1966 Wagoneer

Stock FSJ Tech Area
Post Reply

Topic author
mckaymotoworks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 9:46 am

1966 Wagoneer

Post by mckaymotoworks »

What inline six would be factory correct? oljeep VIN decoder shows 258, Google search shows 258 in later Jeeps.
Would it be the AMC 232 as indicated on Wikipedia?

3 speed column shift transmission, which model, T86 or T90?



Screenshot 2023-05-17 164240.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar

tgreese
Posts: 7118
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Medford MA USA

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by tgreese »

No 258 in 1966. Only the early 232.

The AMC sixes in the '60s were the 199 and the 232, and Jeep never used the 199. These are the "Rambler" sixes with a different bell housing bolt pattern than the later 232s and 258s, among other differences. Easily identified by the starter on the left (driver's) side. Not bolt-in compatible with the '71 and later sixes.

The only other possible six cylinder is the earlier OHC 230, which looks very different from a conventional OHV six. These were discontinued domestically in 1965, so the title of the Jeep would have to be off some (not impossible, but unlikely).

I would assume a '66 with a 232 has a T-86. The T-86 is very much like the T-90 in a different case. You can take all the gears from a T-90 and put them in a T-86 case, though the gears are not compatible with each other.

Look here: http://www.ifsja.org/tech/figures/db.html#3-speed

The CJ guys know a lot about the T-86. Used with the 225 V6 in the CJ '66-68ish. If you have a T-86 with a broken gear, the usual repair is to combine all the T-90 gears with the T-86 case. Done a lot, since parts are available for the T-90 and not for the T-86.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.

sierrablue
Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:02 pm
Location: MN/CO

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by sierrablue »

I would suspect a 232. I know in the M715/25 they started making the Tornado (230 tgreese mentioned) with motor mounts in the block to counter the problems they were having with oil leaks mounting it by the timing cover, and did that through '67. I thought they didn't adopt the AMC I-6 until '67, but I could be wrong. And if your Jeep was a '67, but sold early, it's entirely possible it got tagged with a '66 title...

Cool thing on that Tornado is that Argentina adopted it, at Renault and Kaiser there as a race motor in the late '60s-early '80s. There's an ITB intake you can get for Weber carbs/FI (there's one on eBay rn for $2500ish), and they ran a different head, all-in-all bringing it up to 200-350 hp. Also on the Jeep ones, the torque curve is basically a straight line at 210 lb ft from under 1k to over 4k if I remember right--could just be 3k.

Don't quote me on when the swapped to the AMC. I've read different numbers different places, and for me it's been more or less irrelevant, so I haven't dug deep to really figure out fact v fiction on it.
'71 Wagoneer (DD)
-B350 (HEI, iron 4-barrel, Edelbrock 1406), TH400, D20
-'74 D44 front (nonpower discs)
-custom headliner
-Front shoulder belts (rears eventually)

viewtopic.php?t=23070

There are 2 major differences between new Wranglers and FSJs. FSJs are meant to be both utilitarian and capable, not just capable. FSJs are also rarely initially recognized as Jeeps by the average American.

Topic author
mckaymotoworks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 9:46 am

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by mckaymotoworks »

tgreese wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 4:05 pm No 258 in 1966. Only the early 232.

The AMC sixes in the '60s were the 199 and the 232, and Jeep never used the 199. These are the "Rambler" sixes with a different bell housing bolt pattern than the later 232s and 258s, among other differences. Easily identified by the starter on the left (driver's) side. Not bolt-in compatible with the '71 and later sixes.

The only other possible six cylinder is the earlier OHC 230, which looks very different from a conventional OHV six. These were discontinued domestically in 1965, so the title of the Jeep would have to be off some (not impossible, but unlikely).

I would assume a '66 with a 232 has a T-86. The T-86 is very much like the T-90 in a different case. You can take all the gears from a T-90 and put them in a T-86 case, though the gears are not compatible with each other.

Look here: http://www.ifsja.org/tech/figures/db.html#3-speed

The CJ guys know a lot about the T-86. Used with the 225 V6 in the CJ '66-68ish. If you have a T-86 with a broken gear, the usual repair is to combine all the T-90 gears with the T-86 case. Done a lot, since parts are available for the T-90 and not for the T-86.
Thanks for confirming. With an upgrade to front disc brakes , Class III hitch, shocks/air bags and re-gearing as needed, would this setup be able to handle a 4500lbs trailer with 500lbs tongue weight with sway stabilizer assuming the wagons mechanicals are all sorted/refreshed?

