Jeep Strokers

My 2000 XJ 4.0 has over 250,000 on it and in the mornings the pistons love to help wake me up. Still runs great, has good oil pressure, doesn't use oil but I decided I would rather drive it while I built a new bullet instead of pulling the running engine and leaving my XJ sit. This list will look like many others on here but it is what it is.

Crank = 4 weight long snout 258, needs polished and checked out
Block = picked up a used 1999 4.0 a couple days ago, will tear it down and send it off to shop so I can decide on pistons and bearings. ARP main bolts. Zero Deck
Rods = reconditioned 4.0 rods, ARP hardware
Pistons = KB 944 , moly ring package
Cam = undecided but leaning toward a Comp Cams 231 or 232, any input on this would be helpful
Lifters = Crower cam savers = opinions?
Pushrods = undecided
Head= well I was going for the new edelbrock head but I guess that's not going to happen this year so this is my biggest question mark. I have heard "Clearwater" or rebuilding the 99' head. Please opinions would be nice!
Head gasket = .043 Mopar
Intake= stock cleaned up 2000
Injectors = 25# from 2004 LS motor.
Throttle body = opened to 62mm
Header = undecided, they sure want a bunch of money to fit a 2000 model XJ...opinions please.
Diffs = 4.10 gears
Tires = 31x10.5
Trans= stock AW4 with cooler
Custom Tune= sounds inevitable
The block will get inspected, cylinders bored, line bore mains if necessary, balance assembly and clevite bearings installed.
This XJ is used mostly to run to our cabin (180 miles). Towing a utility trailer 50% of the time. Has AC, cruise and will keep all that intact. I appreciate any opinions from those that have been there and done that! Thanks

Your parts list is well thought out.
The CompCams 231 has a slightly wider powerband than the 232 so that would be my choice between the two.
Crower cam saver lifters are a good choice.
Since the engine will be going into your '00 XJ, I suggest you reuse your existing intake/exhaust manifolds and bolt them onto a Clearwater head. This will make the build easier and cleaner.

Sounds like good advice. Has anyone done a dyno test to see how much of a gain you get from a tubular header?

The '99 block has a cam retainer plate and if you really want to use a 231/232 cam you will have to go backwards and use the pin and spring or pin alone to control cam walk. Better would be to get a '99+ cam that uses the cam retainer plate custom ground from Jones Cams. About $250.
Edelbrock head would be great if you can wait. Clearwater makes a big valve aftermarket head reasonably priced.
Just want valve springs to be about 100 pounds at seat and max 230 pounds at lift (about what the unobtanium MP springs were).
Harland Sharp roller rockers are nice pieces.
You can use the KB 944 pistons and deck the block to get 0.000" deck height or I would look at Bulltear pistons that have a lower pin height and will give 0.000" deck height with no decking of the block (just surface to clean up and level).
ARP head bolts, no need for studs if not planning S/C.
Open up the intake TB hole for a 68mm TB from F+B. Nice piece.

jeepxj3 wrote:The '99 block has a cam retainer plate and if you really want to use a 231/232 cam you will have to go backwards and use the pin and spring or pin alone to control cam walk. Better would be to get a '99+ cam that uses the cam retainer plate custom ground from Jones Cams. About $250.
Edelbrock head would be great if you can wait. Clearwater makes a big valve aftermarket head reasonably priced.
Just want valve springs to be about 100 pounds at seat and max 230 pounds at lift (about what the unobtanium MP springs were).
Harland Sharp roller rockers are nice pieces.
You can use the KB 944 pistons and deck the block to get 0.000" deck height or I would look at Bulltear pistons that have a lower pin height and will give 0.000" deck height with no decking of the block (just surface to clean up and level).
ARP head bolts, no need for studs if not planning S/C.
Open up the intake TB hole for a 68mm TB from F+B. Nice piece.

So nobody makes an off the shelf cam for 99 and up blocks that use a cam plate?

nicpaige wrote:Rods = reconditioned 4.0 rods, ARP hardware

Polish the rods while you have them out. Its prettye asy and doesn't take too long.

