4.0L vs. 3.7L
07-05-2006, 04:49 PM
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
>
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?
>
07-05-2006, 04:49 PM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
>
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?
>
07-05-2006, 09:54 PM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
On 3 Jul 2006 21:16:15 -0700, "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
07-05-2006, 09:54 PM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
On 3 Jul 2006 21:16:15 -0700, "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
07-05-2006, 09:54 PM
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
On 3 Jul 2006 21:16:15 -0700, "JeepXJ" <xj2001jeep@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
>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?
You found out wrong - the '07 Wranglers are equipped with a 3.8L V-6
here's a link: http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/wrangler.html
This is a longitudinal version of the Mini-van pushrod 2 valve /
cylinder V-6.
Despite my love and respect for the 4.0 in-line motor I think this one
is a proven design with a good track record... more than a few million
have been delivered in Mini-vans. My wife's last two Mini-vans were
so equipped and they are torquey (even off-idle) smooth running
engines.
In addition to the business reasons given in various replies a strong
reason for the V-6 is its shorter length giving room for better crash
performance without increasing wheelbase (without intruding into the
passenger compartment because of it's length).
reboot
07-05-2006, 09:56 PM
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Noneyabusiness proclaimed:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
07-05-2006, 09:56 PM
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Noneyabusiness proclaimed:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
07-05-2006, 09:56 PM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
Noneyabusiness proclaimed:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:07:50 -0400, "Matt Macchiarolo"
> <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>>
>
> How 'bout a Wankel in your Wrangler?
> <g>
Much rather have a high torque engine such as a turbine or steam.
Unless you gear the typical gasoline Wankel to about 6:1, the torque can
best be described as wishful thinking. Or you could poke around for the
1100 Hp Ingersoll Rand Wankel or see if any of the two-stage diesel
Wankel tank engines are available--presuming they wouldn't turn your
drive shafts into wound up rubber bands.
07-06-2006, 07:58 AM
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
I LOVE the fact that they have this engine! Altho I'll miss that
traditional Jeep I-6 4.0 chugg it used to make, (I owned 4 of them) I
still have my 4.2 CJ-7 to keep me comforted while driving around town.
If I had all the cash in the world, I'd yank the 3.7 and drop that 4.7
in it in a minute!
Think of all that low end power torque and all those horses. You'd
probly be able to break that coveted 103 mph! (At least that's all my
2000 Sport could muster)
traditional Jeep I-6 4.0 chugg it used to make, (I owned 4 of them) I
still have my 4.2 CJ-7 to keep me comforted while driving around town.
If I had all the cash in the world, I'd yank the 3.7 and drop that 4.7
in it in a minute!
Think of all that low end power torque and all those horses. You'd
probly be able to break that coveted 103 mph! (At least that's all my
2000 Sport could muster)
07-06-2006, 07:58 AM
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4.0L vs. 3.7L
I LOVE the fact that they have this engine! Altho I'll miss that
traditional Jeep I-6 4.0 chugg it used to make, (I owned 4 of them) I
still have my 4.2 CJ-7 to keep me comforted while driving around town.
If I had all the cash in the world, I'd yank the 3.7 and drop that 4.7
in it in a minute!
Think of all that low end power torque and all those horses. You'd
probly be able to break that coveted 103 mph! (At least that's all my
2000 Sport could muster)
traditional Jeep I-6 4.0 chugg it used to make, (I owned 4 of them) I
still have my 4.2 CJ-7 to keep me comforted while driving around town.
If I had all the cash in the world, I'd yank the 3.7 and drop that 4.7
in it in a minute!
Think of all that low end power torque and all those horses. You'd
probly be able to break that coveted 103 mph! (At least that's all my
2000 Sport could muster)