I was kicking around on Wikipedia and found an interesting piece of info, It seems the iron duke lived on into the s-10 up to 2003, I am curious as to whether or not the 2200 block is interchangeable with the iron dukes in the eagles. as the I4 2200 in 1994 has a MPFI and horsepower was increased to 120. That seems like a heck of a horsepower increase for the 4 cylinder eagles while still maintaining fuel economy, has anyone tried?
This is of interest as I am currently trying to find as much as I can that would allow the eagle drive trains to be updated in all their forms.
Only thing I have left is to see about finding a way to re-manufacture the body and the sheet metal if that happens In theory we could keep the eagle alive in full dress for years to come. Especially since BMW is now going full bore with carbon fiber unibody construction, that would be something to look further into as well.
If I remember correctly, the later Iron Duke used the GM metric bell pattern. The Eagle (as well as other early 'Duke's) has the "Chevy" bell bolt pattern. The head and fuel injection parts may be interchangeable, but I am not sure. The Pontiac Fiero used the Iron Duke, and I remember seeing some dialog here about using HP parts from the Fiero on the Eagle.
I still haven't found out 100% about the Duke in Eagles, but supposedly all '80 up are the same 60 degree GM pattern (as used by 2.8 V6 in Chevs and XJs and the AMC 4 cyl used '83 up)
Front wheel drive has different block mounts and waterpumps plus they are 2.5L. The 2.2 wasn't used in Eagles and the earlier Gremlin engine was Audi based. (it went on to get fuel injection and more power in Porsche 924)
Thanks rollguy, I am asking as the 2200 was the used in the S-10 Trucks 1994 thru 2003. and considering that there is a fair share of engines that use the Iron dukes construction I am just curious if anyone has attempted a HP build or swap with any of these engines. Cause like I said, IF they can be used to replace the 2.5 iron duke in the Eagles (Possibly) need the transmission. (And a Transfer case swap)as this would give people some options to prolong the Eagles life.
I have a side update for those interested I found an outfit that builds Iron Dukes in race flavors :D we are talking some pretty decent horse power here folks. They have 2 versions the 2.7L 272 hp (203 kW) version and a 3.2L 330 hp (250 kW) version both produce by Kansas Racing Products and still makes the engines after buying the rights to make them from GM.
Cosworth also produced a 16-valve head (Cosworth Project DBA, 1987) for the Iron Duke.
www.kansasracingproducts.com
Quote from: Hawk258 on October 16, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
Thanks rollguy, I am asking as the 2200 was the used in the S-10 Trucks 1994 thru 2003. and considering that there is a fair share of engines that use the Iron dukes construction I am just curious if anyone has attempted a HP build or swap with any of these engines. Cause like I said, IF they can be used to replace the 2.5 iron duke in the Eagles (Possibly) need the transmission. (And a Transfer case swap)as this would give people some options to prolong the Eagles life.
One would need the entire package (engine, trans, transfer case) from a donor 4X4 S10. That would probably make a decent swap to prolong the life of an old, tired (and underpowered) Iron Duke in an Eagle. Not to mention the added bonus of fuel injection.
Added pain of a newer than '95 EFI system you mean? I would use an S10 700R4 off a 2.8 on the Duke or AX-6 (S10 T5 was weak)
Quote from: carnuck on October 17, 2011, 01:51:03 AM
I would use an S10 700R4 off a 2.8 on the Duke or AX-6 (S10 T5 was weak)
my dad had an 83 and an 84 s10 and both had the five speed they were good transmissions for both towing and offroading but that's my opinion.
Quote from: maddog on October 17, 2011, 02:44:17 AM
Quote from: carnuck on October 17, 2011, 01:51:03 AM
I would use an S10 700R4 off a 2.8 on the Duke or AX-6 (S10 T5 was weak)
my dad had an 83 and an 84 s10 and both had the five speed they were good transmissions for both towing and offroading but that's my opinion.
The T-5 should be fine behind an Iron Duke, but anything with a bit of power will make shrapnel out of a T5.
Speaking of the Borg warner t-5 is there anyway to get the guts of a World class T-5 to work in the housings of the eagles T-5 or is there too much of a difference?
