>Are you sure the casting is different? Different from what...every other
>year? I thought that the engine blocks were the main constant from year
>to year. I know that a LONG time ago, the 318s were different. But I
>thought that the engines were pretty much identical for a while now.
The motor mount brackets bolt to the engine block in a different location
than the older "A" engines did. You said something in your earlier post
about a 318 from an old Plymouth (74, I think) The casting was different in
the sense that the bolt holes (for the motor mount brackets) that are cast
in to the block are in a different location than the 89' blocks. Chrysler
moved the mounts forward in the 80's.
> There is room to move the engine forward now with the stock clutch
>fan and I imagine I would have even more with an electric fan. Thats one
>of the reasons I think that at least one engine mount might be different
>b/c it seems the engine would have to sit more forward a few inches.
You said that you wanted to remove the 3.9 from an 89' Dakota and replace it
with a 5.2. Remember, a 3.9 block is a 5.2 minus the two "FRONT" cylinders.
Add 5 or 6 inches to the front of a 3.9 block, and it doesn't leave the room
to move the engine forward in that engine bay. Shelby installed electric
fans because the 89' body didn't have the clearance in front of the 5.2
block to fit a stock fan while using the same engine mounts as the 3.9. The
3.9 and 5.2 have the mounts in the same place. To prove this look at the
right bracket, it bolts to the block and the front of the tranny. Both the
V6 and the V8 list part # 4412102 as the right bracket. You don't need to
move the engine forward because the additional length of a V8 is on the
front of the block.
When I said it would be easier to move the mounts, I mean that it would be
easier to move the mounts back if you planed on using an "A" block. Using
an "A" block with the mounts in the current location would mean having to
set the engine forward 2 or 3 inches. The "A" block is 5 or 6 inches longer
on the front than the 3.9 your taking out of there. Now the front of that
engine is going to be 7 to 9 inches further forward than the old engine.
Your also going to have to run a larger radiator because of the larger
engine. How much room does that leave you for a fan? Not to mention that
on the back side you have to move the tranny forward 2 or 3 inches and
change drive shaft lengths.
I've seen an 89' Dakota with a 340 installed. The owner moved the mounts
and the engine back. Back far enough that he had to do some creative
hammering on the firewall to fit the fan on the front.
Walter Felix
88½ Dakota Sport 4x4 & Y2K RAM Sport Quad Cab (Due Date in Oct.)
WWW.WALT-N-INGRID.COM
-----Original Message-----
From: Corey A Meyer <cameyer@bw.edu>
To: Walter_Felix <Walter_Felix@email.msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: DML: Re: Engine swap and attn:89 Shelbys!
>> I believe the Shelby's are using the same engine mounts, however they
>> are using an 89' 5.2 engine. The casting is different. The mounts bolt
to
>> the engine block in a different location than the older "A" engines did.
>> Also, you may not be able to move that engine forward much more. The
>> Shelby's used electric fans because there was not enough clearance up
front
>> to run a stock fan. It would probably be easier to move the mounts then
the
>> engine. There was a long thread about this some time back. Try going
>> through the archives to find it.
>
>Are you sure the casting is different? Different from what...every other
>year? I thought that the engine blocks were the main constant from year
>to year. I know that a LONG time ago, the 318s were different. But I
>thought that the engines were pretty much identical for a while now.
> There is room to move the engine forward now with the stock clutch
>fan and I imagine I would have even more with an electric fan. Thats one
>of the reasons I think that at least one engine mount might be different
>b/c it seems the engine would have to sit more forward a few inches.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:16:39 EDT