Actually the V6 predated the I6 in Jeeps, so reverting back to one would
still be in keeping with the "Real Jeep" tradition. Making one with the
appropriate low rpm torque peak, now that would be DCs challenge. Who needs
a Jeep with a 7500 rpm redline?

"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:tQqyc.12615$Fd.10016@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Unfortunately, there aren't many of these anymore. I believe the reason is
> that the engines have become narrower in the crankcase area in order to
fit
> the new car designs. The inline 6 lends itself perfectly to a long stroke,
> and it is no surprise that most of the long stroke, smaller bore engines
> have been inlune 6's. The old slant six Mopars, the Chevy 292 I6 and the
> Ford 300-I6 are all good examples. You'll notice that most of the newer
> engines, especially V6's, have their torque peak at a much higher RPM than
> the older engines. For some reason, Chrysler has mostly had relatively
short
> stroke, big bore engines over the years. For instance, the 400 Big Block
> Mopar has a shorter stroke than a 350 Chevy, but has a bigger bore than a
> 454 Chevy. You obviously don't want the bore to be so small that the valve
> sizes need to be compromised.
>
> I guess my "ideal V6 or I6 engine would have about a 3.75" stroke and 4"
> bore with a connecting rod about 6" long to reduce piston thrust on the
> cylinders. The long rod combined with the long stroke is a good part of
the
> reason why the Chrysler slant 6 and the AMC 258 last so long. A short
> connecting rod puts more side thrust loads on the piston which will
> accelerate bore and ring wear. The rod length to stroke ratio is how these
> numbers are usually presented. A good example of a bad design would be the
> 400 Chevy small block. GM basically took the 350 block and overbored it
> .125" (new casting with siamesed cylinders), added .270" to the stroke,
but
> made the rod .135" shorter. These engines were notorious for wearing out
> cylinders and smoking oil because of poor ring seal.
>
> I would then like a cylinder head very similar to the Chevy small block
> Vortec head which makes good power from idle on up. About the closest V6
out
> there is the 4.3 Chevy, but "my engine" would have a longer stroke and
> longer rod. The problem with my idea is that it would require an engine
> slightly wider than the 4.3 to accomodate the longer stroke and rod. It
> wouldn't need to be much, and in fact this engine could be built using the
> current 4.3 block, but would require very short pistons (only 1.125" from
> the pin centerline to the top of the piston). There are off the shelf
> aftermarket pistons that fit this design however. This bore and stroke
would
> be very close to the 4.0 stroker using the 258 crank, but would have a
..125"
> larger bore.
>
> Chris
>
> "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> news:2iui2cFqnus1U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > I guess it also comes down to the saying "Real Jeeps are Built, Not
> Bought".
> > If we weren't strung out all over the U.S and Canada we could pool
> together
> > and build our own aftermarket company.
> >
> > Hey, I can be the company tester. Ha ha.... If it stays together when
I
> > get near it it will sail over the Rubicon. LOL.
> >
> > Anyhoo, what are some examples of a High Liter, Long Stroke engines?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > news:32oyc.12605$Fd.11042@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > I can't speak for the capabilities of the Rubi, but judging by the
> > feedback
> > > I have heard here and elsewhere, it seems to be quite capable
off-road.
> I
> > > guess I was just using that as an example for a "package" type option.
I
> > was
> > > also building the Jeep I wanted, LOL. I would lve to see the leaf
spring
> > > Jeeps come back (i.e. CJ, YJ), but that is not going to happen. Leaf
> > springs
> > > are functional and simple, and don't require track locators, sway
bars,
> > etc.
> > > Ford and Chevy have both done the retro car thing this year, so why
not
> > > Jeep? Good idea Bill.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2iuggsFrbo0eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Well, they just built the Rubicon. If it's so wonderful then why
> change
> > > it
> > > > so fast?
> > > >
> > > > I think simplicity is elegance. So keep it simple. Why not take a
CJ
> > as
> > > a
> > > > base model and beef it up
> > > > with axles, lockers, on board air, currie twin sticks, autometer
> gauges,
> > > 4"
> > > > lift, 33" tires, engine/transmission of choice, etc, etc, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It'll never happen which is why the after market for jeeps will get
> > better
> > > > and better. Probably the only way we'll have what we want in the
> future
> > > is
> > > > by mail order kit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:MHnyc.12594$Fd.4688@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cacijv02q3i@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > > > > Ok, I got an idea. Let's design our own TJ replacement! Everyone
> > toss
> > > in
> > > > > > their ideas anmd let's see what we come up with. Here's my