The Eagle T5 is identical to the Jeep CJ7 T5. There is a guy in PA that sells professionally rebuilt T5s for about 600. He used to offer a world class version for about 1000. Its not a simple conversion, since there are two or three things that need to be machined or otherwise modified. Its also not a complete conversion, because there is something that cannot be carried over to the Jeep housing. If you put the time into searching its been done.
Thing is, the T5 is considered weak because the housing is very thin. It flexes under load more than other transmissions. That flex puts alot of undue wear on components. A world class T5 might have a few beefier parts but its still a weak transmission. Race guys prefer light weight over longevity, but we want it to be robust. In our Eagles you have alot of better options. A NV3550 or AX15 is cheaper, stronger, and easier to find.
Quote from: carnuck on October 16, 2011, 07:30:17 AM
I still haven't found out 100% about the Duke in Eagles, but supposedly all '80 up are the same 60 degree GM pattern (as used by 2.8 V6 in Chevs and XJs and the AMC 4 cyl used '83 up)
Front wheel drive has different block mounts and waterpumps plus they are 2.5L. The 2.2 wasn't used in Eagles and the earlier Gremlin engine was Audi based. (it went on to get fuel injection and more power in Porsche 924)
This isn't correct. The 60 degree pattern from Chevy V6s was used with the AMC 4 Cyl. AMC made the switch in late '83 to this engine. Its totally different than the Iron Duke. The Iron Duke has a small block Chevy bolt pattern.
Early Dukes had the SBC pattern till '80. After that they went to 60 degree (this is from Chev forums. They matched up with the 2.8V6 and used the same trans)
Well, It seems if I were a voting man, the 4 cylinder has many more options for upgrades that could be performed. Though that is just an educated theory. Though it brings up many new ideas to mind on how to keep these beast on the road longer without too many sacrifices. (IMO)
Quote from: carnuck on October 18, 2011, 03:32:50 AM
Early Dukes had the SBC pattern till '80. After that they went to 60 degree (this is from Chev forums. They matched up with the 2.8V6 and used the same trans)
As near as I can tell, GM sold the remainder of the pre-80 castings to AMC. I may be suspicious of 84 model year Iron Dukes near the switch to the AMC 150, but 80-83 are going to be the old-style SBC pattern.
Quote from: BenM on October 18, 2011, 01:41:16 PM
Quote from: carnuck on October 18, 2011, 03:32:50 AM
Early Dukes had the SBC pattern till '80. After that they went to 60 degree (this is from Chev forums. They matched up with the 2.8V6 and used the same trans)
As near as I can tell, GM sold the remainder of the pre-80 castings to AMC. I may be suspicious of 84 model year Iron Dukes near the switch to the AMC 150, but 80-83 are going to be the old-style SBC pattern.
As I understand it, GM sold the tooling along with the rights to AMC for them to make their own engines. All AMC Iron Dukes are definately a SBC pattern. When cruising through Chevy forums it would be interesting to see if anyone has upgraded a pre-80 SBC block like ours to use fuel injection from the later 60 degree blocks.
To be clear, I have personally seen a 1983 SX4 with an AMC four cylinder. The switch happened in late '83 model year.
Apparently someone with a 60 degree bellhousing for an AMC four cylinder could put in a post-80 Iron Duke from a Chevy. Those bellhousings are commonly discarded from Jeep conversions. It would be possible then to have all stock eagle parts except the engine for those considering updating their Iron Dukes to fuel injection. The later iron dukes actually had more horsepower than a stock 258, so it might be worthwhile.
Unless you find a T5 bell for 2.8, it won't work on the Eagle trans. I wouldn't run the AX-5 either, but convert to AX-15 using Dakota (with AMC 2.5) setup instead.
I am just mentioning this as a possible upgrade or even replacement for the original engines and may even cut costs and increase horsepower. Especially since parts are a premium and limited
It's nice to see some of this getting straightened out... There's a lot of confusion over the Iron Duke and the AMC 2.5 out there on the web.
I have an update, it seems that the I-4 that AMC used to replace the iron Duke went into production Under AMC and continued to be made under Chrysler for many years, I am sure this is of some interest as well. considering that it too has some decent horsepower out of the box.
it seems the block was used in the dakotas till 2002 and with multi-port fuel injection it pushed nearly 130 hp, also it is just a shortened 258 with 2 of the middle cylinders removed as well as having the cylinder bored and the stroke shortened, and the head was the model for the 4.0 head just stretched. I think it too would be worth the time to investigate.
