than the Np 231. I'm leaning more to changing the floor with my unibody swap, expecially when I see what it takes to get the stock transfer shifter to work.

cyclops231 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 31, 2013, 10:01:12 AM »

Quote from: Baskinator on March 30, 2013, 11:54:13 PM

I hope you can still see out the windshield, that seat looks awfully low. Real nice job with the shifter, looks like it could've been stock (except that it probably doesn't leave enough room for the stock seats). Do you have a plan for the speedometer? I forget if the back half of the 129 fits for the gear. Keep up the good work.

The seat will be raised up about 1"when the frame goes under it. I'm trying to keep it as low as possible to keep the roll bar as far away as possible. Windshield visibility doesn't look to be a problem.

The transfer case still has a spot for the speed-o gear but uses a digital one. My understanding is if you want a digital you keep it stock, If you want a cable you swap in the stock one. The pickup looks to be the same setup as the 90's Dodge Dakota so I'll probably get the electronics from one in a local yard and fit it into the dash. This will also give road speed to the megasquirt setup.

Quote from: mach1mustang351 on March 31, 2013, 12:53:41 AM

Awesome progress.

Thanks!

Quote from: jonb8 on March 31, 2013, 09:22:58 AM

Great work, It's odd that the NP 129 is that much bigger than the Np 231. I'm leaning more to changing the floor with my unibody swap, especially when I see what it takes to get the stock transfer shifter to work.

I'll see if I can get a photo of all 4 soon, There should be a 119, 129, 231, 242 sitting around here. Those photos were a compare of the 119 (1980/81 eagle) and 242 (96? Cherokee). The 231 should be about the same size as the 119/129.

There is a lot of debate over 231 vs 242 strength. According to NP the 1st number designates speed, 2nd number is strength, and 3rd is 4wd type.

So the 242 should be stronger, it also is a little unique since it has, 2wd,4wd pt, 4wd ft, N and 4wd lo. This should make it better for on/off road use. The one down side is it'll require a custom drive shaft since it has a slip yoke.

A good ref on this s-10 forum
http://www.s10forum.com/forum/f221/new-process-transfer-cases-decoded-435029/

Baskinator · « **Reply #32 on:** March 31, 2013, 02:16:57 PM »

The extra 3" from your AX15 probably cancels out this option, but talk to Captspillane on here about the rear driveshaft. He somehow fitted a pipe around the driveshaft to limit the travel, which allowed him to use it for his 242 without any problems.

cyclops231 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 31, 2013, 03:32:13 PM »

I'll probably end up using an aluminum shaft from a mustang orminvana and cut it down to fit. The drive shaft slip eliminateor is a good solution but with everything else I'm doing I'd rather just make a straight one to fit then get it balanced.

jonb8 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 01, 2013, 05:53:53 AM »

A xj driveshaft should work for you since the wheelbase is less than a xj, you'll just have to cut it down. What rear ax;le you gonna run?

Baskinator · « **Reply #35 on:** April 01, 2013, 09:53:07 AM »

The SX/4 wheelbase is shorter than an XJ by about 4 inches, an Eagle wagon is longer.

Edit: Oops, misread your post. Still, he would have to cut it down either way.

cyclops231 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 01, 2013, 01:01:14 PM »

Quote from: jonb8 on April 01, 2013, 05:53:53 AM

What rear ax;le you gonna run?

I'm running an 8.8 out of an explorer w/ 3.08 gears. The setup has 31 spline shafts, disk brakes, and retains the stock bolt pattern.

jonb8 · « **Reply #37 on:** April 02, 2013, 09:00:45 AM »

8.8 is a great rear axle, we use them alot with the jeeps. One thing I don't like is the T in the drivers side rubber line so I alway's grab another pass side rubber when I'm at the pick and pull so it works with are factory rubber line. I just finished putting one in a MJ last weekend, remember you'll gain a inch of lift in the rear just from tube diameter.

cyclops231 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 02, 2013, 10:31:16 PM »

I'm actually considering doing a triangulated 4 link setup (Satchell link). If for some reason this doesn't happen I'll be flipping the springs to under the axle. A few years ago a custom set was made for the car but they always rode high. Flipping the mount should drop it back to factory, but it'll probably end up as a 4-link with the ride height somewhere in between

TheWraith · « **Reply #39 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:26:33 AM »

Quote from: cyclops231 on March 31, 2013, 10:01:12 AM

...
So the 242 should be stronger, it also is a little unique since it has, 2wd,4wd pt, 4wd ft, N and 4wd lo. This should make it better for on/off road use. The one down side is it'll require a custom drive shaft since it has a slip yoke.
...

This:
http://www.go.jeep-xj.info/HowtoSYEconversion.htm

The gentleman mentioned in the article that has made some seal adapters (that uses the factory np242 seal) sold me one at a very reasonable price. He was very nice to work with and didn't mind trading emails and entertaining my questions. You're obviously an accomplished fabricator, so getting the np242 output shaft turned down, drilled, and tapped should not be a problem for you.

The yoke might seem a little pricey but in comparison to other SYE kits I believe this is a good margin.

Baskinator · « **Reply #40 on:** April 03, 2013, 11:03:38 AM »

That is a really cool write up, I didn't even realize a SYE could be made for the 242. Would that increase the length, or is the double cardon joint not necessary in this application?

cyclops231 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 19, 2013, 03:42:26 PM »

I'm just going to leave it a slip yoke.

Back to build progress!
Passenger Side Rockers

A little re-patching on this side, cutting out the old patch