Iron duke question

[carnuck]

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.

[Hawk258]

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

[BenM]

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.

[Hawk258]

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.

[carnuck]

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

[Hawk258]

Fixed Posted above

[captspillane]

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.

[carnuck]

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.

[BenM]

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.

[Hawk258]

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.

[captspillane]

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.

[nwamcsx]

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.

[rollguy]

 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.   

[carnuck]

Did the Fiero get the 2.2? I thought only the 2.5 was used

[ammachine390]

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.