Moparts
Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar?
Posted By: mantonas
Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 01:42 AM
Lately I've been messing around with 90s and early 00s Jeeps and I'm starting to get comfortable with fuel injection, engine management computers, and wiring harnesses that weigh 50 lbs and are as thick as my bicep. There are tons of late 90s Grand Cherokees in the junk yard with 5.2 engines. There might be even more in Dodge trucks and vans. They appear to still have distributors, so the computer control is limited to operating the fuel injection. You could probably get everything you need to do the swap, including the engine, for a quarter of what it would cost to buy one of those aftermarket fuel injection setups. I was wondering if anyone had transplanted one of these into a classic mopar, and if so do they want to share their experiences (in detail).
Posted By: WO23Coronet
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 01:57 AM
There have been a couple of guys on here that had done it, can't remember there names, there's even a member who makes a wiring harness, hopefully be chimes in. One thing though, even though they have a distributor, the computer still sets the timing
Posted By: Jjs72D
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 03:39 AM
The Mopar JTEC is notoriously difficult to crack. It may be better to run a well tuned ThermoQuad on a 4 barrel intake.
(JeepTruckEngineController= Computer)
Posted By: MO_PA
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 03:52 AM
Our 62 Fury now has a 94 5.2 from a Grand Cherokee, my friends shop swapped the computer/wiring etc into the 62. It's to the point that a turn of the key fires it off...it's sweet! can't wait to drive it. I used an early 70's 904 and shift it with one cable.
Posted By: NITROUSN
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:14 AM
Quote:
The Mopar JTEC is notoriously difficult to crack. It may be better to run a well tuned ThermoQuad on a 4 barrel intake.
(JeepTruckEngineController= Computer)
That's bull crap. To the poster go with it. If you can get all the pieces from a doner your worst hurdle is your fuel tank and pump. The rest is a cake walk.
Posted By: Jjs72D
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:27 AM
Well, EVERYone has an opinion...
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 05:38 AM
I put a 5.9 from a 2001 Dodge Durango in my '68 Barracuda over the winter. I used a 1998 Ram 2500 5-speed ECM from Solo PCM's, Hotwire auto wiring harness, and an SCT Tuner from Hemifever. I love the EFI.
For the fuel system, I used the stock fuel tank with 3/8th's feed and return with a Surge tank system. It runs awesome even down below an 1/8 tank at the Willow Springs Road Course, and is cheaper than the custom tank with the ineffective baffles route.
With the wiring, computer and the fuel system handled, it was a simple swap that is WELL worth it.
It turned out that the 5.9 I got was a bit worn, as it puffs a bit of blue smoke from the passenger side exhaust on deceleration. I did change the cam, springs, timing set and resealed it.
Interestingly, it still gets better mileage than my slant 6 did and is a low 13 second car that's a ball to drive.
More upgrades to the motor and transmission are planned for later this year and next = 408 stroker with aluminum heads, overdrive auto and eventually a procharger kit.
.JPG "7733832-IMG_3280(Large).JPG")
Posted By: Jjs72D
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 06:16 AM
Hey John,
It appears that you have several anti-freeze jugs full of questionable material on your property.
Posted By: Jim_Lusk
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 07:03 AM
You will want a manual trans computer if you want to use an early trans. We did a complete 1996 5.2/A518 swap into an '84 Ramcharger. I'd do it again.
Posted By: StrokerPost
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 07:43 AM
Quote:
I put a 5.9 from a 2001 Dodge Durango in my '68 Barracuda over the winter. I used a 1998 Ram 2500 5-speed ECM from Solo PCM's, Hotwire auto wiring harness, and an SCT Tuner from Hemifever. I love the EFI.
For the fuel system, I used the stock fuel tank with 3/8th's feed and return with a Surge tank system. It runs awesome even down below an 1/8 tank at the Willow Springs Road Course, and is cheaper than the custom tank with the ineffective baffles route.
With the wiring, computer and the fuel system handled, it was a simple swap that is WELL worth it.
It turned out that the 5.9 I got was a bit worn, as it puffs a bit of blue smoke from the passenger side exhaust on deceleration. I did change the cam, springs, timing set and resealed it.
Interestingly, it still gets better mileage than my slant 6 did and is a low 13 second car that's a ball to drive.
More upgrades to the motor and transmission are planned for later this year and next = 408 stroker with aluminum heads, overdrive auto and eventually a procharger kit.
How much $$$ would you estimate it took for the swap start to finish? 
