the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
is one of the best built out there

Dave Milne wrote:

> I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
> > the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
> > thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
> > 01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
> > 07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
> >

 

the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
is one of the best built out there

Dave Milne wrote:

> I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
> > the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
> > thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
> > 01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
> > 07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
> >

 

the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
is one of the best built out there

Dave Milne wrote:

> I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
> > the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
> > thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
> > 01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
> > 07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
> >

 

It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with AMC.

Jeff DeWitt

philthy wrote:
> the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
> is one of the best built out there
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>>
>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>"JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.google groups.com...
>>
>>>Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
>>>the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
>>>thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
>>>01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
>>>07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
>>>
>
>

 

It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with AMC.

Jeff DeWitt

philthy wrote:
> the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
> is one of the best built out there
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>>
>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>"JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.google groups.com...
>>
>>>Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
>>>the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
>>>thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
>>>01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
>>>07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
>>>
>
>

 

It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with AMC.

Jeff DeWitt

philthy wrote:
> the 4.0 is gone as we speak and i'm still shaking my head as why that engine
> is one of the best built out there
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>
>>I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.
>>
>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>"JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1151986575.311853.215160@b68g2000cwa.google groups.com...
>>
>>>Have just found out that the '07 Wranglers will have the 3.7L and not
>>>the 4.0L inline 6... Can someone confirm this and if so, what are your
>>>thoughts? Any Liberty owners think this is a better engine? I have an
>>>01 XJ and think the 4.0L is great for my uses. I just can't imagine an
>>>07 Rubicon with a 3.7L... is it really the truth?
>>>
>
>

 

"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X%vqg.6136$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do with
> AMC.
>

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to kill
that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.

The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been retooled
many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.

More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing it,
unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
business like a business. Get over it.

 

"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X%vqg.6136$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do with
> AMC.
>

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to kill
that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.

The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been retooled
many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.

More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing it,
unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
business like a business. Get over it.

 

"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:X%vqg.6136$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do with
> AMC.
>

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to kill
that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.

The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been retooled
many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.

More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing it,
unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
business like a business. Get over it.

 

There is a phenomena called "core shift" that effects the kinds of molds
they use to make engine blocks, and as the molds age the shift gets
worse and eventually they have to be remade, which is a rather expensive
proposition.

It's relatively easy to redesign things like manifolds, that's why it's
easy to get manifolds from after market companies like Edelbrock, nuts I
can even get after market manifolds for a Studebaker V8.

There are some other problems with that engine too, as it's design
doesn't lend itself to an easy conversion to a multi valve head, and
that makes meeting fuel economy and emissions standards more difficult.

The fact that no other vehicle in the DC lineup uses the engine isn't so
much a reflection on the engine as it is on DC's determination to kill it.

The 4.0 could have been (should have been) reworked and kept in
production if DC had wanted to, they just didn't want to.

Yes, I got in a gratuitous dig at the DC bureaucrats, but these are the
same idiots who crushed all the NOS AMC parts after taking over AMC and
then let themselves be sold to Damlier, so they are not exactly worthy
of respect.

Jeff DeWitt

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:X%vqg.6136$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
>
>>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
>>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do with
>>AMC.
>>
>
>
> That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to kill
> that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
>
> The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been retooled
> many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
>
> More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing it,
> unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> business like a business. Get over it.
>
>