134-161 clutch question

diggerG said:
Doug
This is why I didn’t discuss the ring gear issue. There is also a tapered pin and straight pin bolt up issue, AND the 8 1/2” or 9 1/4” clutch issue. Much of the time a ring gear swap will change over the flywheels but don’t count on it. Usually I don’t tell people about that, I just grab the correct flywheel for the desired app.
diggerG
Click to expand...
Hi Greg, I never really understood why and when they used the shoulder bolts vs the tapered pins. I ordered a NOS M38A1 flywheel (including ring gear, 1958 package date) for my 1962 M38A1 based jeep from Brent Mullins and it was wrong. A trip to the Machine shop solved it. The machine shop cost more than the new flywheel.
 
ndnile said:
I never really understood why and when they used the shoulder bolts vs the tapered pins.
Click to expand...

I never understood the "why" part either, but they imply in the manual that a new installation would require a tapered reamer and switching over to the 9/16" dowel bolts just needed a straight reamer. At least that's my understanding of the text in the manual. I don't why the flywheel wouldn't come from the factory with the tapered holes like the earlier ones did.

1713978925491.png

1713978691189.png
 
ndnile said:
Hi Greg, I never really understood why and when they used the shoulder bolts vs the tapered pins. I ordered a NOS M38A1 flywheel (including ring gear, 1958 package date) for my 1962 M38A1 based jeep from Brent Mullins and it was wrong. A trip to the Machine shop solved it. The machine shop cost more than the new flywheel.
Click to expand...
I never understood it either. My GUESS is different machine shops who built engine parts for Willys drilled crankshafts differently. (tapered holes versus straight), but that is pretty wierd. Sound like a Jeep?????
diggerG
 
timd32 said:
I would not have thought to measure the base part (larger) vs the actual ring gear.

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
Boy, I am stupid and incorrect. I chided someone when they said the 161 is just a longer version of the 134. I thought incorrectly that can't be true because with 2 more pistons added to a !34 you could not get to 161 cu. inch. But I am very wrong, and I apologize to Digger and all others. Firstly, I discovered the 161's have around a 1 inch shorter compression stroke compared. Second. I knew this, the 134's have a wide water jacket area in middle of the engine that probably adds an inch and a half to its length. The 161's do not have that. So when you do those two things different you can get to 161 cu. inches.

I never thought the 161's compression stroke would be so different but it is. So that is how the 161 and 134 pistons etc. are the same. The 161 is just a longer version of a 134 with a much shorter stroke!! My bad!!!

peewee
 
peeweecash said:
Boy, I am stupid and incorrect. I chided someone when they said the 161 is just a longer version of the 134. I thought incorrectly that can't be true because with 2 more pistons added to a !34 you could not get to 161 cu. inch. But I am very wrong, and I apologize to Digger and all others. Firstly, I discovered the 161's have around a 1 inch shorter compression stroke compared. Second. I knew this, the 134's have a wide water jacket area in middle of the engine that probably adds an inch and a half to its length. The 161's do not have that. So when you do those two things different you can get to 161 cu. inches.

I never thought the 161's compression stroke would be so different but it is. So that is how the 161 and 134 pistons etc. are the same. The 161 is just a longer version of a 134 with a much shorter stroke!! My bad!!!

peewee
Click to expand...
I think the 161 also had flow-through breathing with the intake and exhaust opposite each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top