> thoughts
> > to
> > > > > > begin:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Styling to reflect traditional Jeep themes, grille, fenders,
etc.
> > Two
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > models, short & long wheelbase. 4cyl, 6cyl & V8 options. Solid
> axles
> > > > front
> > > > > &
> > > > > > rear, Dana 44 rear axle standard, no D35 option (kill the
curse).
> > > Expand
> > > > > on
> > > > > > current coil over design w/ refinements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four basic trim levels on SWB, two on LWB.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SWB: Base model (bare bones), rubber floor mats, minimal trim,
> > however
> > > > > > available with all upgraded powertrain options incl. 4:1 xfer
> case,
> > > D44
> > > > > > front axle, V8, etc. (This one would be great for builders.)
Sport
> &
> > > > Shara
> > > > > > as current. Rubicon High Performance model (same as current), to
> > incl.
> > > > V8
> > > > > > option w D60 rear axle upgrade.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LWB: Sport & Rubicon options as above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, since I like engines, I'll start there. Not sure if a V6 or
> inline
> > 6
> > > > > would fit the bill better, but I would like to see an engine with
a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > grunt. Something in the high 4 to low 5 litre range with a long
> > stroke,
> > > > high
> > > > > flowing heads, tubular exhaust manifolds (headers) that don't
crack.
> > > This
> > > > > would be the standard engine. There should be 2 V8 options
including
> > the
> > > > 5.7
> > > > > Hemi. The other one could be a bit more docile and fuel efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Transmissions - 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto with overdrive.
Even
> a
> > 6
> > > > > speed with the Hemi would be really cool, but I think the length
> might
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > problem there. In any event, the trans should have a low first
gear
> > (at
> > > > > least 3:1).
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of D44's as standard axles with a D60 upgrade.
Both
> > > should
> > > > > be available with multiple ratios. I also like the 4:1 transfer
> case.
> > > the
> > > > > axles should be available with some type of locker that can be
> > > controlled
> > > > > from the dash (electric or air), 4 wheel disc brakes with
anti-lock
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > be disabled for serious off roading.
> > > > >
> > > > > Long travel coil-over shock suspension using a triangulated 3 link
> > setup
> > > > > with adjustable shocks. If this was done right, the stock Jeep
could
> > be
> > > > > supplied with 30 or 31" tires, and be capable of 33s or "maybe"
35s
> > with
> > > > > just a spring change. The aftermarket does this, so the factory
> should
> > > be
> > > > > able to without a problem. I'm sure this won't happen, but it
should
> > > keep
> > > > > the Wrangler as one of the top factory off road vehicles.
> > > > >
> > > > > An option that may be neat would be onboard GPS, but I think most
> > people
> > > > > have a handheld so they can switch vehicles and take the GPS with
> > them.
> > > A
> > > > > factory spare tire rack that will hold a 35" tire would be nice
too.
> > > > >
> > > > > In all seriousness, this thread brings up an interesting point.
> Years
> > > ago,
> > > > > the auto makers used to listen to feedback from the public as to
> what
> > > they
> > > > > wanted their vehicles to be equipped with. The was very obvious in
> the
> > > > > muscle car days, when people were buying the cars that were
winning
> on
> > > the
> > > > > drag strip and in NASCAR. These days we get more options that are
> made
> > > for
> > > > > soccer moms then we do for functionality. Does a 4x4 really need a
> > built
> > > > in
> > > > > DVD player in the back seat, or an in dash camera to use for
backing
> > up
> > > > > without hitting something? I guess my point is that if you can't
> back
> > up
> > > a
> > > > > vehicle without an in dash camera to show you the way, then get
the
> > hell
> > > > off
> > > > > the road.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know some of these ideas may seem far fetched, but there would
be
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > people willing to pay a bit more for something like this because
it
> > > would
> > > > > save them modifying the vehicle later on. Most companies offer
> option
> > > > > packages for some of their vehicles. I guess this would be
something
> > > like
> > > > > the Rubicon package for the Wrangler. It would be a good chance
for
> DC
> > > to
> > > > > set the standard in off road vehicles if they wanted to. It would
> also
> > > > keep
> > > > > the Jeep off road standards a cut above the rest.
> > > > >
> > > > > </dreaming>
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Actually the V6 predated the I6 in Jeeps, so reverting back to one would
still be in keeping with the "Real Jeep" tradition. Making one with the
appropriate low rpm torque peak, now that would be DCs challenge. Who needs
a Jeep with a 7500 rpm redline?

