Jeep Strokers

I've been doing some research on purchasing a stroker kit for my '06 4.0 and have found a couple of options:

Clegg Poor Mans Kit:
https://www.cleggengine.com/jeep-4-0-st ... -1c-r.html

Scat Stoker Kit:
https://www.cleggengine.com/scat-rotati ... 005bi.html
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/sca-196005bi

Searching on this website it seems like someone makes custom pistons that provide a Zero Deck?

Is there a benefit to going overbore rather than staying with the standard bore?

is there a benefit of new crankshaft over used ones?

any benefits to upgrading the cam vs the stock cam?

id like to be able to run 87 octane as the project car would become my DD.

some guidance would be appreciated!

I'll answer each of your questions in turn:

1. Even the newest 4.0L block that you could use for a stroker build will be nearly 15 years old, so there'll be slight core shift with cylinders that are very slightly out of round and tapered. It's better to overbore the cylinders and have them honed to ensure good ring seal and minimize oil consumption.

2. Since your aim is to maximize performance while retaining the ability to run 87 octane fuel, I suggest you go for Russ' custom pistons and 4.0L rods. Unlike off the shelf pistons such as the IC944, the compression height and dish volume of Russ' pistons will be optimized to suit your needs. This also saves you the cost of having the block deck milled.

3. A new crankshaft is ready to run right out of the box with standard journal sizes. A used crankshaft is likely to need resizing and polishing of the journals plus chamfering of the oil holes to make it serviceable. By the time you've done that, the total cost will be almost the same as the purchase cost of a new one, and the journals will be undersize requiring matching bearings.

4. The stock cam left enough HP/TQ under the table that even a mild dual pattern performance cam would be an improvement. Russ supplies a modified CompCams 68-242-4 cam with a slightly reduced valve lift that enables you to run the stock valve springs. If you want a broader torque curve that carries past 5000rpm, he also has a modified 68-231-4 cam with a 113* LSA.

Thank you for the info! do we have any contact info for Russ? id like to get started on this project asap

You can send a private message to him right here. His full name is Russ Pottenger.

Cheromaniac wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 11:31 pm You can send a private message to him right here. His full name is Russ Pottenger.

I have another questions for ya, i was looking through your 4.2L mini-stroker recipes and was wondering if the 323 crankshaft would match up to the 42rle

i really appreciate your info

rlinares40 wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 5:21 am

Cheromaniac wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 11:31 pm You can send a private message to him right here. His full name is Russ Pottenger.

I have another questions for ya, i was looking through your 4.2L mini-stroker recipes and was wondering if the 323 crankshaft would match up to the 42rle

i really appreciate your info

Also is there any benefit over the 4.6L stroker? It would seem they have similar HP numbers for a fraction of the cost?

The 4.2L mini stroker became popular for a while but now that 232 crankshafts have become hard to find, it's better to build a 4.6 and enjoy the extra torque.

Cheromaniac wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 10:47 pm The 4.2L mini stroker became popular for a while but now that 232 crankshafts have become hard to find, it's better to build a 4.6 and enjoy the extra torque.

I was asking because I has actually come across a couple! Just trying to stay as informed as possible

OK. You'd need a '72-'79 232 crankshaft with casting no. 3214722.

https://www.cleggengine.com/72-79-amc-j ... 25220.html

Cheromaniac wrote: ↑December 10th, 2020, 11:53 pm OK. You'd need a '72-'79 232 crankshaft with casting no. 3214722.

https://www.cleggengine.com/72-79-amc-j ... 25220.html

So it would work with the 42rle transmission?

And the only difference between the 4.2 and the 4.6 would be extra torque?

Again thank you for the knowledge!

Yes to both.