Wanting to pair an early Kaiser wagon with our Airstream for backroads/55 MPH. Concerned I’ll need to change the transmission along with rear gears. I daily drive a 61’ CJ5 but with the F134, T90 with Husky overdrive.
User avatar

tgreese
Posts: 7118
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Medford MA USA

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by tgreese »

My opinion - you could pull the trailer slowly, but I would not. Most drivers today would be unhappy with the performance of the 232 without a trailer.

Looking at the IFSJA page, it says you could have a T-89, which is basically the same as the T-85 Jeep used with the AMC 327. Checking the parts book, it looks like that was only offered in the J-truck with the 232. T-86 looks quite certain. Several final drive ratios were offered with the 232: 3.31, 3.73, 4.09, 4.27, 4.89. The axles should have a tag with the ratio. Generally the sixes were paired with deeper gears, so the 3.31s might be unusual. If I had to guess, I'd guess 3.73s or 4.09s.

Do you own this Jeep yet? If not, and you want if for towing, I would definitely pass. I don't think you'd be happy with this if you want to do more than move the trailer around locally.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.

sierrablue
Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:02 pm
Location: MN/CO

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by sierrablue »

Given what you're wanting to do with it, with those mods you mentioned for the suspension/brakes, I wouldn't be too worried about the strength of the Jeep; with that setup it sounds like you'd be pretty well set.

I would say that if you're hoping to do that, either go for a factory V8 rig, or maybe consider a 4.6 or 4.7 stroker, complete with fuel injection. That 232 will probably move it...and that's about it. Unless you're in the flattest place in the world (cough south central MN or central IA cough), and at lowish altitude, I think it would struggle even with maintaining 55 up any kind of hill, or with any kind of wind (other than a tailwind).

Much like a 2.5 XJ, you're gonna run out of engine on that long before you overload it.
'71 Wagoneer (DD)
-B350 (HEI, iron 4-barrel, Edelbrock 1406), TH400, D20
-'74 D44 front (nonpower discs)
-custom headliner
-Front shoulder belts (rears eventually)

viewtopic.php?t=23070

There are 2 major differences between new Wranglers and FSJs. FSJs are meant to be both utilitarian and capable, not just capable. FSJs are also rarely initially recognized as Jeeps by the average American.
User avatar

tgreese
Posts: 7118
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Medford MA USA

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by tgreese »

Note that, starting with Rambler engine, an AMC 4.0L stroker won't gain you anything over any other inline six. Doubtful there is any factory or aftermarket adapter that will work with that T-86. Also, the engine deck height changes and the height of the mounts changes, though I don't know if that's in the brackets or cast-in the block. Anyway, not the obvious upgrade it would be for a 258.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.

Topic author
mckaymotoworks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 9:46 am

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by mckaymotoworks »

tgreese wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 4:30 am My opinion - you could pull the trailer slowly, but I would not. Most drivers today would be unhappy with the performance of the 232 without a trailer.

Looking at the IFSJA page, it says you could have a T-89, which is basically the same as the T-85 Jeep used with the AMC 327. Checking the parts book, it looks like that was only offered in the J-truck with the 232. T-86 looks quite certain. Several final drive ratios were offered with the 232: 3.31, 3.73, 4.09, 4.27, 4.89. The axles should have a tag with the ratio. Generally the sixes were paired with deeper gears, so the 3.31s might be unusual. If I had to guess, I'd guess 3.73s or 4.09s.

Do you own this Jeep yet? If not, and you want if for towing, I would definitely pass. I don't think you'd be happy with this if you want to do more than move the trailer around locally.
I do not yet own it, it's a California wagon, early years which are extremely hard to find. I do have a Buick 215 in the garage to build, it was for my MGB GT, sold that, but I have the rare 215 to T series bellhousing. Considered it for my CJ5 but I can't keep and maintain two vintage vehicles, a vintage trailer and a vintage motorcycle. So something has to go, the CJ5 is worth the most since recent rebuild and quite a few rare desirable upgrades. The plan was to use the 66' as is locally for now, and upgrade the engine and drivetrain for longer distance hauling/camping.

sierrablue wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 5:21 am Given what you're wanting to do with it, with those mods you mentioned for the suspension/brakes, I wouldn't be too worried about the strength of the Jeep; with that setup it sounds like you'd be pretty well set.

I would say that if you're hoping to do that, either go for a factory V8 rig, or maybe consider a 4.6 or 4.7 stroker, complete with fuel injection. That 232 will probably move it...and that's about it. Unless you're in the flattest place in the world (cough south central MN or central IA cough), and at lowish altitude, I think it would struggle even with maintaining 55 up any kind of hill, or with any kind of wind (other than a tailwind).

