6.1 Alternator clearance - Possible solution?

-
Rat Patrol

Rat Patrol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
62
Location
On the outskirts
After reviewing the thread so this forum - the one issue that seems to dog the swap of a 6.1 into an A Body is Alternator clearance.

Now from what I understand....some guys get around it by running a truck front cover?....but I think I have a simpler solution.


Below is a pic of the usual clearancing that has to be done to retain the car 6.1 alternator position -

img0006wu.jpg



But here is Gdemon's engine bay:prayer:

.......with the alternator bolted with a "Nth-Sth" retaining bolt.

engine20resize.jpg



Gdemon verified with my that he used an 07 SRT Cherokee Alternator -

So all that remained was to verify that the timing cover was the same on both a SRT Passenger car and the SRT Cherokee.

Sure enough...they list under the same part # - 4792795AD

So it stands to reason that using an SRT Grand Cherokee alternator should be a viable way around having to clearance the frame rail when performing these swaps.

So what do people think......have I missed something?


(BTW - If anyone has a part # for the bottom Alt bracket for the Grand Cherokee - it'd be much appreciated :D)

P9060333.jpg
 
I have an 08 srt Cherokee hemi and the alt does fit but it is tight. I was wondering if the alt would hit when the engine torques? Isn't the bracket the same? It looks like the alt itself is different. I will take some picks of the bracket with out the alt on.

Trevor
 
The car 6.1 Alternator doesn't use a pivot bolt and bracket - its supported by two "east-west" cross-bolts fixed it to the side of the block.

The 6.1 Jeep Alt uses a traditional Nth-Sth pivot bolt.

If you could supply a pic of the Jeep bottom bracket that would be a big help - I could probably fabricate something up.
 
When I put the 5.7 Hemi from an 06 Magnum R/T down in my 70 Duster, it took me about 1 minute with a zizz wheel to cut the ledge off the frame rail. Took me about 2 minutes to weld the seam, and a couple more minutes to grind it smooth. I understand that some folks may not feel comfortable trimming the frame rail, but it took me less than 15 minutes to get all the clearance I could ever need, versus a few hours hunting a Jeep alternator and changing it. Good luck with whichever way you solve the problem.:glasses7:
 
I don't own a welder.............so it'd take me 1.5 hours to go and hire one and then get my buddy to weld it.

It took me 5 mins to source a 07 Grand Cherokee Altenator from Rock Auto....

Good luck in your search for a new ISP.....:glasses7:.
 
The front bracket is one piece has privations for either alt.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0297.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 680
  • IMG_0298.jpg
    89.7 KB · Views: 662
  • IMG_0299.jpg
    75.4 KB · Views: 680
Thx for the pics - is that the top or bottom mounting point?

If you could get a pic of the bottom mounting point that would be great?
 
Here ya go.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0300.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 670
  • IMG_0301.jpg
    73.2 KB · Views: 676
  • IMG_0302.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 656
  • IMG_0303.JPG
    176.7 KB · Views: 660
  • IMG_0304.JPG
    202.4 KB · Views: 662
  • IMG_0305.JPG
    161.8 KB · Views: 646
Just walked back and looked at my 6.1 out of a Magnum. It does have both mounting provisions on it so you are correct. looks to be an easy change over.
 
Just an additional point -

Sorry about the confusion over the bottom bracket - I was assuming it was like an LA small block, and was adjustable.

I realised half way through that the tensioner pulley takes up the belt slack - so an adjustable bottom bracket is not needed.:eek:ops:

These are the problems you face when you don't have an engine in front of you to examine and they are a rare beast #-o
 
Rat Patol,
I know you're dissatisifed with the TTI mounts like I was, but in all fairness to TTI, their mounts were designed before 5.7 Chryslers and Magnums were even in the showrooms. The truck timing cover with high mount accessories were what was available and they designed the mounts around that. Their marketing campaign and car show display used a MP 5.7 crate motor, which is what I originally bought for my car. For me, the issue was centered around the poor fit with the steering box; the driver side torsion bar and the overall lousy fit of the engine. I sent them back and went with the AlterK, one of the first three that RMS sold for the new gen. Hemis...
 
Cuda SRT8 said:
Rat Patol,
I know you're dissatisifed with the TTI mounts like I was, but in all fairness to TTI, their mounts were designed before 5.7 Chryslers and Magnums were even in the showrooms. The truck timing cover with high mount accessories were what was available and they designed the mounts around that. Their marketing campaign and car show display used a MP 5.7 crate motor, which is what I originally bought for my car. For me, the issue was centered around the poor fit with the steering box; the driver side torsion bar and the overall lousy fit of the engine. I sent them back and went with the AlterK, one of the first three that RMS sold for the new gen. Hemis...
Click to expand...

Those are also my issues - the motor is "skewed" across the drive line - and "tilted" to create a ridiculous pinion angle.

Both these issues would exist whether it was a 5.7 or a 6.1....

