07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
04-07-2006, 01:17 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
from which this design was taken.
If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
nothing good lasts forever.
You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
from which this design was taken.
If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
nothing good lasts forever.
You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
04-07-2006, 01:17 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
from which this design was taken.
If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
nothing good lasts forever.
You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
from which this design was taken.
If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
nothing good lasts forever.
You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
04-07-2006, 02:01 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
I don't have the figures at idle but at 1200 RPM the 4 liter I-6 makes about
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
04-07-2006, 02:01 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
I don't have the figures at idle but at 1200 RPM the 4 liter I-6 makes about
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
04-07-2006, 02:01 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
I don't have the figures at idle but at 1200 RPM the 4 liter I-6 makes about
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
210 lb ft torque and the 3.7 liter Jeep V-6 makes a tad less than 200.
At generally usable engine speed (2000-2800 rpm) the 4 liter makes about 215
lb ft and the 3.7 makes 220 lb ft
I do not have figures for the 3.8 liter Dodge Minivan motor
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1144430238.567112.220810@z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I think this is where the new 3.8 V-6s are going to fall flat on their
> face. (More info is at http://www.allpar.com/mopar/37.html). They
> openly admit that torque is not nearly as strong at the straight-6's,
> and that more emphasis is being placed on high-revving engines that
> offer better fuel economy, (ahem) ...typical of the Minivan Heritage
> from which this design was taken.
>
> If you extrapolate the torque curves on both charts, it's clear that
> the present I-6 offers twice the torque at ldle than the new 3.7. DC
> doesn't have much of a choice I guess: tooling for I-6's is worn and it
> will cost a bundle to continue producing, and the Feds want more fuel
> economy and lowered emissions. Something had to give eventually -
> nothing good lasts forever.
>
> You won't ever see a rework of the 4.0. It's a terribly inefficient
> design from an economy and emissions standpoint. But the longevity,
> brute-strength and reliability is something that you will never see
> purposely designed into a 'modern' engine.
>
04-07-2006, 03:34 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
Spelled "trailer" and "syndrome"...just like an edjumicaded sales droid
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
04-07-2006, 03:34 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
Spelled "trailer" and "syndrome"...just like an edjumicaded sales droid
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
04-07-2006, 03:34 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
Spelled "trailer" and "syndrome"...just like an edjumicaded sales droid
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
to muck up a grade school name calling session. BTW, I didn't realize JP
magazine _had_ my stats.
I'd try to explain to you the difference between HP and Torque and how
they relate to each other, but it would bore everyone on the NG with
common knowledge and you'd still be bleary eyed. Besides, the visual of
you trying to regurgitate it to your prospective clients in the car lot
brings back scenes from Dumb & Dumber and I can't stop laughing long
enough to be serious.
tw
__________________________________________________ ___________________
2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Jarod Sprauer wrote:
> waldron is just trailor trash ....heLikes to poke his nose in everyone elses
> business because he is 4'8" 200lbs lives in a trailor and has bad
> acne..(little man syndroum I suppose) the stats came from JP magazine.
04-09-2006, 03:21 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
in article 2KednevIf5yN_avZRVn-ug@comcast.com, twaldron at
thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com wrote on 4/7/06 5:50 AM:
> Jeff Olsen wrote:
>> in article CrfZf.12672$tN3.5182@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Jarod Sprauer at
>> jsprauer2000@yahoo.com wrote on 4/6/06 2:08 PM:
>>
>>
>>> '06 190 hp @ 4600 rpm
>>> '07 205 hp @ 5200 rpm
>>>
>>
>>
>> So who ever runs their 4.0L I6 at 4600 rpm? Things sound like the world is
>> about to blow up revving that high. ROAR!
>>
>> Where torque matters to me, in a jeep, is at or near idle. I had my TJ
>> (sniff) geared 4.10 with 31's and it felt like an electric motor or
>> something at idle. With great engine braking.
>>
>> The 4.7L V8 in my new Tundra, OTOH, likes to REV! It this fancypants '07
>> engine a V6 or V8? Or did they rework the 4.0L?