Much like a 2.5 XJ, you're gonna run out of engine on that long before you overload it.
I'm a nut for staying period correct, so the engine swap must be from the era. The engine bay looks big enough for say a Perkins 6 cyl diesel, but I would need to have an SAE 5 adapter made to mate to a transmission. But then that's probably extensive downtime unless I can mock up and have all parts on hand with a very detailed game plan in place to knock out the swap in say a week.


Side note, this was supposed to be a 232 but turned out to be a 258. They got some good numbers with some easy mods:
https://youtu.be/1KAxA4cUW1ss
User avatar

tgreese
Posts: 7118
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Medford MA USA

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by tgreese »

Postals never got the Rambler engines. First they got the F134, then ca 1970 got the Chevy 153, then went to the AMC 232. The Rambler engine was long gone from production by that time.

There are two 232s, and the postal 232 is the same as a 258 with a shorter stroke.

NB the 199 and 232 became the 232 and 258 resp. The stroke was increased along with the deck height; pretty sure the new 232 got the 199 rods and the 258 got the old 232 rods? Something like that. I have some article reprints covering this somewhere if it's important.

That means there is a Rambler 232 (yours) and an AMC 232. The Rambler engines are their own thing, possibly only compatible with the older Rambler/Nash engines. The post-70 AMC 232 and 258 share a bell housing pattern with the second and third gen AMC V8s (290,304,343,360,390,401) as well as the later 4.0L and 4.0L HO.

JMO - if you want a '66 era Wagoneer, look for one with the 327 V8 and automatic. That would pull your trailer fine.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.

Topic author
mckaymotoworks
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 9:46 am

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by mckaymotoworks »

tgreese wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 8:28 am Postals never got the Rambler engines. First they got the F134, then ca 1970 got the Chevy 153, then went to the AMC 232. The Rambler engine was long gone from production by that time.

There are two 232s, and the postal 232 is the same as a 258 with a shorter stroke.

NB the 199 and 232 became the 232 and 258 resp. The stroke was increased along with the deck height; pretty sure the new 232 got the 199 rods and the 258 got the old 232 rods? Something like that. I have some article reprints covering this somewhere if it's important.

That means there is a Rambler 232 (yours) and an AMC 232. The AMC 232 and 258 shares a bell housing pattern with the second and third gen AMC V8s (290,304,343,360,390,401) as well as the later 4.0L and 4.0L HO.

JMO - if you want a '66 era Wagoneer, look for one with the 327 V8 and automatic. That would pull your trailer fine.
It's definitely something to consider hard and thoroughly. I know long term, it will need to be upgraded. My only other option is a 70' with the 350 V8, TH400 auto but it's a good 12hrs away, have not had a good experience with UShip/shippers in the past, so that means fly there and drive it back as it's well sorted but still 53 yo
User avatar

tgreese
Posts: 7118
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Medford MA USA

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by tgreese »

Owners like the Buick too. A '70 will have a stronger rear axle (flanged 44 vs. tapered in a '66) which seems like a plus for pulling a trailer.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.

sierrablue
Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:02 pm
Location: MN/CO

Re: 1966 Wagoneer

Post by sierrablue »

I would definitely recommend the B350/Turbo 400 if you're towing. It's a good solid setup anyway, but it has all kinds of low-end torque, especially with the 2-barrel manifold. The 2-barrel falls on its face if you try to stomp on it at speed (2-barrel lacks horsepower), but has all kinds of torque.

Also the B350/TH400 weighs the same as the I-6 manual setup, but has way more output.

As Tim said the '70 *should* (depends if it's an early '70 or a late '70) have flanged axle shafts, which would definitely be an advantage for towing.

I've read over on IFSJA that some guys with Gladiators and big campers have pulled 12-14 mpg with a stock B350/TH400, and 31"s, on the way UP through the mountains, with 3.31 gears. Granted that was a fresh B350 but still impressive.
'71 Wagoneer (DD)
-B350 (HEI, iron 4-barrel, Edelbrock 1406), TH400, D20
-'74 D44 front (nonpower discs)
-custom headliner
-Front shoulder belts (rears eventually)

viewtopic.php?t=23070

There are 2 major differences between new Wranglers and FSJs. FSJs are meant to be both utilitarian and capable, not just capable. FSJs are also rarely initially recognized as Jeeps by the average American.
Post Reply