Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> 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
>
Although "not a real Jeep" the WW2 Sherman Tank was equipped with
several radial engines. One was even a diesel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank

But, do you think DC would even consider it? After all they have a
selection of Panzer engines to choose from. :-)

--
FRH

 

Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> 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
>
Although "not a real Jeep" the WW2 Sherman Tank was equipped with
several radial engines. One was even a diesel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank

But, do you think DC would even consider it? After all they have a
selection of Panzer engines to choose from. :-)

--
FRH

 

Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> 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
>
Although "not a real Jeep" the WW2 Sherman Tank was equipped with
several radial engines. One was even a diesel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank

But, do you think DC would even consider it? After all they have a
selection of Panzer engines to choose from. :-)

--
FRH

 

Never been a fan of fours, inline or otherwise, however a straight eight
is pretty cool <G>

Jeff DeWitt

Earle Horton wrote:
> 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.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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

 

Never been a fan of fours, inline or otherwise, however a straight eight
is pretty cool <G>

Jeff DeWitt

Earle Horton wrote:
> 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.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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

 

Never been a fan of fours, inline or otherwise, however a straight eight
is pretty cool <G>

Jeff DeWitt

Earle Horton wrote:
> 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.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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

 

>
> The alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
> engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good.

Many CJ's were equipped with Buick V6's way before minivans were around.

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!
>
All Joe Q. Public cares about is eight cylinders are "better" than six. Who
cares how the cylinders are arranged?

 

>
> The alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
> engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good.

Many CJ's were equipped with Buick V6's way before minivans were around.

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!
>
All Joe Q. Public cares about is eight cylinders are "better" than six. Who
cares how the cylinders are arranged?

 

>
> The alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
> engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good.

Many CJ's were equipped with Buick V6's way before minivans were around.

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!
>
All Joe Q. Public cares about is eight cylinders are "better" than six. Who
cares how the cylinders are arranged?

 

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>The alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan
>>engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good.
>
>
> Many CJ's were equipped with Buick V6's way before minivans were around.

Yep, and it was replaced with the straight six for good reason... well
two good reasons, one being that GM bought the V6 back.
>
> 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!
>>
>
> All Joe Q. Public cares about is eight cylinders are "better" than six. Who
> cares how the cylinders are arranged?

People who known anything about engines.

Jeff DeWitt