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>
> Ah, don't listen to him. He's a used car salesman. They don't know the
> difference between HP and Torque.
Hah! Gotcha.
> You must've been hiding under a rock to miss all the discussion on the
> 'new' to the Wrangler line, V6! :) One thing it did is cure my
> Upgrade-itis as far as any SWB Jeeps go.
Nah... I traded my TJ a few months ago and have been very busy in the
meantime. Not paying attention to Jeeps. I've been skiing my *** off on
my days off! (thought of the day: big thigh muscles are like big tires;
they make the tough stuff soooo much easier!)
One thing this V6 thing DOES do for me, is set a time limit on buying my
next TJ. I learned from the first one that I don't want one as a rig that
sees much street time, or at least commuting or long trips, I don't want to
tow a trailer with it unnecessarily, and I don't want to haul my kids around
in it. In other words, I want it to be my toy. So... for what I want, a
used one is fine and one with about 70k miles would be perfectly
serviceable, and half price. So... that means I've got about six years to
buy a nice clean '06 with records and low miles AND THE I6 ENGINE!
One question on the Tundra,
> they are coming out with a new one to actually compete with the Titan
> next year, why didn't you wait for THAT one? The reason I ask is that I
> passed on the Toyota in favor of the Titan in '04. With the '07
> improvements on the Toyota, I'd have gone with it instead.
Aren't they just making it bigger? That's not better as far as I'm
concerned. For me, it was between the Taco and Tundra. The Tundra was on
the large side of what I needed. And I was not after the ultimate
heavy-duty truck to pull a large boat over mountain passes at 80 mph or
anything. I do use it as a truck; at 3000 miles it has several dents in the
bed and I was down to bare metal in a couple bad scrapes (but I got a
bedliner sprayed on yesterday)... got it stuck for the first and second
times last week hauling firewood out of my woods... etc. The hardest this
truck will work is big loads of firewood (4 cords so far this year) and
gravel, and hauling a bunch of stuff and a small trailer full of oak
firewood to elk camp every year. My Wrangler did OK with that the last few
years and I hope the Tundra will do better. Other than that I wanted a
pleasant commute 3-4 days a week into town a half hour each way. The Tundra
and XM radio fit the bill!! Smooth, crazy quiet, fun to drive, great power
when I get an excuse to pass somebody on the country roads...
But to directly answer your question, the styling on the Nissan ruled it out
for me. I'm not a chest-pounding kind of guy. I don't even know why the
Nissan is supposed to be better? More power? The Tundra hauls *** and that
4.7L engine is a marvel. More payload? Tundra is the biggest truck I've
ever had (my third) and hauls more than I care to load/unload. Looks? See
above. Towing? Anything my Tundra won't tow I don't want any part of.
I think also the whole... I dunno.. the whole "Toyota" thing bears on the
decision too. We have a '95 Land Cruiser that is just an amazing vehicle.
Talk about a capable, dependable, confindence-inspiring vehicle. Everyone i
know with Toyota's loves them. My last truck was an '86 Nissan that I
bought with 45k miles on it and it died at 177k miles (and still has more in
it if anyone wants to put an engine in it) and I used it HARD. I have no
beef with Nissan; if the Titan wasn't trying to look so tough-guy puffed-up
I would've considered one. But it's hard to argue against a Toyota.
-jeff
>
> tw
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com wrote on 4/7/06 5:50 AM:
> Jeff Olsen wrote:
>> in article CrfZf.12672$tN3.5182@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Jarod Sprauer at
>> jsprauer2000@yahoo.com wrote on 4/6/06 2:08 PM:
>>
>>
>>> '06 190 hp @ 4600 rpm
>>> '07 205 hp @ 5200 rpm
>>>
>>
>>
>> So who ever runs their 4.0L I6 at 4600 rpm? Things sound like the world is
>> about to blow up revving that high. ROAR!
>>
>> Where torque matters to me, in a jeep, is at or near idle. I had my TJ
>> (sniff) geared 4.10 with 31's and it felt like an electric motor or
>> something at idle. With great engine braking.