The valve cover clearance is the one area where its made worse by being a 6.1..:glasses7:
 
I think I read where you stated Bob M. said the 6.1 is wider than the 5.7. Unlike the old "B" vs. "RB" engines, these blocks are the same physical dimensions except the 6.1 has been beefed up slightly for the higher hp output (this per Chyrsler tech literature I have). To my knowledge, the outside configuration of the two different heads are the same also. I have sets of both, so I'll measure them out of curiosity. Hot rodding of these engines over here is now "old hat" in the LX and LC cars and even some trucks. I belong to a forum for the late model cars and I'm sure this issue would have come up by now if it were true. These guys are avid drag racers, swapping all kinds of parts back and forth between these engines. I'll measure and get back to you. The reason I bring this up is I hate to see mis-information get out there and lead people astray who are contemplating these swaps.
 
Correct - thats what Mazzolini stated .

He got it from Milodon - they were explaining why the 5.7 and 6.1 Milodon dipsticks are different lengths.

I believe the reason given was the difference is primarily in the heads.

Happy measuring :)
 
External measurements between the two motors are identical.

Obviously there is some difference between the front cover depending upon whether the motor is from a truck, jeep or car. Each has slightly different locations for the accessories. One issue is that some people like the look of the car intake manifold, but like the location of the truck accessories. You can use the truck front cover with the car intake manifold but you have to make some modifications to the cover. Some machining is required.

I am really getting concerned about the "issues" regarding the TTI motor mounts.

Originally I wanted to use the Alter-K-tion, but I simply cannot afford it. I've done the math, even with buying all new components (new tubular upper control arms, new torsion bars, all new bushings, BRAND NEW steering box) it is still nearly twice as expensive as using the factory stuff. Not saying that it isn't worth it, I simply don't have the cash to drop on something that nice.

I don't mind things being tight, but I had hoped that using the TTI spool mounts and TTI headers would locate the motor in the correct location with near factory angles for the driveshaft. Needless to say if that isn't the case I am going to be very disappointed.

Regards,

Joe Dokes
 
Joe, I think the problem with TTI mounts is more "difficulty" on the cars from down under. I've been reading all the same stuff as you, and the 1 inherent problem, just seems to me, is the fact that people are moving the engine to "center" and trying to get it lower. I have TTI mounts on my 64 b body, Shumacher poly locs and the damn thing dropped right in with no issues. Now if I'm mistaken about the fitment issues concerning the A bodies, I apologize in advance for inserting my foot into my mouth, lol!!
 
5.7 hemi said:
Joe, I think the problem with TTI mounts is more "difficulty" on the cars from down under. I've been reading all the same stuff as you, and the 1 inherent problem, just seems to me, is the fact that people are moving the engine to "center" and trying to get it lower. I have TTI mounts on my 64 b body, Shumacher poly locs and the damn thing dropped right in with no issues. Now if I'm mistaken about the fitment issues concerning the A bodies, I apologize in advance for inserting my foot into my mouth, lol!!
Click to expand...

I'll be dropping my 5.7 a833 combo in my 1970 duster here in two weeks, ill post my .... Hopefully success. Post any problems, or fabrications I have to do.... So far, only thing I have figured out, you can't run a stock oil filter, also can not use the 45* degree adapter, the tti motor mount hits. Remote oil filter is the only way to go... For me anyway.
 
Our cars used the US K frame - so the "height" issue is the same no matter where the car comes from.

Agreed, our steering box issues are unique.

As for the motor being "skewed"...The guys on here with TTI mount issues are running A bodies and biscuit mounts -

FWIW CudaSRT8 has had the same issues - which is why he went with AlterKtion.

See this link - post # 25 - http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=220232
 
The info came from Milodon? Enough said LOL, those ding dongs. Mazz knows his stuff with regard to the Bs, RBs, LAs and I'm dissappointed he would believe what they have to say about that.

There IS a BIG difference in stock manifolds, so the dipsticks/tubes are different lengths. Longer on the 6.1s to get around the bigger exh. manifolds. I just put 6.1 manifolds and mid pipes / cats on my 5.7 Challenger R/T back in December. I've heard of many of these change outs and the guys speak of using spacers to be able to use their 5.7 dip sticks/tubes. For no more than it costs for a tube and dipstick, I went down and bought new 6.1 stuff to go with the conversion. It now looks "factory" in all respects, with no spacers.

Considering the source of that mis-information, I'm not going to bother to drag out my stuff and measure. Waste of time. They're the same...


Rat Patrol said:
Correct - thats what Mazzolini stated .

He got it from Milodon - they were explaining why the 5.7 and 6.1 Milodon dipsticks are different lengths.

I believe the reason given was the difference is primarily in the heads.

Happy measuring :)
Click to expand...
 
Fair enough....I dont know enough to argue one way or the other - just assumed they would know.

To be fair to Bob....he's ack he's on as steep learning curve as me with these things!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top