Yep, my wife's 04 WJ was the last year for the I-6 too and she bought it
becaues of the I-6, Tried and True.
Coasty

"Carl" <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bO6dnT09Sco7HUzenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It might be old, but it's tried and true and has never let me down.
>
> Carl
>
>
> <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HdKdndsXBdjI-0zeRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>> It sounds terrific to me. And don't count out the V-6 unitl you try it.
>> It has MORE TORQUE and horsepower than the old, inefficient AMC I-6 which
>> has seen better days. (I'm running for cover now!!!)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:8_cAf.14992$V.2127@fed1read04...
>>> Only one or two minor dislikes like the new V6 engine. However, I've
>>> read up on it pretty thoroughly and it's every bit the Wrangler as any
>>> previous Wrangler was. Lots of improvments like the electronically
>>> actuated front antiswaybar. If it wouldn't take me the same nine years
>>> to get it to the level of my current Wrangler, I'd spring for one. It
>>> could have been a lot worse, it could have had the better riding but
>>> worse performing offroad IFS that so many feared.
>>>
>>> jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone
>>>> formed any opinions yet??
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jerry Bransford
>>> PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>> See the Geezer Jeep at
>>> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>>
>>
>
>

 

I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.

If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.

What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)

Jerry

my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>
>
> Chad
> 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.

If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.

What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)

Jerry

my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>
>
> Chad
> 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.

If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.

What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)

Jerry

my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>
>
> Chad
> 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Not a good pic, I'm afraid, but enough to prove your point.

http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...0/graph-SC.gif

Dave Milne, Scotland


"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
> I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
> and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
> 5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
> and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
> has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
> with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
> buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> > is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> > Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> > http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
> >
> >
> > Chad
> > 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
> >
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Not a good pic, I'm afraid, but enough to prove your point.

http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...0/graph-SC.gif

Dave Milne, Scotland


"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
> I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
> and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
> 5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
> and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
> has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
> with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
> buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> > is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> > Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> > http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
> >
> >
> > Chad
> > 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
> >
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

Not a good pic, I'm afraid, but enough to prove your point.

http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...0/graph-SC.gif

Dave Milne, Scotland


"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
> I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve
> and it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly
> 5,000 RPMs. It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs
> and it's all above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
> has good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live
> with that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to
> buy) but I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
> > is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
> > Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
> > http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
> >
> >
> > Chad
> > 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
> >
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
engine.



"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
RPMs.
>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has
> good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
> that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
but
> I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>
>>
>> Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
engine.



"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
RPMs.
>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has
> good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
> that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
but
> I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>
>>
>> Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

 

A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
engine.



"Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
RPMs.
>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>
> If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
> developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
> very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
> the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
> nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
> it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
> government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
> offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
> characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>
> What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
has
> good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
> that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
but
> I wouldn't like it. :)
>
> Jerry
>
> my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>> is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>> Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>> http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>
>>
>> Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>
>
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> PP-ASEL N6TAY
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/