>>
>> The 4.7L V8 in my new Tundra, OTOH, likes to REV! It this fancypants '07
>> engine a V6 or V8? Or did they rework the 4.0L?
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>
> Ah, don't listen to him. He's a used car salesman. They don't know the
> difference between HP and Torque.
Hah! Gotcha.
> You must've been hiding under a rock to miss all the discussion on the
> 'new' to the Wrangler line, V6! :) One thing it did is cure my
> Upgrade-itis as far as any SWB Jeeps go.
Nah... I traded my TJ a few months ago and have been very busy in the
meantime. Not paying attention to Jeeps. I've been skiing my *** off on
my days off! (thought of the day: big thigh muscles are like big tires;
they make the tough stuff soooo much easier!)
One thing this V6 thing DOES do for me, is set a time limit on buying my
next TJ. I learned from the first one that I don't want one as a rig that
sees much street time, or at least commuting or long trips, I don't want to
tow a trailer with it unnecessarily, and I don't want to haul my kids around
in it. In other words, I want it to be my toy. So... for what I want, a
used one is fine and one with about 70k miles would be perfectly
serviceable, and half price. So... that means I've got about six years to
buy a nice clean '06 with records and low miles AND THE I6 ENGINE!
One question on the Tundra,
> they are coming out with a new one to actually compete with the Titan
> next year, why didn't you wait for THAT one? The reason I ask is that I
> passed on the Toyota in favor of the Titan in '04. With the '07
> improvements on the Toyota, I'd have gone with it instead.
Aren't they just making it bigger? That's not better as far as I'm
concerned. For me, it was between the Taco and Tundra. The Tundra was on
the large side of what I needed. And I was not after the ultimate
heavy-duty truck to pull a large boat over mountain passes at 80 mph or
anything. I do use it as a truck; at 3000 miles it has several dents in the
bed and I was down to bare metal in a couple bad scrapes (but I got a
bedliner sprayed on yesterday)... got it stuck for the first and second
times last week hauling firewood out of my woods... etc. The hardest this
truck will work is big loads of firewood (4 cords so far this year) and
gravel, and hauling a bunch of stuff and a small trailer full of oak
firewood to elk camp every year. My Wrangler did OK with that the last few
years and I hope the Tundra will do better. Other than that I wanted a
pleasant commute 3-4 days a week into town a half hour each way. The Tundra
and XM radio fit the bill!! Smooth, crazy quiet, fun to drive, great power
when I get an excuse to pass somebody on the country roads...
But to directly answer your question, the styling on the Nissan ruled it out
for me. I'm not a chest-pounding kind of guy. I don't even know why the
Nissan is supposed to be better? More power? The Tundra hauls *** and that
4.7L engine is a marvel. More payload? Tundra is the biggest truck I've
ever had (my third) and hauls more than I care to load/unload. Looks? See
above. Towing? Anything my Tundra won't tow I don't want any part of.
I think also the whole... I dunno.. the whole "Toyota" thing bears on the
decision too. We have a '95 Land Cruiser that is just an amazing vehicle.
Talk about a capable, dependable, confindence-inspiring vehicle. Everyone i
know with Toyota's loves them. My last truck was an '86 Nissan that I
bought with 45k miles on it and it died at 177k miles (and still has more in
it if anyone wants to put an engine in it) and I used it HARD. I have no
beef with Nissan; if the Titan wasn't trying to look so tough-guy puffed-up
I would've considered one. But it's hard to argue against a Toyota.
-jeff
>
> tw
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
04-09-2006, 03:21 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 07 vs. 06 Wrangler torque curves?
in article 2KednevIf5yN_avZRVn-ug@comcast.com, twaldron at
thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com wrote on 4/7/06 5:50 AM:
> Jeff Olsen wrote:
>> in article CrfZf.12672$tN3.5182@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Jarod Sprauer at
>> jsprauer2000@yahoo.com wrote on 4/6/06 2:08 PM:
>>
>>
>>> '06 190 hp @ 4600 rpm
>>> '07 205 hp @ 5200 rpm
>>>
>>
>>
>> So who ever runs their 4.0L I6 at 4600 rpm? Things sound like the world is
>> about to blow up revving that high. ROAR!
