2004 Jeep disappointing
06-19-2004, 10:00 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
2004 Jeep disappointing
I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
and sports since 95?
real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
and sports since 95?
06-19-2004, 11:16 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
06-19-2004, 11:16 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
06-19-2004, 11:16 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
06-19-2004, 11:16 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
TMiller782 wrote:
> I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was great. A
> real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in 2nd with
> never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought a 2004
> and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear when I
> start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in neutral.
> What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to the
> dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start out in
> 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance book
> said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real disappointing. Has
> anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the wrangler SE
> and sports since 95?
06-20-2004, 07:07 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
I'm assuming you had a 6 cyl in your existing one as you said it has some
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
06-20-2004, 07:07 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
I'm assuming you had a 6 cyl in your existing one as you said it has some
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
06-20-2004, 07:07 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
I'm assuming you had a 6 cyl in your existing one as you said it has some
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
06-20-2004, 07:07 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
I'm assuming you had a 6 cyl in your existing one as you said it has some
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
muscle.
The 4 litre 6 cylinder in the 2004 is the same one that was introduced in
91, except a bit more powerful
now (~200bhp/230lb ft v 180bhp/220 ) The transmission is probably an AX-15
in your
95, which was also medium duty.
OTOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
litre engine ~ 55 hp
down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Cj7Bc.28$x07.106806@news.uswest.net...
> What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a 3.07
> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
>
> TMiller782 wrote:
> > I owned a 95 wrangler with a stick shift for almost 9 years. It was
great. A
> > real work horse. Felt like it had some muscle. Always started out in
2nd with
> > never a problem. Had the original clutch at 165,000 miles. Just bought
a 2004
> > and tried to do the same thing. The 2004 keeps jumping out of 2nd gear
when I
> > start up. Has no power and sounds like marbles are rattling around in
neutral.
> > What gives. this jeep is sick. Nothing like my 95. Took it back to
the
> > dealer who said all was normal and working fine. Said I needed to start
out in
> > 1st gear. This must be a real watered down jeep now. The maintenance
book
> > said the transmission is a medium duty unit. This is real
disappointing. Has
> > anyone else been surprised at the low quality performance in the
wrangler SE
> > and sports since 95?
06-20-2004, 09:09 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Jeep disappointing
My >TOH, if your new one is the SE which you referred to, it only has a 2.4
>litre engine ~ 55 hp
>down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
The 95 was a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder and so is the new one. The dealer said the
transmision is different in the 2004. Seems the gearing is not as low.
Actually where is used to use 2nd I now have to go down to first. Where I used
to use 3rd I now have to go to 2nd and so forth. I've been starting the 2004
in first gear and it is slower but seeems to work better. I had a choice of
axle ratios in the new car. Maybe I picked one different from the 95. Could
that be the problem?>What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a
3.07
>> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
In the 95 there was plenty of power to start in 2nd so maybe I got a better
axle ratio. I really am not sure what I had. I just know this is very
disappointing have to shift from 1st at a crawl. Fortunately, 1st in this car
does not seem as low as in the 95. How could I tell what the axle ratio is in
both cars. I've sold the 95 but could still contact the new owner. I'm real
curious why this is so different.
>litre engine ~ 55 hp
>down on the 4 litre, although the Sports has the 6 cyl.
The 95 was a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder and so is the new one. The dealer said the
transmision is different in the 2004. Seems the gearing is not as low.
Actually where is used to use 2nd I now have to go down to first. Where I used
to use 3rd I now have to go to 2nd and so forth. I've been starting the 2004
in first gear and it is slower but seeems to work better. I had a choice of
axle ratios in the new car. Maybe I picked one different from the 95. Could
that be the problem?>What engine and gear ratio? Most of the 6 cyl came with a
3.07
>> axle ratio, not condusive to starting in 2nd.
In the 95 there was plenty of power to start in 2nd so maybe I got a better
axle ratio. I really am not sure what I had. I just know this is very
disappointing have to shift from 1st at a crawl. Fortunately, 1st in this car
does not seem as low as in the 95. How could I tell what the axle ratio is in
both cars. I've sold the 95 but could still contact the new owner. I'm real
curious why this is so different.