Thanks.
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 09:08 AM
2000 durango motor into a 65 coronet.
but aftermarket efi setup.
ran me 3k total from start to finish.
That is everything. nickle and dimed everything used to do it.
800 for the motor with accessories.
310 for the efi setup.
the rest goes into fuel pump, regulator, new gas tank, new pan and pickup, new radiator, fuel lines, new sending unit for the tank, flex plate for neutral balanced torque converter to 5.9, new motor mounts, extra nuts and bolts, rags, new lines for power steering pump and a/c, etc..
I mean that includes fuel to pick the stuff up, lunches while I was out getting it, etc.. the wife keeps track of every penny.
with a full donor, lots of these things wouldn't cost extra. but it does add up.
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 12:32 PM
Quote:
Hey John,
It appears that you have several anti-freeze jugs full of questionable material on your property.
Not any more. They made it to the free questionable material drop off day. 
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 12:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I put a 5.9 from a 2001 Dodge Durango in my '68 Barracuda over the winter. I used a 1998 Ram 2500 5-speed ECM from Solo PCM's, Hotwire auto wiring harness, and an SCT Tuner from Hemifever. I love the EFI.
For the fuel system, I used the stock fuel tank with 3/8th's feed and return with a Surge tank system. It runs awesome even down below an 1/8 tank at the Willow Springs Road Course, and is cheaper than the custom tank with the ineffective baffles route.
With the wiring, computer and the fuel system handled, it was a simple swap that is WELL worth it.
It turned out that the 5.9 I got was a bit worn, as it puffs a bit of blue smoke from the passenger side exhaust on deceleration. I did change the cam, springs, timing set and resealed it.
Interestingly, it still gets better mileage than my slant 6 did and is a low 13 second car that's a ball to drive.
More upgrades to the motor and transmission are planned for later this year and next = 408 stroker with aluminum heads, overdrive auto and eventually a procharger kit.
How much $$$ would you estimate it took for the swap start to finish?
Thanks.
It wasn't cheap, but some of the costs were offset by the sale of my slant 6 and the fact that I got a long block for $400. I picked up a real nice rebuilt 727 & converter from the parts board here for $300, full new exhaust from Summit for under $400 delivered, Hotwire auto wiring harness & a rebuilt computer plus SCT Tuner with lifetime tunes, upgraded fuel system and on and on. I didn't want to add it up. I just buy parts as I need them, and have the extra money available. I also didn't go cheap on components and systems that I knew would have to support a supercharged stroker motor someday ie programmable ECM, fuel and cooling systems.
Posted By: MO_PA
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 02:00 PM
Quote:
your worst hurdle is your fuel tank and pump.
why would this be difficult?
I mounted a pump on the frame near the spring hanger. No big deal!
Posted By: mantonas
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 02:39 PM
I'm glad this kind of stuff has been done before, successfully. I want to stay as stock as possible, mainly for the challenge of doing it as cheaply as possible with junkyard parts. (Mr. Ehrenberg, are you listening? THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD SERIES OF ARTICLES!) What I'm envisioning is the engine with all the fuel injection parts, overdrive transmission, engine computer (separate transmission computer? I don't know), and harness from a single junked vehicle. As far as the fuel tank, pump, and return system, there I am open to customization. According to the Allpar web site, the Grand Cherokee went to returnless fuel injection in 1995, which might make it easier to adapt the fuel system of whatever car the drivetrain is going into. I don't know if that continued forever, or if it applied to Dodge trucks as well. Here's a link to the page on Allpar:
http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/1993-grand-cherokee.htmlAlso according to Allpar, the Grand Cherokee went over to JTEC in 1996, so if there's a problem with JTEC, it might be avoidable by sticking to a pre-1996 drivetrain.
I recently bought a 2003 Grand Cherokee with a blown engine and transplanted the entire drivetrain (4.7 V8 engine, transmission, and transfer case) from a wrecked 2001 Grand Cherokee into it. Both of them had the JTEC PCM, and I had no issues with the PCM not recognizing the different powertrain or anything, so JTEC has been kind to me, for what it's worth. (Ironically, my concern with that project was making sure I did get a car with JTEC and not the NGC, Next Generation Computer, PCM, which apparently some 03 Grand Cherokees did have. My 01 engine would not have worked with NGC because of having a different number of teeth on the cranskhaft and camshaft tone rings. Plus NGC had a combined PCM and transmission control module, so I might have had issues with the transmission as well.)