"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:tQqyc.12615$Fd.10016@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Unfortunately, there aren't many of these anymore. I believe the reason is
> that the engines have become narrower in the crankcase area in order to
fit
> the new car designs. The inline 6 lends itself perfectly to a long stroke,
> and it is no surprise that most of the long stroke, smaller bore engines
> have been inlune 6's. The old slant six Mopars, the Chevy 292 I6 and the
> Ford 300-I6 are all good examples. You'll notice that most of the newer
> engines, especially V6's, have their torque peak at a much higher RPM than
> the older engines. For some reason, Chrysler has mostly had relatively
short
> stroke, big bore engines over the years. For instance, the 400 Big Block
> Mopar has a shorter stroke than a 350 Chevy, but has a bigger bore than a
> 454 Chevy. You obviously don't want the bore to be so small that the valve
> sizes need to be compromised.
>
> I guess my "ideal V6 or I6 engine would have about a 3.75" stroke and 4"
> bore with a connecting rod about 6" long to reduce piston thrust on the
> cylinders. The long rod combined with the long stroke is a good part of
the
> reason why the Chrysler slant 6 and the AMC 258 last so long. A short
> connecting rod puts more side thrust loads on the piston which will
> accelerate bore and ring wear. The rod length to stroke ratio is how these
> numbers are usually presented. A good example of a bad design would be the
> 400 Chevy small block. GM basically took the 350 block and overbored it
> .125" (new casting with siamesed cylinders), added .270" to the stroke,
but
> made the rod .135" shorter. These engines were notorious for wearing out
> cylinders and smoking oil because of poor ring seal.
>
> I would then like a cylinder head very similar to the Chevy small block
> Vortec head which makes good power from idle on up. About the closest V6
out
> there is the 4.3 Chevy, but "my engine" would have a longer stroke and
> longer rod. The problem with my idea is that it would require an engine
> slightly wider than the 4.3 to accomodate the longer stroke and rod. It
> wouldn't need to be much, and in fact this engine could be built using the
> current 4.3 block, but would require very short pistons (only 1.125" from
> the pin centerline to the top of the piston). There are off the shelf
> aftermarket pistons that fit this design however. This bore and stroke
would
> be very close to the 4.0 stroker using the 258 crank, but would have a
..125"
> larger bore.
>
> Chris
>
> "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> news:2iui2cFqnus1U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > I guess it also comes down to the saying "Real Jeeps are Built, Not
> Bought".
> > If we weren't strung out all over the U.S and Canada we could pool
> together
> > and build our own aftermarket company.
> >
> > Hey, I can be the company tester. Ha ha.... If it stays together when
I
> > get near it it will sail over the Rubicon. LOL.
> >
> > Anyhoo, what are some examples of a High Liter, Long Stroke engines?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > news:32oyc.12605$Fd.11042@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > I can't speak for the capabilities of the Rubi, but judging by the
> > feedback
> > > I have heard here and elsewhere, it seems to be quite capable
off-road.
> I
> > > guess I was just using that as an example for a "package" type option.
I
> > was
> > > also building the Jeep I wanted, LOL. I would lve to see the leaf
spring
> > > Jeeps come back (i.e. CJ, YJ), but that is not going to happen. Leaf
> > springs
> > > are functional and simple, and don't require track locators, sway
bars,
> > etc.
> > > Ford and Chevy have both done the retro car thing this year, so why
not
> > > Jeep? Good idea Bill.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2iuggsFrbo0eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Well, they just built the Rubicon. If it's so wonderful then why
> change
> > > it
> > > > so fast?
> > > >
> > > > I think simplicity is elegance. So keep it simple. Why not take a
CJ
> > as
> > > a
> > > > base model and beef it up
> > > > with axles, lockers, on board air, currie twin sticks, autometer
> gauges,
> > > 4"
> > > > lift, 33" tires, engine/transmission of choice, etc, etc, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It'll never happen which is why the after market for jeeps will get
> > better
> > > > and better. Probably the only way we'll have what we want in the
> future
> > > is
> > > > by mail order kit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:MHnyc.12594$Fd.4688@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cacijv02q3i@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > > > > Ok, I got an idea. Let's design our own TJ replacement! Everyone
> > toss
> > > in
> > > > > > their ideas anmd let's see what we come up with. Here's my
> thoughts
> > to
> > > > > > begin:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Styling to reflect traditional Jeep themes, grille, fenders,