My source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Straight-4_engine
again 2 more cents worth.
Poppycock! Renault had their hand in the 4 cyl development. Mopar didn't do anything till they took over in '88. The 2.5L was designed after the 4.2L, BUT it even shares pistons with the 4.0L
Fixed Posted above
I hope someone here on the nest has an Eagle with the AMC 4 cylinder. I've only seen one. It was an SX4 in a junkyard. I would love to get some pictures of the crossmember and differential hangars to see how it was installed. I don't know if they have bolt bosses on the side like the 258 does.
I didn't notice the intake was on the wrong side of the engine until I stood there staring at the crazy little shock at the bottom of the engine for awhile all perplexed like. I briefly owned a Cherokee with that engine and it also had that crazy little shock at the bottom.
Quote from: Hawk258 on October 28, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
My source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Straight-4_engine
I also never said that the Block was "Created" but chrysler, I said it was continued to be built by chrysler, Additionally, the I said the head design was used for the 4.0. Thank you for reading.
I am sorry for the confusion I created saying "in production in chryslers hands". That is rather misleading. I mean continued to be produced.
Thanks for the clear up. You wouldn't believe how many people say Mopar designed that motor and the 4.0L! It REALLY ticks me off when they do! You may want to go back and change your original post so no-one uses it in their wrongful claims. The motor was also used in TJs till '02 so upgrades are available.
I've had schemes of the AMC 150 (2.5) in a Gremlin. I expect it would be a nice daily driver with higher 4-cylinder gearing do better then an old 232 in both mileage and acceleration, plus you'd be keeping it all AMC. They're plentiful secondhand because a lot of people pull them from trail rigs for larger engines.
It'd probably be pretty good in a Kammback or an SX/4 too, especially as an upgrade of the 151 (2.5 Iron Duke). I've never driven either engine, but I'd be interested to see stock 0-60 comparisons between both and the 258 with in the same vehicle.
well As this thread states, there really isn't much difference horsepower wise between the iron duke and the AMC 4. as both have continued life for many years. The Iron duke does have a slight edge though, as it appears there is a complete Competition build listed here. Torque wise, the AMC 4 would lose in the long run, but it has the edge in horsepower slightly in stock trim.
Quote from: Hawk258 on October 14, 2011, 04:16:23 PM
I was kicking around on Wikipedia and found an interesting piece of info, It seems the iron duke lived on into the s-10 up to 2003, I am curious as to whether or not the 2200 block is interchangeable with the iron dukes in the eagles. as the I4 2200 in 1994 has a MPFI and horsepower was increased to 120. That seems like a heck of a horsepower increase for the 4 cylinder eagles while still maintaining fuel economy, has anyone tried?
Is this a 2200 block? Is it a Pontiac Fiero engine? My new Kammback has this engine. It is not an Iron Duke and it is not an AMC 150. It is using the iron duke engine mounts and original SR4 transmission. There is a fuel pump in the exact same spot as an Iron Duke. The radiator hose is on the same side as an Iron Duke (opposite of a 258 or 150). The Holley carb is on the drivers side instead of the passenger side.
(http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x427/captspillane/Eagleweb%20Postings/DSCF0695.jpg)
(http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x427/captspillane/Eagleweb%20Postings/DSCF0696.jpg)
(http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x427/captspillane/Eagleweb%20Postings/DSCF0697.jpg)
Now that last post is interesting! Which engine is that? Seems to bolt up nicely.
I have thought of doing a TBI upgrade to my 81 SX/4. I think I will have to find a late model S10 and get all the parts I need and put them on my block. From what I can tell I will need everything from the block up. Plus, I will need the computer, the fuel pump, possibly the accelerator pedal mechanism, and some other stuff. So sorta kinda a bolt on. One of those afternoon projects that takes two weeks.
My other option is this Offenhauser 4-barrel manifold I have for the Iron Duke. I think I would have to go for one of those Holley 390CFM carbs to make it work. So, new cam, carb and intake, new performance distributor, a little bigger exhaust.
Hot Rod or economy, that is the question.
Quote from: captspillane on November 06, 2011, 11:05:32 AM
It is not an Iron Duke and it is not an AMC 150.
It is definitely NOT an AMC 150, but it sure looks like an Iron Duke.
