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.
>
>

 

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.
>
>

 

Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it.
Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.
>
> 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.
>>

 

Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it.
Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.
>
> 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.
>>

 

Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it.
Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.
>
> 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.
>>

 

> 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.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

>
> 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.
>

See what you wrote above. Why would they kill it if there is almost no R&D
investment to make up, and why invest in new R&D when you have several new
engines that already meet the necessary standards? You think it's a personal
decision on the part of DC, but it's a business decision, the details of
which the average you and me are usually not privy to.

> 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.
>
Because.....(see above).

Am I sad the I-6 is dead? Sure. Do I understand why? Of course. Let's be
honest, most Jeep customers don't give a ---- whether the Wrangler engine is
an I-6, a V-6 or a radial.

 

> 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.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

>
> 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.
>

See what you wrote above. Why would they kill it if there is almost no R&D
investment to make up, and why invest in new R&D when you have several new
engines that already meet the necessary standards? You think it's a personal
decision on the part of DC, but it's a business decision, the details of
which the average you and me are usually not privy to.

> 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.
>
Because.....(see above).

Am I sad the I-6 is dead? Sure. Do I understand why? Of course. Let's be
honest, most Jeep customers don't give a ---- whether the Wrangler engine is
an I-6, a V-6 or a radial.

 

> 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.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

>
> 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.
>

See what you wrote above. Why would they kill it if there is almost no R&D
investment to make up, and why invest in new R&D when you have several new
engines that already meet the necessary standards? You think it's a personal
decision on the part of DC, but it's a business decision, the details of
which the average you and me are usually not privy to.

> 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.
>
Because.....(see above).

Am I sad the I-6 is dead? Sure. Do I understand why? Of course. Let's be
honest, most Jeep customers don't give a ---- whether the Wrangler engine is
an I-6, a V-6 or a radial.

 

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it.
> Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.

When Chrysler took over AMC they issued an order to all the dealers to
return any AMC parts they had. Those parts were then crushed, no doubt
there was some business reason for it (probably a tax reason), but it
was still a really bad decision.

I don't imagine the order applied to Jeep parts, but if you need a NOS
taillight lens for a 74 Gremlin forget it.

Jeff DeWitt
>
>>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.co m...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>
>

 

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it.
> Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.

When Chrysler took over AMC they issued an order to all the dealers to
return any AMC parts they had. Those parts were then crushed, no doubt
there was some business reason for it (probably a tax reason), but it
was still a really bad decision.

I don't imagine the order applied to Jeep parts, but if you need a NOS
taillight lens for a 74 Gremlin forget it.

Jeff DeWitt
>
>>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.co m...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>
>