Just to be clear, while I love carburetors and non-computer controlled drivetrains, the point of my future project is to get into some of these technical issues, figure them out, and beat them. This is the future.
Also, at the risk of someone stealing my thunder, I think it would be really neat to do this with an early 80s Imperial, the ones where Chrysler tried (and failed) for the second time to do electronic fuel injection and ended up replacing it with a carbureted system for free. It would be a kind of vindication.
Posted By: 3hundred
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 03:24 PM
Quote:
I'm glad this kind of stuff has been done before, successfully. I want to stay as stock as possible, mainly for the challenge of doing it as cheaply as possible with junkyard parts. (Mr. Ehrenberg, are you listening? THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD SERIES OF ARTICLES!)
I'm pretty sure they already did. Into a '62 mebbe?
Robert
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:01 PM
they did drop a mag motor into one, but not a full blown donor with the harness and everything.
I find it unlikely you will ever see that write up.
can't sell parts or kits that way.
Posted By: 66cnet500
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:12 PM
Last year i swapped a 97 obd2 5.9 w/fac efi and over drive trans in my 48 plym. Fuel delivery was a hurdle but not a big deal, inline efi pump w/a ls1 filter reg. Motor/trans was already retrofitted in a street rod before i got it so i didnt hafta sort a full wiring harness. It runs circles around the 355 that it replaced!
Just finished up a 01 5.9 carbed w/ airgap and edelbrock 600 in my 88 w250 pick up. Runs good but not as good as the 48? Both were supposed to be low mile motors.
Efi in my opinion would be way to go
Posted By: 3hundred
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:15 PM
Seemed like I remembered they had an engineer in from Detroit fine tuning the thing? Sorry I don't remember more of it.
Robert
Posted By: 66cnet500
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 04:15 PM
Pic2
Posted By: mantonas
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 05:55 PM
Mopar Action did a series less than a year ago where they retrofitted a rear-wheel ABS system using about $60 worth of junkyard parts onto a classic mopar. I think this would be right up their alley (hint, hint).
Posted By: mantonas
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 06:00 PM
From my recent experience in the Jeep world, I've learned that a lot of people are doing this kind of thing with Wranglers, which never came from the factory with a V8 engine. Unfortunately, the standard retrofit involves a late model Chevy V8. Wouldn't it be great to nail down all the details of a low-buck junkyard 5.2 or 5.9 EFI drivetrain swap instead so there are more mopar-powered vehicles on the road?
Posted By: roadrunninMark
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 07:38 PM
If you swap in say, a 01 magnum with the 518, are there any speed sensors are anything like that which would need to make work, or is that still in the trans? I would like to do this and keep the trans that came with the donor. Now to work the older speedo, what are people using there?
I am thinking of going this route for now instead of a gen 3 hemi as the price is a lot lower.
Posted By: 70Cuda383
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/07/13 08:06 PM
Quote:
Well, EVERYone has an opinion...
OBD-II JTEC has been cracked. it's called SCT.
I'm running a very choppy cam that idles with about 9.5" of vacuum in my 360. it also has a single plane intake, a larger throttle body, and headers. Dropped it into a 98 Dakota that was originally a 5.2 5-spd truck. Currently it's making 285 RWHP and 325 RWTQ...or, over 100 Hp more than a bone stock 360 (which only make 250 crank hp and 345 crank torque)
Computer is "flashed" with SCT to advance the timing curve, and to deliver more fuel as needed, took me about as long as it takes to tune the jets on a holley carb (go bigger, run it, go bigger, run it, go bigger, run it, find out you went too big and go back, etc.)
not sure what's so hard to "crack" with the JTEC computer? 
Posted By: BulletBob
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 02:11 AM
There's a guy that we painted his 98 Wrangler that had 98 5.9 & 5speed straight from a donor.
Posted By: NITROUSN
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 03:46 AM
Quote:
Quote:
your worst hurdle is your fuel tank and pump.
why would this be difficult?
I mounted a pump on the frame near the spring hanger. No big deal!
Where did I say difficult?? It only involves thought and innovation to have an in tank set up with the proper supply and return if needed. Anyone can hack an external pump on.
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 01:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
your worst hurdle is your fuel tank and pump.
why would this be difficult?
I mounted a pump on the frame near the spring hanger. No big deal!
Where did I say difficult?? It only involves thought and innovation to have an in tank set up with the proper supply and return if needed. Anyone can hack an external pump on.