etc.
> > Two
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > models, short & long wheelbase. 4cyl, 6cyl & V8 options. Solid
> axles
> > > > front
> > > > > &
> > > > > > rear, Dana 44 rear axle standard, no D35 option (kill the
curse).
> > > Expand
> > > > > on
> > > > > > current coil over design w/ refinements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four basic trim levels on SWB, two on LWB.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SWB: Base model (bare bones), rubber floor mats, minimal trim,
> > however
> > > > > > available with all upgraded powertrain options incl. 4:1 xfer
> case,
> > > D44
> > > > > > front axle, V8, etc. (This one would be great for builders.)
Sport
> &
> > > > Shara
> > > > > > as current. Rubicon High Performance model (same as current), to
> > incl.
> > > > V8
> > > > > > option w D60 rear axle upgrade.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LWB: Sport & Rubicon options as above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, since I like engines, I'll start there. Not sure if a V6 or
> inline
> > 6
> > > > > would fit the bill better, but I would like to see an engine with
a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > grunt. Something in the high 4 to low 5 litre range with a long
> > stroke,
> > > > high
> > > > > flowing heads, tubular exhaust manifolds (headers) that don't
crack.
> > > This
> > > > > would be the standard engine. There should be 2 V8 options
including
> > the
> > > > 5.7
> > > > > Hemi. The other one could be a bit more docile and fuel efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Transmissions - 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto with overdrive.
Even
> a
> > 6
> > > > > speed with the Hemi would be really cool, but I think the length
> might
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > problem there. In any event, the trans should have a low first
gear
> > (at
> > > > > least 3:1).
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of D44's as standard axles with a D60 upgrade.
Both
> > > should
> > > > > be available with multiple ratios. I also like the 4:1 transfer
> case.
> > > the
> > > > > axles should be available with some type of locker that can be
> > > controlled
> > > > > from the dash (electric or air), 4 wheel disc brakes with
anti-lock
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > be disabled for serious off roading.
> > > > >
> > > > > Long travel coil-over shock suspension using a triangulated 3 link
> > setup
> > > > > with adjustable shocks. If this was done right, the stock Jeep
could
> > be
> > > > > supplied with 30 or 31" tires, and be capable of 33s or "maybe"
35s
> > with
> > > > > just a spring change. The aftermarket does this, so the factory
> should
> > > be
> > > > > able to without a problem. I'm sure this won't happen, but it
should
> > > keep
> > > > > the Wrangler as one of the top factory off road vehicles.
> > > > >
> > > > > An option that may be neat would be onboard GPS, but I think most
> > people
> > > > > have a handheld so they can switch vehicles and take the GPS with
> > them.
> > > A
> > > > > factory spare tire rack that will hold a 35" tire would be nice
too.
> > > > >
> > > > > In all seriousness, this thread brings up an interesting point.
> Years
> > > ago,
> > > > > the auto makers used to listen to feedback from the public as to
> what
> > > they
> > > > > wanted their vehicles to be equipped with. The was very obvious in
> the
> > > > > muscle car days, when people were buying the cars that were
winning
> on
> > > the
> > > > > drag strip and in NASCAR. These days we get more options that are
> made
> > > for
> > > > > soccer moms then we do for functionality. Does a 4x4 really need a
> > built
> > > > in
> > > > > DVD player in the back seat, or an in dash camera to use for
backing
> > up
> > > > > without hitting something? I guess my point is that if you can't
> back
> > up
> > > a
> > > > > vehicle without an in dash camera to show you the way, then get
the
> > hell
> > > > off
> > > > > the road.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know some of these ideas may seem far fetched, but there would
be
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > people willing to pay a bit more for something like this because
it
> > > would
> > > > > save them modifying the vehicle later on. Most companies offer
> option
> > > > > packages for some of their vehicles. I guess this would be
something
> > > like
> > > > > the Rubicon package for the Wrangler. It would be a good chance
for
> DC
> > > to
> > > > > set the standard in off road vehicles if they wanted to. It would
> also
> > > > keep
> > > > > the Jeep off road standards a cut above the rest.
> > > > >
> > > > > </dreaming>
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Actually the V6 predated the I6 in Jeeps, so reverting back to one would
still be in keeping with the "Real Jeep" tradition. Making one with the
appropriate low rpm torque peak, now that would be DCs challenge. Who needs
a Jeep with a 7500 rpm redline?