Did the Fiero get the 2.2? I thought only the 2.5 was used
It kinda looks like an iron duke, but with everything reversed. Iron dukes have the intakes and distributors on the passenger side, and the exhaust manifold and spark plugs on the drivers side.
Not iron duke but chevy 151. Looks just like my inboard outboard omc, which has a chevy 151.
It's definitely an SBC pattern, and it has the lifter-cover. I'm thinking a pre-crossflow 70s head. Maybe someone had one sitting around for a rebuild?
Quote from: BenM on November 07, 2011, 04:36:55 PM
It's definitely an SBC pattern, and it has the lifter-cover. I'm thinking a pre-crossflow 70s head. Maybe someone had one sitting around for a rebuild?
Not necessarily. My inboard outboard omc boat is a 79.
I digged through a box of reciepts that came with the car. Two of them were from a parts store that listed the car used as a search tool. It said 1978 Chevy Monza. If thats the car the engine came from, it is an Iron Duke with a different head casting.
I've never even heard of a "Monza" before. There isn't any for sale on ebay for me to sneak engine pics from. It seems that some earlier Iron Dukes share a similar head as a SBC with the intake on the same side as the exhaust. I haven't been able to confirm this.
I absolutely love that I can see the fuel pump and that it has an HEI distributor in easy view. Our Eagle Iron Dukes are incredibly cramped on the passenger side.
I think right now that the engine is actually a marine engine. I think the Monza had the carb on the same side as our Eagles did. The other possibility is a SBC Head. Here is a link to a Monza forum where they discuss precedence of people using a SBC head on an Iron Duke short block.
In this thread they also mention GM marine engines being readily available with a displacement of 181. It would be awesome to know if the GM 181 marine engine will bolt right in to replace an Iron Duke. Indeed thats what I might have in this Kammback.
They also mention that it would be non-crossflow, which I take to mean the intake and exhaust on the same side, which matches what I have. The exact quote was "Just a note, that is a " non crossflow " head that will work on the 68 - 70 Nova 153 and the H Body 77- 78 151." If "H body refers to Monzas, then maybe it is indeed a 1978 Monza and only those two years have this head design. The Monza pictures I found didn't show an engine like mine.
http://forums.h-body.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=916&start=45
Mystery solved. My Kammback has a 1978 Chevy Monza engine in it.
The Iron Duke was first offered in 1978 to replace the 1977 Vega engine. The all aluminum Vega engine had a very bad reputation, so the name "iron duke" was meant to keep people from confusing the new engine with the old. In 1977 and in 1978 the Iron Duke had a non-cross flow head and Holley carb. It was 1979 that the crossflow head and Rochester carb appeared. The block and camshaft was slightly different too, since the distributor was closer to the center of the engine. The Iron Duke is essentialy half of a Pontiac 301 V8, to the point that all the bearings are the same and even that a V8 head will bolt up.
What I've learned alot about just now is the Iron Duke marine engines. The 2.5L marine engine gets a true 120 HP while the 3.0L Marine Engine gets a true 140 HP. Mercruiser 140 is another name for the 181 3.0L engine. Thats a huge difference from the automotive rating of 80 HP! The 181 engines are apparently extremely common too.
The best part is that the 151, 153, and 181 all share the same bolt patterns. In other words a 3.0L Iron Duke marine engine is a perfect swap candidate for an Eagle. Notice that the marine engines are not cross flow, they have the intake on the same side as the exhaust like this Monza engine.
The new S10 Iron Dukes sound great because they are fuel injected, but it turns out its the 181 marine engine adapted with megasquirt thats the ideal Iron Duke race engine. The S10 Iron Dukes never came close to 140 HP. Thats great news for us, since this means the ideal Iron Duke has the same bellhousing and motor mount pattern as our Eagles. Even better, its readily available for cheap. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here on the forum already.
Quote from: captspillane on November 07, 2011, 10:33:06 PM
The new S10 Iron Dukes sound great because they are fuel injected, but it turns out its the 181 marine engine adapted with megasquirt thats the ideal Iron Duke race engine. The S10 Iron Dukes never came close to 140 HP. Thats great news for us, since this means the ideal Iron Duke has the same bellhousing and motor mount pattern as our Eagles. Even better, its readily available for cheap. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here on the forum already.
The S10 engine would have the wrong bell bolt pattern as well. Eggs to you for the marine engine info!