A lot of people thought the way to get a good solid fuel flow even when the fuel level is down was to hack a hole in their fuel tank and slip a pump in there with a few remedial baffles.
They are finding, they are still getting fuel cavitation issues below a half a tank when driving the car hard in the corners etc. In tank fuel pumps work ok in custom tanks, but they are not the best or most cost efficient solution in all cases.
Surge tank systems combined with a well designed baffled tank are the ultimate fuel systems for high G performance even with low fuel levels.
I'm using a stock tank with an externally mounted low pressure pump to push the fuel up to a surge tank at the front of the car via a full return flow system. The high pressure pump is inside the surge tank and is a full return flow system to capped with a pressure regulator.
Even without any baffles in my stock tank, I can run the car hard on a road course with the fuel level below an 1/8 of a tank and still have a good solid fuel supply with no cavitation.
With a few exceptions for some well though out, high dollar custom tank set-ups that I've seen in some Tuner's cars and in real race cars, most "custom" tanks have a few folded sheets of metal ineffectively mounted in them that are then referred to as baffles, but they just don't work that well. They still have cavitation issues below a half a tank of fuel and are generally more expensive to put together.
Posted By: roadrunninMark
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 01:48 PM
If you use a 5.9 magnum, do you need to swap out the oil pan for the LA360 pan(for 70-74 e body)? I though I read that somewhere....
Posted By: gdonovan
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 02:19 PM
Quote:
If you use a 5.9 magnum, do you need to swap out the oil pan for the LA360 pan(for 70-74 e body)? I though I read that somewhere....
Yes, been there and done it on my Duster.
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 02:58 PM
jbc426- I wonder how your fuel temp is? do you do a lot of sitting with the engine idling? parades?
most engineers would not recommend your return go to the smaller tank due to heat issues building up in the fuel.
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 04:50 PM
Quote:
jbc426- I wonder how your fuel temp is? do you do a lot of sitting with the engine idling? parades?
most engineers would not recommend your return go to the smaller tank due to heat issues building up in the fuel.
I understand what your saying Andrewh, but this dual circulation system eliminates the heat buildup from a high pressure pump submerged in a small volume of fuel, because both sides of the fuel system go to the small tank, so the small tank's fuel is constantly being flushed by the high-volume, low-pressure side of the fuel system.
The volume of fuel that flows through the surge tank from just the low pressure side is huge. Even at near 0 psi, it's nearly the entire full-flow rating of the low side fuel pump. The fuel flows from the tank, through a filter, through the low pressure pump, through the 3/8ths line to the front of the car, through another fuel filter, through the surge tank and then back through a 3/8ths line to the tank at the rear of the car.
This set-up also allows for full circulation of the cooled fuel through the fuel rails, so the injectors are shooting in cooler fuel too. Once the returning fuel is dumped back into the surge tank by the return regulator, the warmed fuel is circulated back to the rear of the car by the high volume, low pressure circulation of cool fuel.
Even on the hottest days, the surge tank is cool to the touch.
.JPG "7735225-IMG_3277(Large).JPG")
Posted By: NITROUSN
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 05:35 PM
So who makes this surge tank? What pumps are you running?
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:02 PM
Quote:
So who makes this surge tank? What pumps are you running?
The best overall design I've found is from Radium Engineering. The pumps can be scaled up or down depending on your fuel need. I'm running a small DW200, which is for less than 400 hp. There is room in the surge tank for 2 large pumps that can support over 1300 hp.
For the low pressure side, I'm just running an inexpensive, small, quiet pump.
Down the road when I increase my horsepower, I'll have to upsize the low pressure pump and add another DW200.
.JPG "7735297-IMG_3202(Large).JPG")
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:06 PM
do you recall which pump you used for the low pressure?
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:08 PM
Quote:
do you recall which pump you used for the low pressure?
Just a low cost carter pump I believe. I just made sure none of the fittings were smaller than 3/8ths.
You can see the modified fuel sending unit that fit into a stock replacement tank and the 2 water separator/ fuel filters I'm running. They filter down to 2 microns and get out the water. They would have to be run in parallel if you want to feed over 400 hp. I have mine in series right now, and would have to add two more to run them in parallel or switch to another style of filter to get enough flow once I go over 400 hp.
.JPG "7735307-IMG_3226(Large).JPG")
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:15 PM
Mounted near the fuel tank...