"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:tQqyc.12615$Fd.10016@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Unfortunately, there aren't many of these anymore. I believe the reason is
> that the engines have become narrower in the crankcase area in order to
fit
> the new car designs. The inline 6 lends itself perfectly to a long stroke,
> and it is no surprise that most of the long stroke, smaller bore engines
> have been inlune 6's. The old slant six Mopars, the Chevy 292 I6 and the
> Ford 300-I6 are all good examples. You'll notice that most of the newer
> engines, especially V6's, have their torque peak at a much higher RPM than
> the older engines. For some reason, Chrysler has mostly had relatively
short
> stroke, big bore engines over the years. For instance, the 400 Big Block
> Mopar has a shorter stroke than a 350 Chevy, but has a bigger bore than a
> 454 Chevy. You obviously don't want the bore to be so small that the valve
> sizes need to be compromised.
>
> I guess my "ideal V6 or I6 engine would have about a 3.75" stroke and 4"
> bore with a connecting rod about 6" long to reduce piston thrust on the
> cylinders. The long rod combined with the long stroke is a good part of
the
> reason why the Chrysler slant 6 and the AMC 258 last so long. A short
> connecting rod puts more side thrust loads on the piston which will
> accelerate bore and ring wear. The rod length to stroke ratio is how these
> numbers are usually presented. A good example of a bad design would be the
> 400 Chevy small block. GM basically took the 350 block and overbored it
> .125" (new casting with siamesed cylinders), added .270" to the stroke,
but
> made the rod .135" shorter. These engines were notorious for wearing out
> cylinders and smoking oil because of poor ring seal.
>
> I would then like a cylinder head very similar to the Chevy small block
> Vortec head which makes good power from idle on up. About the closest V6
out
> there is the 4.3 Chevy, but "my engine" would have a longer stroke and
> longer rod. The problem with my idea is that it would require an engine
> slightly wider than the 4.3 to accomodate the longer stroke and rod. It
> wouldn't need to be much, and in fact this engine could be built using the
> current 4.3 block, but would require very short pistons (only 1.125" from
> the pin centerline to the top of the piston). There are off the shelf
> aftermarket pistons that fit this design however. This bore and stroke
would
> be very close to the 4.0 stroker using the 258 crank, but would have a
..125"
> larger bore.
>
> Chris
>
> "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> news:2iui2cFqnus1U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > I guess it also comes down to the saying "Real Jeeps are Built, Not
> Bought".
> > If we weren't strung out all over the U.S and Canada we could pool
> together
> > and build our own aftermarket company.
> >
> > Hey, I can be the company tester. Ha ha.... If it stays together when
I
> > get near it it will sail over the Rubicon. LOL.
> >
> > Anyhoo, what are some examples of a High Liter, Long Stroke engines?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > news:32oyc.12605$Fd.11042@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > I can't speak for the capabilities of the Rubi, but judging by the
> > feedback
> > > I have heard here and elsewhere, it seems to be quite capable
off-road.
> I
> > > guess I was just using that as an example for a "package" type option.
I
> > was
> > > also building the Jeep I wanted, LOL. I would lve to see the leaf
spring
> > > Jeeps come back (i.e. CJ, YJ), but that is not going to happen. Leaf
> > springs
> > > are functional and simple, and don't require track locators, sway
bars,
> > etc.
> > > Ford and Chevy have both done the retro car thing this year, so why
not
> > > Jeep? Good idea Bill.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > "William Oliveri" <wuji@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2iuggsFrbo0eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Well, they just built the Rubicon. If it's so wonderful then why
> change
> > > it
> > > > so fast?
> > > >
> > > > I think simplicity is elegance. So keep it simple. Why not take a
CJ
> > as
> > > a
> > > > base model and beef it up
> > > > with axles, lockers, on board air, currie twin sticks, autometer
> gauges,
> > > 4"
> > > > lift, 33" tires, engine/transmission of choice, etc, etc, etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It'll never happen which is why the after market for jeeps will get
> > better
> > > > and better. Probably the only way we'll have what we want in the
> future
> > > is
> > > > by mail order kit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:MHnyc.12594$Fd.4688@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jerry McG" <gmcgeorge.remove@frontier.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cacijv02q3i@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > > > > Ok, I got an idea. Let's design our own TJ replacement! Everyone
> > toss
> > > in
> > > > > > their ideas anmd let's see what we come up with. Here's my
> thoughts
> > to
> > > > > > begin:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Styling to reflect traditional Jeep themes, grille, fenders,
etc.
> > Two
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > models, short & long wheelbase. 4cyl, 6cyl & V8 options. Solid
> axles
> > > > front
> > > > > &
> > > > > > rear, Dana 44 rear axle standard, no D35 option (kill the
curse).
> > > Expand
> > > > > on
