4.0 vs 4.0HO?
06-02-2004, 05:12 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
Why would you want to do that if the engine you have is o.k? I replaced the
screwed '91 HO engine in my YJ last year with a '89 LO engine from a damaged
XJ. I did that because the HO engine is very rare on junk yards here in
Europe. The difference in preformance is like not there. The swap took me a
weekend and I would do it again any time.
--
--
Greetings from the Netherlands,
Bert
web: http://www.lollyteam.tk/ (Dutch)
mail: dutchjeep@hotmail.com
"James Morrow" <tahoejeebs@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:c7c3e39b.0405312257.14003cd0@posting.google.c om...
> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> in advance!
>
> james morrow
screwed '91 HO engine in my YJ last year with a '89 LO engine from a damaged
XJ. I did that because the HO engine is very rare on junk yards here in
Europe. The difference in preformance is like not there. The swap took me a
weekend and I would do it again any time.
--
--
Greetings from the Netherlands,
Bert
web: http://www.lollyteam.tk/ (Dutch)
mail: dutchjeep@hotmail.com
"James Morrow" <tahoejeebs@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:c7c3e39b.0405312257.14003cd0@posting.google.c om...
> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> in advance!
>
> james morrow
06-02-2004, 07:00 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
06-02-2004, 07:00 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
06-02-2004, 07:00 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
06-02-2004, 07:00 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
bllsht wrote:
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
>
> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>
> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>
> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
> flat runs better.
If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
>
> >
> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>
> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
> What's the big difference?
Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
thinking vs yours!
The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
hundred bucks!
You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
'Fail' on an emissions test.
I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
> >
> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
> >more less.
>
> You've done a scientific study on this?
No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
time....
Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
5 years.
I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
Mike
>
> >
> >Mike
> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >James Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
> >> in advance!
> >>
> >> james morrow
06-03-2004, 12:00 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
In message <40BE5C2B.FFAFC3F2@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
06-03-2004, 12:00 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
In message <40BE5C2B.FFAFC3F2@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
06-03-2004, 12:00 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
In message <40BE5C2B.FFAFC3F2@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
06-03-2004, 12:00 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0 vs 4.0HO?
In message <40BE5C2B.FFAFC3F2@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
>bllsht wrote:
>>
>> In message <40BC8CFF.B1FCF625@sympatico.ca>, "Mike Romain" wrote:
>>
>> >Let me get this right.... You are taking a simple fuel injection system
>> >that worked great for years and are wanting to replace it with a bunch
>> >of over complicated, 'really' expensive to fix Chrysler crap??
>>
>> First, I agree. It's not worth it. However, some of the claims you make are
>> just wrong. As far as simple goes, the Chrysler is much simpler than the Frog
>> system, and is much more reliable. Not to mention, the Chrysler system just
>> flat runs better.
>
>If you say so.... My 88 has turned 300K km and runs great.
I'm sure it does. I wasn't saying they run bad, just that the Chrysler
controlled ones run better. Although as far as annoying repeating problems, the
Renix system has many more.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Just things like the emissions light or maint req light. On yours, you
>> >can unplug a module, on the fancy one you 'have' to spend at least
>> >$75.00 to have Chrysler turn it off, etc....
>>
>> You always make such a big deal about this and it's really not even worth
>> worrying about. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend money. On your Renix, you unplug a module. On the Chrysler system, you remove a bulb.
>> What's the big difference?
>
>
>Well there you go, you have 'really' nailed the difference in my
>thinking vs yours!
>
>The big difference is that pesky one hour labor to look at anything!
>Here in Ontario Canada it is $79.00 or $86.00 plus 15% tax! A Cool
>hundred bucks!
Tax on labor? You guys still trying to figure out how to pay for that free
health care? ;-)
>
>You are 'forced' to pay this to reset a stupid timer that is an instant
>'Fail' on an emissions test.
Can't speak on emissions testing anywhere but California, but an illuminated
emissions maintenance reminder isn't cause for a failure. There isn't even a
functional test for it in the inspection procedure.
>
>I mean seriously, how many folks feel competent enough to remove a
>freaking dash board to pull that bulb?
>
>That is a 'major' job if you have never done it before.
Anyone who considers removing four screws in plain sight a 'major' job,
shouldn't be complaining about having to pay to have it done. It's not exactly
rocket science.
>
>Yup, I have issues with stupid crap like that!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Then we can talk gas mileage. The 'fancy' system gets about 5 mpg or
>> >more less.
>>
>> You've done a scientific study on this?
>
>No, I just have seen the new ones post their mileage here and I have had
>them come on 10 day trips with me and we compare fill ups at the same
>time....
>
>Not scientific, but a 'real life' test on 'many' occasions over the last
>5 years.
Too many variables involved to consider taking your claim seriously.
>
>I am always lower for gas used volume in my Cherokee 4.0.
>
>Then if I am in my CJ7 comparing it to the TJ 4.0, well they just can't
>believe it. I get radically better mileage running off road logging
>road trails, 10 liters difference in 200 km usually, let alone my sweet
>19 US mpg or 11L/100km Canadian on the highway. I get a nice 24 US mpg
>in my Cherokee running empty. Fully loaded with 4 adults and camping
>gear, it goes down to 20 mpg or so.
>
>There are a mess of folks from this newsgroup that can confirm this
>because they were the folks I was comparing to. It is no BS, bllsht.
If you say so. The problem is you could drop 5 mpg just by changing drivers.
>
>Mike
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> >88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>> >
>> >James Morrow wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hey everyone! got a question for all you jeep gurus out there... i'm
>> >> sure that someone can answer my question for me. ok, i have an 88
>> >> cherokee with the 4.0 in it. now i remember a while back when i was
>> >> just searching around reading articles someone said that the only
>> >> difference between the regular 4.0 and the high output was the
>> >> computer? the old was made by bendix if i remember right? anyways, in
>> >> the same post i read that when they switched over to the high output
>> >> they offered a mopar upgrade kit to turn the old 4.0 into the HO. i
>> >> went to my local jeep dealership's parts dept to talk to them, and
>> >> they said that they haven't heard of it and if it does exist then it
>> >> was probably made by an aftermarket manufacturer. however, he didn't
>> >> seem like the smartest guy in the world and he didn't even bother to
>> >> look for it so there might be a mopar upgrade. my question is have any
>> >> of you ever heard of this kit? if it is a mopar part do you know the
>> >> product number? if it's aftermarket who makes it? i really want to do
>> >> this. have any of you ever done this before or heard of it being done?
>> >> money isn't too much of a worry so im not too concerned with the cost.
>> >> a friend suggested that i go to a junkyard and pull the computer and
>> >> all the associated wiring of a newer cherokee, but i don't know if
>> >> it's just that simple. any input would be greatly appreciated. thanks
>> >> in advance!
>> >>
>> >> james morrow
