In article <c1b400c404082619151fe65908@mail.gmail.com>, waffle787@gmail.com
("WiLieR[SS]") writes:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:39:04 +0000 (UTC), kvmac45@comcast.net
> <kvmac45@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Will the HO (136 amp) alternator from the 98 Jeep Grand Cherokee,
> > Dakota/Durango work on a 1992 GenII 318? From looking at the brackets, they
> > seem to be identical mounts, and the electrical hookups are still the same
as
> > what I currently have. I assume the only difference is the pulley. If it
does
> > drop straight in do I need to beef up any of my wiring to handle the
increased
> > amps? I currently have the 120, but it is getting a little tired.
> >
> It should drop in. I just put a 2000 Dakota alt on my Gen-II last
> night. It is listed for a 3.9 v-6 and as a 136amp unit. The pulley
> is a bit smaller than the original pulley on my 120, but this is a
> good thing as it helps it charge better overall since the alt shaft
> will spin faster. I replaced the wire from the alt to the power
> center way back. I think I did it when I switched from the 90 amp to
> the 120 I had installed. Either way, I swapped mine out for a 4 gauge
> wire and never looked back. So far my voltage has been great with the
> new 136. I give it a "part swap difficulty rating" of 1 with 0 being
> a light bulb change. So double check those part numbers and if they
> are the same (between the jeep alt and the 2000 dakota alt) then you
> have a no problem way to get a few more amps to your battery each day.
>
> WiLieR[SS]
> www.shamikaserver.com
Cool. The part numbers are a little different on the 98 vs. the 2000, but after
98 they changed the wiring harness on the back and went to a plug/socket style
instead of the locknuts. I am pretty certain that will account for the
different part numbers. I doubt they changed the brackets midway in the
production cycle and then went back, so I should be OK.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 00:53:42 EDT