>>
>> Where torque matters to me, in a jeep, is at or near idle. I had my TJ
>> (sniff) geared 4.10 with 31's and it felt like an electric motor or
>> something at idle. With great engine braking.
>>
>> The 4.7L V8 in my new Tundra, OTOH, likes to REV! It this fancypants '07
>> engine a V6 or V8? Or did they rework the 4.0L?
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>
> Ah, don't listen to him. He's a used car salesman. They don't know the
> difference between HP and Torque.
Hah! Gotcha.
> You must've been hiding under a rock to miss all the discussion on the
> 'new' to the Wrangler line, V6! :) One thing it did is cure my
> Upgrade-itis as far as any SWB Jeeps go.
Nah... I traded my TJ a few months ago and have been very busy in the
meantime. Not paying attention to Jeeps. I've been skiing my *** off on
my days off! (thought of the day: big thigh muscles are like big tires;
they make the tough stuff soooo much easier!)
One thing this V6 thing DOES do for me, is set a time limit on buying my
next TJ. I learned from the first one that I don't want one as a rig that
sees much street time, or at least commuting or long trips, I don't want to
tow a trailer with it unnecessarily, and I don't want to haul my kids around
in it. In other words, I want it to be my toy. So... for what I want, a
used one is fine and one with about 70k miles would be perfectly
serviceable, and half price. So... that means I've got about six years to
buy a nice clean '06 with records and low miles AND THE I6 ENGINE!
One question on the Tundra,
> they are coming out with a new one to actually compete with the Titan
> next year, why didn't you wait for THAT one? The reason I ask is that I
> passed on the Toyota in favor of the Titan in '04. With the '07
> improvements on the Toyota, I'd have gone with it instead.
Aren't they just making it bigger? That's not better as far as I'm
concerned. For me, it was between the Taco and Tundra. The Tundra was on
the large side of what I needed. And I was not after the ultimate
heavy-duty truck to pull a large boat over mountain passes at 80 mph or
anything. I do use it as a truck; at 3000 miles it has several dents in the
bed and I was down to bare metal in a couple bad scrapes (but I got a
bedliner sprayed on yesterday)... got it stuck for the first and second
times last week hauling firewood out of my woods... etc. The hardest this
truck will work is big loads of firewood (4 cords so far this year) and
gravel, and hauling a bunch of stuff and a small trailer full of oak
firewood to elk camp every year. My Wrangler did OK with that the last few
years and I hope the Tundra will do better. Other than that I wanted a
pleasant commute 3-4 days a week into town a half hour each way. The Tundra
and XM radio fit the bill!! Smooth, crazy quiet, fun to drive, great power
when I get an excuse to pass somebody on the country roads...
But to directly answer your question, the styling on the Nissan ruled it out
for me. I'm not a chest-pounding kind of guy. I don't even know why the
Nissan is supposed to be better? More power? The Tundra hauls *** and that
4.7L engine is a marvel. More payload? Tundra is the biggest truck I've
ever had (my third) and hauls more than I care to load/unload. Looks? See
above. Towing? Anything my Tundra won't tow I don't want any part of.
I think also the whole... I dunno.. the whole "Toyota" thing bears on the
decision too. We have a '95 Land Cruiser that is just an amazing vehicle.
Talk about a capable, dependable, confindence-inspiring vehicle. Everyone i
know with Toyota's loves them. My last truck was an '86 Nissan that I
bought with 45k miles on it and it died at 177k miles (and still has more in
it if anyone wants to put an engine in it) and I used it HARD. I have no
beef with Nissan; if the Titan wasn't trying to look so tough-guy puffed-up
I would've considered one. But it's hard to argue against a Toyota.
-jeff
>
> tw
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
thomasOBVIOUS@rubicons.com wrote on 4/7/06 5:50 AM:
> Jeff Olsen wrote:
>> in article CrfZf.12672$tN3.5182@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Jarod Sprauer at
>> jsprauer2000@yahoo.com wrote on 4/6/06 2:08 PM:
>>
>>
>>> '06 190 hp @ 4600 rpm
>>> '07 205 hp @ 5200 rpm
>>>
>>
>>
>> So who ever runs their 4.0L I6 at 4600 rpm? Things sound like the world is
>> about to blow up revving that high. ROAR!