.JPG "7735309-IMG_3256(Large).JPG")
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:16 PM
...and rear pre-filter.
.JPG "7735312-IMG_3257(Large).JPG")
Posted By: NITROUSN
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:22 PM
Great information. Makes a lot of sense to run a system this way. Good low pressure with decent volume to the tank and regulated high pressure from the tank to the injection rails. Very similar to what diesels have used.
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 06:28 PM
can I just say ouch?
that surge tank is pretty pricey.
what makes that one better?
Posted By: roadrunninMark
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 07:08 PM
Andrewh, thanks. Do you need to change the oil pick up or anything like that as well?
Surge tank idea sounds good, maybe someone can come up with a less expensive set up....
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/08/13 07:12 PM
yeah, both the pan and pickup get changed.
mopar sold the set new for around 100 bucks when I did mine. saw a few on sale around 80 bucks right after I did it.
not sure if they still make it, but used 360 la pans should be pretty cheap.
forgot a few other things.
the ps pump sticks out pretty far on a truck. They tuck it in on a van, so I used the truck engine but van ps bracket.
got lucky and there was a pick and pull doing the 25 all you can carry thing.
I found later that it also changes the a/c pulley on the van.
but replacing the idler pulley with one from a later hemi lets you use the stock belt.
otherwise the pump goes under the battery tray.
I used the stock exhaust manifolds from the durango. It clear ps and everything.
like 94 or something like that mag exhaust is the largest stock, but I wasn't shooting for an all out performance thing.
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 04:28 AM
Quote:
can I just say ouch?
that surge tank is pretty pricey.
what makes that one better?
It works very well, is compact and easy to install and hook up.
When compared to the alternate method of buying a custom baffled tank and fuel pump. The cost is very reasonable, and the surge tank system offers a much greater resistance to cavitation than any of the tanks I've see offered on-line. The only tanks I've seen that even come close to having a functional anti-slosh baffle system are high dollar fuel cells for road race cars, and those are way more money.
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 06:20 AM
Oh, I thought you had compared other fuel surge tank setups.
you are right, compared to setting up a gas tank it is simpler. but seemed very pricey compared to some of the sealed versions.
I may look at figuring out how to make one cheaper. lot of leeway on 400 bucks material wise.
Posted By: jbc426
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 12:33 PM
Quote:
Oh, I thought you had compared other fuel surge tank setups.
you are right, compared to setting up a gas tank it is simpler. but seemed very pricey compared to some of the sealed versions.
I may look at figuring out how to make one cheaper. lot of leeway on 400 bucks material wise.
Oh, got it. On that note, I didn't see a lot of alternative surge tanks out there. There was a nice one from Japan, but the shipping time was huge, so was the price. Less expensive, home made versions are available, especially if you go with an externally mounted high pressure pump. If you can weld aluminum, you can make a nice tank. Finding a fuel tight electrical connection for an internal pump is a bit of an issue. With the Radium kits, it's a nice package.
Posted By: mantonas
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 10:06 PM
This is all great stuff, but what I was looking for was trying to grab a bunch of stuff from the junkyard and making it work on the cheap, as a challenge. If possible, that means stock engine, stock computer (not reflashed, if that's possible), stock wiring harness with maybe a few changes, and as minimal fuel pump and tank stuff as possible. That's why I was interested in the 95 Grand Cherokee, because according to the article I linked to, it had returnless fuel injection, which, with my minimal understanding of fuel injection setups, means you don't have to plumb a return line to the fuel tank. I'm happy if the thread just keeps on going the way it has been, because I'm learning a lot, but that was not the reason I started it.
Posted By: Andrewh
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 10:28 PM
most of the later versions were returnless.
the problem there is, fabrication vs cost to get it fabricated, or do something else.
IF you can do the cutting and welding to graft the donor tank mounts for the factory pump into your tank, with baffles etc.., you surley can use donor parts and make it work.
but the cost to have that done or skill needed to do that is not worth the difference to do an out of the tank pump with surge tank.
Stealing the whole harness and computer helps. Grafting the gauges into your car?
not really an easy thing to do again.
So cost becomes a factor. There are 2 place that make a way to change the digital signal from the transmission into a regular speedo signal.
but both those boxes run around 400 bucks.
not a low buck option compared to getting the truck speedo to fit in your dash. but if you don't have the fabrication skills, well then what do you do?
several have done it, so not saying it can't be done. just what can you do vs what they did.
I remember reading recently someone taking everything out of the truck and doing just what you wanted. don't remember where though.
