4.0L vs. 3.7L
07-04-2006, 02:25 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
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.
>>>
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>
>
07-04-2006, 02:33 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
07-04-2006, 02:33 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
07-04-2006, 02:33 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
>>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 alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two
big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station
wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the
time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was
looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next
to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two
differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.
I didn't have to think twice.
>
>
>>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.
I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it
was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to
DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly
a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!
Jeff DeWitt
07-04-2006, 02:36 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Heck the 3.7 is only having till 2011 run. Then it's days are numbered. I'm
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
07-04-2006, 02:36 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Heck the 3.7 is only having till 2011 run. Then it's days are numbered. I'm
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
07-04-2006, 02:36 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Heck the 3.7 is only having till 2011 run. Then it's days are numbered. I'm
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering
there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to
see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would
need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve
train.
"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?
>
07-04-2006, 03:05 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Jeff,
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> >
> >>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> >>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with
> >>AMC.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to
kill
> > that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> > years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
> >
> > The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been
retooled
> > many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
> >
> > More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> > engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing
it,
> > unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> > vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> > only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> > business like a business. Get over it.
> >
> >
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> >
> >>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> >>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with
> >>AMC.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to
kill
> > that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> > years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
> >
> > The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been
retooled
> > many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
> >
> > More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> > engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing
it,
> > unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> > vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> > only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> > business like a business. Get over it.
> >
> >
07-04-2006, 03:05 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Jeff,
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> >
> >>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> >>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with
> >>AMC.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to
kill
> > that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> > years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
> >
> > The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been
retooled
> > many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
> >
> > More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> > engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing
it,
> > unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> > vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> > only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> > business like a business. Get over it.
> >
> >
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> >
> >>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> >>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with
> >>AMC.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to
kill
> > that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> > years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
> >
> > The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been
retooled
> > many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
> >
> > More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> > engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing
it,
> > unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> > vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> > only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> > business like a business. Get over it.
> >
> >
07-04-2006, 03:05 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Jeff,
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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$4c7.631@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> >
> >>It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the
> >>narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do
with
> >>AMC.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to
kill
> > that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen
> > years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.
> >
> > The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been
retooled
> > many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.
> >
> > More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that
> > engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing
it,
> > unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty
> > vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for
> > only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its
> > business like a business. Get over it.
> >
> >
I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than
any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And
where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)
Earle
"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%_wqg.38777$R26.5862@tornado.southeast.rr.com ...
> 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.
> >
> >
