2007 Wrangler???
01-21-2006, 11:13 AM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
01-21-2006, 11:13 AM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
01-21-2006, 11:13 AM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed any
>opinions yet??
The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
direction?
01-21-2006, 12:05 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
The track ("stance") is 3 1/2" wider (!), and the wheelbase is 2" longer.
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
01-21-2006, 12:05 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
The track ("stance") is 3 1/2" wider (!), and the wheelbase is 2" longer.
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
01-21-2006, 12:05 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
The track ("stance") is 3 1/2" wider (!), and the wheelbase is 2" longer.
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
"M. E. Bye" <fxdyna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:man4t1d8caelv3cqrjaeff1u79ukk4eu1m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:37:12 -0500, <jcarter10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>There's plenty of information on Jeep.com about it. So has anyone formed
>>any
>>opinions yet??
>
> The website seems to indicate that it has a wider stance and longer
> wheelbase than its predecessor. Anyone know how much in each
> direction?
>
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 593 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
01-21-2006, 02:59 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
And your point is?
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>
>>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
>
> RPMs.
>
>>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>>
>>If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
>>developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
>>very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
>>the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
>>nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
>>it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
>>government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
>>offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
>>characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>>
>>What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
>
> has
>
>>good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
>>that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
>
> but
>
>>I wouldn't like it. :)
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>>>Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Jerry Bransford
>>PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>See the Geezer Jeep at
>>http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$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/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
01-21-2006, 02:59 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
And your point is?
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>
>>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
>
> RPMs.
>
>>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>>
>>If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
>>developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
>>very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
>>the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
>>nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
>>it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
>>government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
>>offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
>>characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>>
>>What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
>
> has
>
>>good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
>>that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
>
> but
>
>>I wouldn't like it. :)
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>>>Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Jerry Bransford
>>PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>See the Geezer Jeep at
>>http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$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/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
01-21-2006, 02:59 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
And your point is?
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$V.5237@fed1read04...
>
>>I don't have a link but I do have a copy of the 4.0L I-6 torque curve and
>>it shows 210 ft-lbs. at just 1200 RPMs all the way up to nearly 5,000
>
> RPMs.
>
>>It's pretty flat between 1200 RPMs to just under 5000 RPMs and it's all
>>above 210 ft-lbs at all RPMs between them.
>>
>>If you look at that 3.8 chart, you'll see what I mean about the V6 not
>>developing that kind of torque until around 2300 or so RPMs and it's a
>>very "peaky" curve, not even close to the relative flat torque curve of
>>the 4.0L. Below that RPM, the V6's chart shows the torque takes a
>>nose-dive. This is why the 4.0L is such a superb engine for offroading,
>>it's flat torque curve that starts at just above idle RPM. Too bad the
>>government made it difficult enough that Jeep had to drop the ideal
>>offroading engine in favor of one with less than ideal torque
>>characteristics that are way less suitable for offroading.
>>
>>What I don't understand is how GM could develop a new inline-six that
>
> has
>
>>good low-end torque and Jeep can't. I could probabl learn to live with
>>that new V6 if I were to buy a new 2007 (which I have no plans to buy)
>
> but
>
>>I wouldn't like it. :)
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>my02tj@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>is it the same 3.8 that has been in the minivan?
>>>Here's a link to atorque curve from the 2002 3.8 I found:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/powercurves.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>Chad 04 LJ 3" BDS 33's etc...
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Jerry Bransford
>>PP-ASEL N6TAY
>>See the Geezer Jeep at
>>http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
> A change in camshafts can DRASTICALLY change the torque curve of ANY
> engine.
>
>
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:vJkAf.15027$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/
>
>
>
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
01-21-2006, 05:51 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2007 Wrangler???
I can't wait to drop it in the California's State Park Anza
Borrego's Pinyon Mountain Trail to Split Mountain ravine. :-)
http://www.sd4wheel.com/Past_Events/STPATMAR02.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
>
> The track ("stance") is 3 1/2" wider (!), and the wheelbase is 2" longer.
Borrego's Pinyon Mountain Trail to Split Mountain ravine. :-)
http://www.sd4wheel.com/Past_Events/STPATMAR02.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jcarter10@comcast.net wrote:
>
> The track ("stance") is 3 1/2" wider (!), and the wheelbase is 2" longer.