>>
>> Where torque matters to me, in a jeep, is at or near idle. I had my TJ
>> (sniff) geared 4.10 with 31's and it felt like an electric motor or
>> something at idle. With great engine braking.
>>
>> The 4.7L V8 in my new Tundra, OTOH, likes to REV! It this fancypants '07
>> engine a V6 or V8? Or did they rework the 4.0L?
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>
> Ah, don't listen to him. He's a used car salesman. They don't know the
> difference between HP and Torque.
Hah! Gotcha.
> You must've been hiding under a rock to miss all the discussion on the
> 'new' to the Wrangler line, V6! :) One thing it did is cure my
> Upgrade-itis as far as any SWB Jeeps go.
Nah... I traded my TJ a few months ago and have been very busy in the
meantime. Not paying attention to Jeeps. I've been skiing my *** off on
my days off! (thought of the day: big thigh muscles are like big tires;
they make the tough stuff soooo much easier!)
One thing this V6 thing DOES do for me, is set a time limit on buying my
next TJ. I learned from the first one that I don't want one as a rig that
sees much street time, or at least commuting or long trips, I don't want to
tow a trailer with it unnecessarily, and I don't want to haul my kids around
in it. In other words, I want it to be my toy. So... for what I want, a
used one is fine and one with about 70k miles would be perfectly
serviceable, and half price. So... that means I've got about six years to
buy a nice clean '06 with records and low miles AND THE I6 ENGINE!
One question on the Tundra,
> they are coming out with a new one to actually compete with the Titan
> next year, why didn't you wait for THAT one? The reason I ask is that I
> passed on the Toyota in favor of the Titan in '04. With the '07
> improvements on the Toyota, I'd have gone with it instead.
Aren't they just making it bigger? That's not better as far as I'm
concerned. For me, it was between the Taco and Tundra. The Tundra was on
the large side of what I needed. And I was not after the ultimate
heavy-duty truck to pull a large boat over mountain passes at 80 mph or
anything. I do use it as a truck; at 3000 miles it has several dents in the
bed and I was down to bare metal in a couple bad scrapes (but I got a
bedliner sprayed on yesterday)... got it stuck for the first and second
times last week hauling firewood out of my woods... etc. The hardest this
truck will work is big loads of firewood (4 cords so far this year) and
gravel, and hauling a bunch of stuff and a small trailer full of oak
firewood to elk camp every year. My Wrangler did OK with that the last few
years and I hope the Tundra will do better. Other than that I wanted a
pleasant commute 3-4 days a week into town a half hour each way. The Tundra
and XM radio fit the bill!! Smooth, crazy quiet, fun to drive, great power
when I get an excuse to pass somebody on the country roads...
But to directly answer your question, the styling on the Nissan ruled it out
for me. I'm not a chest-pounding kind of guy. I don't even know why the
Nissan is supposed to be better? More power? The Tundra hauls *** and that
4.7L engine is a marvel. More payload? Tundra is the biggest truck I've
ever had (my third) and hauls more than I care to load/unload. Looks? See
above. Towing? Anything my Tundra won't tow I don't want any part of.
I think also the whole... I dunno.. the whole "Toyota" thing bears on the
decision too. We have a '95 Land Cruiser that is just an amazing vehicle.
Talk about a capable, dependable, confindence-inspiring vehicle. Everyone i
know with Toyota's loves them. My last truck was an '86 Nissan that I
bought with 45k miles on it and it died at 177k miles (and still has more in
it if anyone wants to put an engine in it) and I used it HARD. I have no
beef with Nissan; if the Titan wasn't trying to look so tough-guy puffed-up
I would've considered one. But it's hard to argue against a Toyota.
-jeff
>
> tw
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
> 2003 TJ Rubicon * 2001 XJ Sport * 1971 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
>
> "There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'."
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp Function: noun Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80" wheelbase, 1/4-ton
> capacity and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in World War II.
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