Cam = undecided but leaning toward a Comp Cams 231 or 232,

231 if you want to go with comp cams. Personally I would go with a cam that accepts the retention plate.

Lifters = Crower cam savers = opinions?

While the lifters are based on high quality Hylift/Johnson lifters I'm not particularly thrilled about the extra oiling method. That flat spot in the lifter body isn't over the area that it needs to be but a small window of time as teh lifter is constantly spinning. Groving the lifter bores may be a better idea.

Pushrods = undecided

smith brothers, but you will need to measure.

Head= well I was going for the new edelbrock head but I guess that's not going to happen this year so this is my biggest question mark. I have heard "Clearwater" or rebuilding the 99' head. Please opinions would be nice!

No, but it will happen next year and its not like that is far away. I would wait if you want the edelbrock head.

Injectors = 25# from 2004 LS motor.

make sure these really flow 25# on the 49psi rail.

Header = undecided, they sure want a bunch of money to fit a 2000 model XJ...opinions please.

There are several options that aren't that expensive. Borla, AFE, JBA, OBX, Banks, & Thorley all make headers for the 00-01 XJ.

Have a read through my threads since he have similar builds as well as same year.

Oh man I read through your build thread, just about scared me out of this whole thing. I have been on the fence all year between an LS swap and stroker build. I have had good luck with strokers in the past but this is my first go with an AMC product. Im open to more cam recommendations because I had no idea the comp cams offerings could not be used on this block. Good call on the injectors , turns out they are flex fuel and flow 36lbs @ 43psi. Looks like I'll be searching for a different set.

Don't let my build dissuade you. Not every stroker has this issue, but there have been a few others. Just use my build as a guide.

All good points made.

My only input is I'd run the the Comp 68-232-4 over the 68-231-4.
The specs are so close between the two, but I'd run the 232 because it's ground on a 113 degree separation angle
rather than 111 that's on the 231 cam. The 113 degree is happier with computer controlled fuel injected engines.

While on the subject of cams. Comp offers a in house Nitriding heat treat process to all of their cams.
That will eliminate 90% chance of camshaft lobe failure. Although it will add 1 week and about $150.00 to the cost
of the camshaft, but I think it's worth it. Feel free to PM me if would like further information.
I'll usually have a couple in stock.


Russ

I've never heard of the 231 giving any problems with the Jeep EFI.

Russ Pottenger wrote:All good points made.

My only input is I'd run the the Comp 68-232-4 over the 68-231-4.
The specs are so close between the two, but I'd run the 232 because it's ground on a 113 degree separation angle
rather than 111 that's on the 231 cam. The 113 degree is happier with computer controlled fuel injected engines.

While on the subject of cams. Comp offers a in house Nitriding heat treat process to all of their cams.
That will eliminate 90% chance of camshaft lobe failure. Although it will add 1 week and about $150.00 to the cost
of the camshaft, but I think it's worth it. Feel free to PM me if would like further information.
I'll usually have a couple in stock.


Russ

Woah wait a minute I thought the Comp Cams 231 and 232 could not be used with a 99-2001 block due to the cam retention plate?

They can be if you use the earlier cam bolt, washer, spring, pin and timing set. Although if you do I would advise using a solid pin and setting your end play manually. However, I strongly suggest you keep the retaining plate and go with a custom cam for that setup.

111 LSA is fine on EFI.

Russ Pottenger wrote:My only input is I'd run the the Comp 68-232-4 over the 68-231-4.
The specs are so close between the two, but I'd run the 232 because it's ground on a 113 degree separation angle
rather than 111 that's on the 231 cam. The 113 degree is happier with computer controlled fuel injected engines.Russ

And the 232 has 27* overlap vs. the 231 32* overlap.

Maybe I was misunderstood. I never implied 68-231-4 would not work. Obviously many have used this cam.
Comp makes this and other cams for me on a 113 degree separation angle, and that's the cam I use most often.
But if I had to choose between the two 'shelf' cams, I'd pick the 232 for the reasons given.