Posted By: PossessedDuster
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/09/13 10:40 PM
Still one of the most impressive swaps done for a magnum motor I have seen.
http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=188547
Posted By: roadrunninMark
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/10/13 12:19 AM
If you can use the fuel tank/pump from your donor vehicle, then that would save you a good chunk of cash.
Posted By: mantonas
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/10/13 01:56 PM
Educate my on what returnless means. My understanding is that a return line to the fuel tank is required if the pump always runs at the same pressure, so for low demand conditions, such as idle, a lot of the fuel is shunted back to the tank. If it's returnless, then there must be some way of varying the pressure coming out of the pump; maybe the pump has a variable frequency drive motor on it. If it's returnless, why do you need to use the donor vehicle fuel tank and pump? Aren't aftermarket variable pressure pumps available? I know it seems like I am reversing my position about using stock junkyard items with this comment, but it might save money (and it definitely sounds a hell of a lot easier!) to buy an aftermarket pump rather than the fabrication work of trying to fit some other vehicle's fuel tank in your car.
Posted By: dogdays
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/10/13 06:35 PM
Returnless is done with either of two ways:
1. Use a turbine (centrifugal) style pump, not a constant volume pump like all early FI systems used.
2. Feed the pump with a variable voltage signal from the computer. True variable frequency drives don't work for DC motors, but it is relatively easy to use Pulse-Width Modulation to get the pump to turn slower. This effectively varies the average voltage the motor sees. It's the digital version of the voltage reducer in the instrument panel.
R.
Posted By: Rick_Ehrenberg
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/25/13 04:34 AM
Quote:
I'm glad this kind of stuff has been done before, successfully. I want to stay as stock as possible, mainly for the challenge of doing it as cheaply as possible with junkyard parts. (Mr. Ehrenberg, are you listening? THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD SERIES OF ARTICLES!) What I'm envisioning is the engine with all the fuel injection parts, overdrive transmission, engine computer (separate transmission computer? I don't know), and harness from a single junked vehicle. As far as the fuel tank, pump, and return system, there I am open to customization. <snip>
Well, I did do the '62 Savoy / 360 (425 HP was a cinch), and gave lots of hints and tips for pure-junkyard swaps, and did more of the same with the 360 '96 Dakota.
Just a few key points...
> The '96-up PCM (JTEC) is way better (and smaller, etc.) than the old SBEC, plus is it "flashable". But, to use an AT PCM, you must have a 46RE trans or you'll be in limp mode. The solution, as mentioned above: Use a junkyard MT PCM. SCT tuning may fix this w/o a PCM swap.
> Cutting up a boneyard harness isn't hard, but you'll need the appropriate FSM.
> Remember that 360 Magnums, while still externally balanced, are "less" imbalanced then the LA360. Plan damper and flywheel or drive plate accordingly.
> Remember that the '92-93 exh. manifolds are by far the best, and all 2000-up 5.9Ls had the "best" cam (same as GC 5.9L ltd / Dak R/T)
I've been doing EFI swaps for almost over 15 years. Way to go. Frankly, the Magnum is getting kind of "old", most guys, today, would rather use a 3G Hemi, and that logic is hard to argue with, esp. now that Megasquirt can do it all, even VCT, COP, etc.
Overall, this is an absolutely awesome swap! Especially great if you're replacing a dog TBI in a truck or van....a real eye-opener.
Rick
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/25/13 06:36 AM
If you're keeping the engine stock, do yourself a favor and get a 92-95 (obd1) wiring harness and computer. While they can't be recalibrated like the 96+ (obd2)stuff can, the earlier stuff is about 100x less complicated and easier to reverse engineer and transplant. I put a 99 dakota 5.2 into my 88 Jeep and grabbed a 95 computer and wiring harness to do it. Had to change a couple sensors but no biggie. Electronics were all junkyard and cost was dirt cheap.
Posted By: patrick
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/25/13 01:42 PM
if anyone wants a 1996 318 magnum/ manual tranny MP computer, PM me....I have one in my basement from my truck that I sold 7 years ago
Posted By: falconvan
Re: Put late 90s fuel-injected 5.2 or 5.9 in classic mopar? - 06/27/13 06:17 PM
Quote:
Still one of the most impressive swaps done for a magnum motor I have seen.
http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=188547
This is a totally cool swap and just what i've been looking for. I've got a 49 Plymouth business coupe that's begging for V8 power.