> > > > > > current coil over design w/ refinements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Four basic trim levels on SWB, two on LWB.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SWB: Base model (bare bones), rubber floor mats, minimal trim,
> > however
> > > > > > available with all upgraded powertrain options incl. 4:1 xfer
> case,
> > > D44
> > > > > > front axle, V8, etc. (This one would be great for builders.)
Sport
> &
> > > > Shara
> > > > > > as current. Rubicon High Performance model (same as current), to
> > incl.
> > > > V8
> > > > > > option w D60 rear axle upgrade.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LWB: Sport & Rubicon options as above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, since I like engines, I'll start there. Not sure if a V6 or
> inline
> > 6
> > > > > would fit the bill better, but I would like to see an engine with
a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > grunt. Something in the high 4 to low 5 litre range with a long
> > stroke,
> > > > high
> > > > > flowing heads, tubular exhaust manifolds (headers) that don't
crack.
> > > This
> > > > > would be the standard engine. There should be 2 V8 options
including
> > the
> > > > 5.7
> > > > > Hemi. The other one could be a bit more docile and fuel efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Transmissions - 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto with overdrive.
Even
> a
> > 6
> > > > > speed with the Hemi would be really cool, but I think the length
> might
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > problem there. In any event, the trans should have a low first
gear
> > (at
> > > > > least 3:1).
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of D44's as standard axles with a D60 upgrade.
Both
> > > should
> > > > > be available with multiple ratios. I also like the 4:1 transfer
> case.
> > > the
> > > > > axles should be available with some type of locker that can be
> > > controlled
> > > > > from the dash (electric or air), 4 wheel disc brakes with
anti-lock
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > be disabled for serious off roading.
> > > > >
> > > > > Long travel coil-over shock suspension using a triangulated 3 link
> > setup
> > > > > with adjustable shocks. If this was done right, the stock Jeep
could
> > be
> > > > > supplied with 30 or 31" tires, and be capable of 33s or "maybe"
35s
> > with
> > > > > just a spring change. The aftermarket does this, so the factory
> should
> > > be
> > > > > able to without a problem. I'm sure this won't happen, but it
should
> > > keep
> > > > > the Wrangler as one of the top factory off road vehicles.
> > > > >
> > > > > An option that may be neat would be onboard GPS, but I think most
> > people
> > > > > have a handheld so they can switch vehicles and take the GPS with
> > them.
> > > A
> > > > > factory spare tire rack that will hold a 35" tire would be nice
too.
> > > > >
> > > > > In all seriousness, this thread brings up an interesting point.
> Years
> > > ago,
> > > > > the auto makers used to listen to feedback from the public as to
> what
> > > they
> > > > > wanted their vehicles to be equipped with. The was very obvious in
> the
> > > > > muscle car days, when people were buying the cars that were
winning
> on
> > > the
> > > > > drag strip and in NASCAR. These days we get more options that are
> made
> > > for
> > > > > soccer moms then we do for functionality. Does a 4x4 really need a
> > built
> > > > in
> > > > > DVD player in the back seat, or an in dash camera to use for
backing
> > up
> > > > > without hitting something? I guess my point is that if you can't
> back
> > up
> > > a
> > > > > vehicle without an in dash camera to show you the way, then get
the
> > hell
> > > > off
> > > > > the road.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know some of these ideas may seem far fetched, but there would
be
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > people willing to pay a bit more for something like this because
it
> > > would
> > > > > save them modifying the vehicle later on. Most companies offer
> option
> > > > > packages for some of their vehicles. I guess this would be
something
> > > like
> > > > > the Rubicon package for the Wrangler. It would be a good chance
for
> DC
> > > to
> > > > > set the standard in off road vehicles if they wanted to. It would
> also
> > > > keep
> > > > > the Jeep off road standards a cut above the rest.
> > > > >
> > > > > </dreaming>
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.


B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

 

Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.


B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

 

Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.


B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

 

Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.


B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

 

Some had Over Head Cam engines: http://my.execpc.com/~rstewart/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Brian wrote:
>
> Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.

 

Some had Over Head Cam engines: http://my.execpc.com/~rstewart/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Brian wrote:
>
> Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.

 

Some had Over Head Cam engines: http://my.execpc.com/~rstewart/
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Brian wrote:
>
> Real Jeeps had four-cylinder engines.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.