v-6 in early A-body

Read the Allpar site first. The Magnum V-6 was a quickie solution for the new Dakota pickup because the V-8 wouldn't fit. They later found room and dropped the V-6. Since they just lopped off 2 cylinders, it wasn't an optimal V-6 design and had vibration issues. I see them often in RAM vans at PicNPull. Seems Mopar often used surplus parts in later full-size vans and campers. But, the fact that it bolts up to a 1970-80's 904 style tranny is attractive, though you then lose the crank pickup and thus modern controls. It sure looks at home in an A, though to use its tranny may require re-fabbing the car's tunnel (true for V-8 Magnum). The Magnum V-8 engines suffer cracked exhaust valve seats, which might affect the V-6 as well.

The 3.8L V-6 is a better design, having a 60 deg V angle, so much less vibration. It was used in minivans (my 2002 T&C), but a better source is the RWD version used in Jeeps. Some Jeepers deride it as "a minivan engine", which seems silly. The FWD versions may be missing some motor mount holes and the intake ducting may not work. Not sure what tranny the Jeeps used, but they long used Mopar trannys. Look for a 2WD Jeep. The 3.8L is still a push-rod design, so might still fit under an A-body hood, though the shallower angle makes it sit taller than a Magnum. Indeed, the rockers and shaft look like in my 65 383 engine. Speaking of that, get a later one. They added a rocker post to the head since early ones suffered cracked posts. The 3.3L is almost identical, but I don't think a Jeep version. The Engine Builder site has a great writeup on the variations.

I completely disagree with 98% of your post. First, they didnt drop the V6 when they had room for a V8. The Dakota had both and still does, as well as using them in Rams and unmentioned Durangos. The Magnum 3.9's were excellent engines for small trucks and 2wd 1/2 ton trucks if you didnt haul heavy loads. They got great MPG and were super reliable. I have worked on hundreds of them over the last 20 years of running a Magnum Performance shop and have never had a complaint about vibration. Third, your comment about loosing crank trigger is WRONG. Its easy to run factory injection with a 904 or 727, you simply have to notch bellhousing for crank trigger and use magnum flywheel. I have done this in CJ Wranglers and currently have a 65 Dart running 904 as well as a 67 Dart GT Vert we just installed 5.9 in , all with injection. There is some cross member modification to fit a 44/46 RE in a 67+ and some additional floor mods on 64-66 but the 67+ are not hard at all. That was the only part of your post I agree with and was wondering have you ever done the swap? Have you ever owned a magnum engine? The Allpar article was written from a point of author not liking his 3.9 van and in the end of article it even mentions issues form bad O2 sensor and CPM sensor causing rough running and drivability issues....in other words he just vented his dislike of 3.9 by bashing earliest design which nobody uses. Here is another interpretation of 3.9
Magnum 3.9L[edit]
As the 5.2L V8 was introduced in 1992, the often-forgotten V6 version of the Magnum engine became available in the Ram pickup and the more compact Dodge Dakota. Based on the LA-series 239ci V6, the 3.9L featured the same changes and upgrades as the other Magnum engines. The 3.9L can be better understood by imagining a 5.2L V8 with two cylinders removed.

Power increased substantially to 180 hp @ 4,400 rpm (134 kW)and from 195 lb·ft (264 N·m) to 220 lb·ft (298 N·m) @ 3,200 rpm, as compared with the previous TBI engine. For 1994, horsepower was reduced to 175, mostly due to the installation of smaller-volume exhaust manifolds; torque ratings remained the same.[5] For 1997, the 3.9L engine's torque output was increased to 225 lb·ft (305 N·m), with a compression ratio of 9.1:1.[5] Firing order was 1-6-5-4-3-2.[5] This engine was last produced for the 2003 Dodge Dakotapickup. Starting in the 2004 model year it was entirely withdrawn from production and replaced with the 3.7 L PowerTech V6 engine.[14]

A much more objective description in my opinion. I also disagree on your mini van engine. If you have ever driven a 3.8 JK Wrangler, they suck! No torque, wrong powerband for Jeep and get horrible MPG. They would have been much better off with the 3.9 or 3.7 anthough I am not a 3.7 fan, it would have at least made it easy for latermodel 4.7 swaps. You only option now is Hemi.
BTW hacking 2 cylinders off a V8 was also done on GM's VERY popular 4.3L V6 which shares 5.7 GM parts as the 3.9 to 5.2 does. Its been succesfully done for years quite successfully, the Mopar version just isnt as famous.

OP it will be a great swap, just stick to 1996+. CJ Jeeps are not much heavier than an A body so it will be fun economical and still spin the tires!
904 trans notched for Crank Sensor
transnotch.jpg
5.9 showing Crank Sensor bolted on.
cranksensor.jpg
64 5.2 44RE pre fit and 3.9 is much shorter than this!
64 5.244RE.jpg
V8 harness ready for install, V6 is almost identical.
hotrodharness.jpg