Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Hot mess, a 1967 CJ-5 restoration

  1. #11
    Super Moderator bmorgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    2,040
    Good catch TJ. We are going to say it is a model 20 if there is only one stick. The year for the switch was 1961 62 ish on the bigger J series vehicles. The CJ5's were switched in 1972. So the 20 transfer case was around for someone to swap it in. And of course you never know what Willys might have done since the 20 was in the plant and so were the 18's for a long time.

    The single stick 18 was in the optional Buick powered CJ's starting in 1966 (not used with the T90 trans). So it could also be one of those, a rare model 18 to say the least.

    It is also possible to combine parts between the 18 and the 20 and build a Hi-Performance model 18 so to speak. They both can be built into a single or dual stick configuration. The biggest difference in the 20 is the case. It is stronger. The 20 worked well in the 1 ton trucks.

    David, the shims are there to set the proper preload for the output bearing. Spray each shim with "Permatex Hi-Tack". A very thin cote.
    Last edited by bmorgil; 06-11-2021 at 07:25 AM.

  2. #12
    Super Moderator LarrBeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Ft. Wayne, IN
    Posts
    1,978
    David:

    You are ready for the Rules of Jeep with your project:

    A. What you see is what you have.

    B. Trust nothing someone tells you or what you might read until you verify it yourself.

    C. As you go through things and find strange stuff; never say "Willys would never have _________________ ." As Bob said about the Model 18 and Model 20 transfer cases - they probably did - just to get vehicles out the door.

  3. #13
    Junior Member davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    16
    I'm back from the family vacation. Spent some time in SC and GA. The humidity was mighty fierce, but we had a great trip.

    TJ/Bob/LB, to pick up on your TC and tranny comments, I know the tranny is a T86AA as the casting is very visible (and it has a Dauntless V6). The castings on the TC are very hard to read and I will post a pic of it at a later date. It is a good mystery.

    For now, I have picked up again on the front axle and fuel tank since my return.

    The fuel tank I picked up appears to have the same fit and form with the exception of a missing fitting on the top near the fuel inlet neck. The original tank has a threaded fitting near the filler neck. The line from that fitting goes to the fuel pump and is next to the fuel intake line that runs to the bottom of the fuel tank. My guess is that this is a vent or emission vapor return line (as the motor is emissions equip).

    Does this mean I need a new fuel pump that only has the single intake fitting on the bottom of it? Can I just plug this vapor line on the pump?

  4. #14
    Super Moderator bmorgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    2,040
    The fuel should be drawn from the bottom of the tank. The hole in the top sounds like an "addition". Show us some pictures of the pump and tank. It sounds like someone has added a return line. It could be a West Coast requirement for fuel vents.

    If you are correct and it is a vent, no you cant plug it. Originally it was vented to the atmosphere. In the case of our diaphragm style fuel pumps, it is a vent that allows fuel to escape outside the pump in the event the diaphragm ruptures or leaks. Fuel is vented to the atmosphere and hopefully someone notices before the crankcase fills with it (fuel). In emissions compliant vehicles this fuel cannot escape to the atmosphere. You will also find this set up on marine engines.

    Add: To return it to original you would fix the hole in the tank and allow the vent to go to the atmosphere.
    Last edited by bmorgil; 06-24-2021 at 11:25 AM. Reason: Add

  5. #15
    Junior Member davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    16
    The Dauntless is definitely equip with CA emission. I called KW.com and talked with Mile about the availability of this tank (with evap return on top) and he said no. He wanted me to just plug off the evap return line on the fuel pump and use a vented cap. Well, I am not going to do that.

    I have run into a similar situation with crankcase venting and installed a breathable K&N filter instead of running the closed loop system. I think I can do the exact same thing here.

    I am thinking about running the evap return from the fuel pump up to a similar kind of K&N filter and possibly create a trap in it (like a standard sink basin). As you stated, if the pump diaphragm gives or there is an over-pressure situation in the fuel intake, I want the vent to be able to handle that and not seep into the block. 20210624_123515.jpg 20210624_123837.jpg
    Last edited by davide; 06-24-2021 at 03:07 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #16
    Super Moderator bmorgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    2,040
    You may not need anything on it at all as long as it is the vent and not a pressure by-pass. If it is a pressure bypass fuel will come out under low use conditions. If it is a by-pass, it needs to be blocked and sealed to hold pressure. It does look like a By-Pass style. There is also nothing wrong with hooking it back up. There are a few different ways to hook it to you new tank. Of course you will have to drill a hole in it.

    You don't want to treat it like a crankcase vent. If it is a vent for a diaphragm leak and you don't need it, the vent in the tank should be blocked and the fuel pump vent can just go to atmosphere. It never draws air in. It is only on the pump to direct fuel out in the event of a diaphragm leak. Just leave it open on the fuel pump and block the tank and use a vented cap if you don't want to use the return to tank. It should never be venting fuel anyway, only if the fuel pump fails. On the newer vehicles that used a "vented" pump (non by-pass) in an emissions environment, that vent hose went to an emissions evaporation canister.

    The best thing to do would be to crank the motor and see if it is pushing fuel out of that line. If it isn't you don't need the line. Judging on the location of the line, I am going to say it is a By-Pass type pump and a small amount of fuel will come out.
    Last edited by bmorgil; 06-25-2021 at 09:44 AM.

  7. #17
    Junior Member davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    16
    Sometimes I kick myself for not RTFM first. The Universal Series service manual says this about the fuel pump return line, "...Dauntless has a special fuel pump which has a metering outlet for a vapor return system. Any vapor which forms is is returned to the tank along with hot fuel...this greatly reduces the possibility of vapor lock...". Looks like I will be drilling a hole in a brand new tank and putting in this grommet assembly.

  8. #18
    Super Moderator bmorgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    2,040
    The By-Pass style pump does a great job at preventing vapor lock. It sounds like they were having a problem with it. Switching to a non By-Pass might just be a bad idea!

  9. #19
    Junior Member davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    16
    Thought I might give a little update on things. I've been in the Tahoe region the past 10 days, most of it on the Rubicon Trail. No shortage of Jeeps there.

    BTW, Happy Birthday Willys/Jeep!! 80 years and still going strong.

    I've spent most of my time getting rid of the rust that was on the body pan under the fuel tank. There are two exposed holes for the tank lines that let all water and other road debris in. Lots of navel jelly and sanding to get rid of most of the rust. Primer and paint seems to have it looking decent again and the rust pits were minor.

    Now I start looking at the new tank and how I am going to make the necessary modifications for what I think is the vapor return line. The more I compare the replacement tank with the original, the more I notice something isn't right. The original tank looks to have the fuel pick up on the top of the tank and the vapor return line on the bottom.

    I decided to try and clean the original tank of the varnish build up and (what I thought was) rust where the remaining fuel sat for 20 years. To my surprise, a few cans of carb cleaner cleaned the inside up incredibly well. There is no rust, as I thought, and the varnish is all but gone.

    I'll put some new welts on (as there were none) and put the tank back in.

    20210707_173829.jpg 20210715_163126.jpg

  10. #20
    Super Moderator bmorgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    2,040
    Good deal David. You may want to consider coating the inside of the tank with some of gmwillys favorite stuff, Red-Cote. It is great just in case.

    http://damonq.com/red-kote.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •