|
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think
the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to check. Thanks! Dave Milne wrote: > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > Dave Milne, Scotland > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > to crawl it over boulders? |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think
the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to check. Thanks! Dave Milne wrote: > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > Dave Milne, Scotland > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > to crawl it over boulders? |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think
the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to check. Thanks! Dave Milne wrote: > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > Dave Milne, Scotland > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > to crawl it over boulders? |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
"Commotion". "Aficionado".
The Rubicon would be overkill for most situations, but you might get stuck someday, and the logos are always good for posing. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > Matt and Jeff, > WOW! Didn't mean to cause such a comotion (did I spell that right?) > Anyway, I am not an engine aficianado (did I spell that one right, > too?) BUT love the Wrangler and my luck with the I-6... I want both... > so I guess I will be considering a 05 or 06 Rubicon come next spring. > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > to crawl it over boulders? > > Thanks for your responses... it's awesome to see such passion! But > can't we all just get along???? Later guys! > > By the way, thanks for setting me straight about the exact engine that > is going in the truck... > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > Yep. That said, we do own a vehicle with seat heaters and a DVD. But it > > doesn't have 20" rims and it has a deisel V-8. > > > > "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:MKEqg.39079$R26.36912@tornado.southeast.rr.co m... > > > Sad but true. > > > > > > Jeff DeWitt > > > > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > >> If everyone why buys cars knows anything about engines, the Liberty would > > >> sell about 500 units a year. Unfortunately most people buy cars don't > > >> necessarily buy them for what engine it has, unless there is a specific > > >> need (towing, high-speed performance, etc). For the vast majority of > > >> people, whether or not car has seat heaters, 20" factory rims and a DVD > > >> player for the brats is more important than the cylinder arrangement. Sad > > >> but true. > > >> > > >>>People who known anything about engines. > > >>> > > >>>Jeff DeWitt > > >> > > >> > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
"Commotion". "Aficionado".
The Rubicon would be overkill for most situations, but you might get stuck someday, and the logos are always good for posing. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > Matt and Jeff, > WOW! Didn't mean to cause such a comotion (did I spell that right?) > Anyway, I am not an engine aficianado (did I spell that one right, > too?) BUT love the Wrangler and my luck with the I-6... I want both... > so I guess I will be considering a 05 or 06 Rubicon come next spring. > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > to crawl it over boulders? > > Thanks for your responses... it's awesome to see such passion! But > can't we all just get along???? Later guys! > > By the way, thanks for setting me straight about the exact engine that > is going in the truck... > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > Yep. That said, we do own a vehicle with seat heaters and a DVD. But it > > doesn't have 20" rims and it has a deisel V-8. > > > > "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:MKEqg.39079$R26.36912@tornado.southeast.rr.co m... > > > Sad but true. > > > > > > Jeff DeWitt > > > > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > >> If everyone why buys cars knows anything about engines, the Liberty would > > >> sell about 500 units a year. Unfortunately most people buy cars don't > > >> necessarily buy them for what engine it has, unless there is a specific > > >> need (towing, high-speed performance, etc). For the vast majority of > > >> people, whether or not car has seat heaters, 20" factory rims and a DVD > > >> player for the brats is more important than the cylinder arrangement. Sad > > >> but true. > > >> > > >>>People who known anything about engines. > > >>> > > >>>Jeff DeWitt > > >> > > >> > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
"Commotion". "Aficionado".
The Rubicon would be overkill for most situations, but you might get stuck someday, and the logos are always good for posing. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > Matt and Jeff, > WOW! Didn't mean to cause such a comotion (did I spell that right?) > Anyway, I am not an engine aficianado (did I spell that one right, > too?) BUT love the Wrangler and my luck with the I-6... I want both... > so I guess I will be considering a 05 or 06 Rubicon come next spring. > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > to crawl it over boulders? > > Thanks for your responses... it's awesome to see such passion! But > can't we all just get along???? Later guys! > > By the way, thanks for setting me straight about the exact engine that > is going in the truck... > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > Yep. That said, we do own a vehicle with seat heaters and a DVD. But it > > doesn't have 20" rims and it has a deisel V-8. > > > > "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:MKEqg.39079$R26.36912@tornado.southeast.rr.co m... > > > Sad but true. > > > > > > Jeff DeWitt > > > > > > Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > >> If everyone why buys cars knows anything about engines, the Liberty would > > >> sell about 500 units a year. Unfortunately most people buy cars don't > > >> necessarily buy them for what engine it has, unless there is a specific > > >> need (towing, high-speed performance, etc). For the vast majority of > > >> people, whether or not car has seat heaters, 20" factory rims and a DVD > > >> player for the brats is more important than the cylinder arrangement. Sad > > >> but true. > > >> > > >>>People who known anything about engines. > > >>> > > >>>Jeff DeWitt > > >> > > >> > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Numerically lower gear ratios can be bad for highway and off road use both.
A 3.07 with the 4.0l can get you out of the power band at highway speeds, especially if you spend too much time in 5th or 4th gear in some settings. It can even get you out of the economy band, which is about 80% of the power band. What people call "lugging" just wastes fuel and causes excessive engine wear. Despite what many people think, fuel economy does not automatically go up, as engine speed goes down. Off road, it can leave you with no gear low enough for the tight spots. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152109579.071080.20570@j8g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com... > Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think > the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to > check. Thanks! > > Dave Milne wrote: > > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > > > Dave Milne, Scotland > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > > to crawl it over boulders? > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Numerically lower gear ratios can be bad for highway and off road use both.
A 3.07 with the 4.0l can get you out of the power band at highway speeds, especially if you spend too much time in 5th or 4th gear in some settings. It can even get you out of the economy band, which is about 80% of the power band. What people call "lugging" just wastes fuel and causes excessive engine wear. Despite what many people think, fuel economy does not automatically go up, as engine speed goes down. Off road, it can leave you with no gear low enough for the tight spots. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152109579.071080.20570@j8g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com... > Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think > the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to > check. Thanks! > > Dave Milne wrote: > > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > > > Dave Milne, Scotland > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > > to crawl it over boulders? > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Numerically lower gear ratios can be bad for highway and off road use both.
A 3.07 with the 4.0l can get you out of the power band at highway speeds, especially if you spend too much time in 5th or 4th gear in some settings. It can even get you out of the economy band, which is about 80% of the power band. What people call "lugging" just wastes fuel and causes excessive engine wear. Despite what many people think, fuel economy does not automatically go up, as engine speed goes down. Off road, it can leave you with no gear low enough for the tight spots. Earle "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152109579.071080.20570@j8g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com... > Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think > the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to > check. Thanks! > > Dave Milne wrote: > > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > > > Dave Milne, Scotland > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > > to crawl it over boulders? > |
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
The 3.07 ratio with stock ~29 inch tyres means that you are doing about 2000
revs at 75 mph in 5th Consequently, you are always having to change down to go up even moderate hills on the motorway, and which rather takes the edge of cruise control. If you go to 31s, you are doing ~ 2200 rpm at ~70 in 4th which works a lot better - however this means you go down steep hills offroad a bit faster than you would like. Better off with the 3.73 ratio or the 4.10 with 31s as the Rubicon has. Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152109579.071080.20570@j8g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com... > Can you elaborate more about the downside of the 3.07 ratio? I think > the 65th anniversary edition has the Dana 44 in it. I will have to > check. Thanks! > > Dave Milne wrote: > > Quite possibly, but if you aren't going to get a Rubicon, do get a TJ with > > the Dana 44 rear end, and avoid the 3.07 ratio > > > > Dave Milne, Scotland > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ > > "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1152072420.197416.294290@a14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > > > > > In your opinions, is the Rubicon overkill for someone who isn't going > > > to crawl it over boulders? > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands