|
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Nathan Collier wrote:
>"GzrGlide" <GzrGlide02@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >news:Uuojb.32214$uz1.51877@news1.mts.net... > > >>Which one would ya like Nate! >> >> > >your expressed opinion on 4 vs. 6 in a post that i can link to. > Ya got mail buddy! Mike |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:16 -0400, travis
<travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:43:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" ><beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > >>Why would you want a 150hp V8 that weighs something like 300 lbs, when you >>can have a 147 hp that weighs in at half that? > >Not that I want to do it anytime soon, but I'm sure the V8 would be >easier to tweak for more power than an I6. Let's not start the >"substitute for cubic inches" battle again, please. Also, the V8 has >a "sound" to its exhaust that a 6 will never be able to match. > HA! I had a 258 in an AMC Gremlin, and with a Clifford split header, Offy manifold and 4bbl and uncorked with the throttle wide open that car sounded downright dangerous. Also took out a lot of v-8 Mustangs and Camaros in a stop light to stop light situation. Got about 26 miles to the gallon, too, if I could keep the back barrels shut :-) -- Old Crow 24 hours in a day... '82 Shovelhead FLT 92" 'Pearl' 24 beers in a case... '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande Co-incedence? I think not. ASE Certified Master Auto Tech + L1 TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:16 -0400, travis
<travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:43:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" ><beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > >>Why would you want a 150hp V8 that weighs something like 300 lbs, when you >>can have a 147 hp that weighs in at half that? > >Not that I want to do it anytime soon, but I'm sure the V8 would be >easier to tweak for more power than an I6. Let's not start the >"substitute for cubic inches" battle again, please. Also, the V8 has >a "sound" to its exhaust that a 6 will never be able to match. > HA! I had a 258 in an AMC Gremlin, and with a Clifford split header, Offy manifold and 4bbl and uncorked with the throttle wide open that car sounded downright dangerous. Also took out a lot of v-8 Mustangs and Camaros in a stop light to stop light situation. Got about 26 miles to the gallon, too, if I could keep the back barrels shut :-) -- Old Crow 24 hours in a day... '82 Shovelhead FLT 92" 'Pearl' 24 beers in a case... '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande Co-incedence? I think not. ASE Certified Master Auto Tech + L1 TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:16 -0400, travis
<travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:43:45 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" ><beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > >>Why would you want a 150hp V8 that weighs something like 300 lbs, when you >>can have a 147 hp that weighs in at half that? > >Not that I want to do it anytime soon, but I'm sure the V8 would be >easier to tweak for more power than an I6. Let's not start the >"substitute for cubic inches" battle again, please. Also, the V8 has >a "sound" to its exhaust that a 6 will never be able to match. > HA! I had a 258 in an AMC Gremlin, and with a Clifford split header, Offy manifold and 4bbl and uncorked with the throttle wide open that car sounded downright dangerous. Also took out a lot of v-8 Mustangs and Camaros in a stop light to stop light situation. Got about 26 miles to the gallon, too, if I could keep the back barrels shut :-) -- Old Crow 24 hours in a day... '82 Shovelhead FLT 92" 'Pearl' 24 beers in a case... '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande Co-incedence? I think not. ASE Certified Master Auto Tech + L1 TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Travis,
The 304 is probably a better choice in an older CJ. I understand, though, that the 4.2L can be retrofitted with 4.0L heads and fuel injection which should give more power, reliability, and fuel economy. I'd be inclined to get the 304 unless the 4.2L was *much* cheaper. -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Travis,
The 304 is probably a better choice in an older CJ. I understand, though, that the 4.2L can be retrofitted with 4.0L heads and fuel injection which should give more power, reliability, and fuel economy. I'd be inclined to get the 304 unless the 4.2L was *much* cheaper. -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Travis,
The 304 is probably a better choice in an older CJ. I understand, though, that the 4.2L can be retrofitted with 4.0L heads and fuel injection which should give more power, reliability, and fuel economy. I'd be inclined to get the 304 unless the 4.2L was *much* cheaper. -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
They seem to be making themselves into a pain in *everyone's* a$$ recently,
don't they? Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message news:coDjb.242$gk.238@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com.. . > No, and if they keep suing people and companies over the vertical 7 slot > one, they might end up not owning that one either. I guess they dropped > the suit against GM completely. > > TJim wrote: > > > > I wonder... Does DC own the horizontal slot grill trademark, too? > > > > -- > __________________________________________________ _________ > tw > 03 TJ Rubicon > 01 XJ Sport > > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." > -- Dave Barry > > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email) > __________________________________________________ _________ > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
They seem to be making themselves into a pain in *everyone's* a$$ recently,
don't they? Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message news:coDjb.242$gk.238@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com.. . > No, and if they keep suing people and companies over the vertical 7 slot > one, they might end up not owning that one either. I guess they dropped > the suit against GM completely. > > TJim wrote: > > > > I wonder... Does DC own the horizontal slot grill trademark, too? > > > > -- > __________________________________________________ _________ > tw > 03 TJ Rubicon > 01 XJ Sport > > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." > -- Dave Barry > > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email) > __________________________________________________ _________ > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
They seem to be making themselves into a pain in *everyone's* a$$ recently,
don't they? Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? -- Jim -- 98 TJ SE 90 SJ GW http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98 "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message news:coDjb.242$gk.238@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com.. . > No, and if they keep suing people and companies over the vertical 7 slot > one, they might end up not owning that one either. I guess they dropped > the suit against GM completely. > > TJim wrote: > > > > I wonder... Does DC own the horizontal slot grill trademark, too? > > > > -- > __________________________________________________ _________ > tw > 03 TJ Rubicon > 01 XJ Sport > > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." > -- Dave Barry > > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email) > __________________________________________________ _________ > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aI6dnSx9NrS6cBKiRVn-sw@comcast.com... > Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is full". ill try again. -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aI6dnSx9NrS6cBKiRVn-sw@comcast.com... > Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is full". ill try again. -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aI6dnSx9NrS6cBKiRVn-sw@comcast.com... > Nate, any word on Dennis' situation? ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is full". ill try again. -- Nathan W. Collier http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Bummer!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Nathan Collier wrote: > > ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is > full". ill try again. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Bummer!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Nathan Collier wrote: > > ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is > full". ill try again. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Bummer!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Nathan Collier wrote: > > ive emailed dennis a couple times and got the mail back saying "mailbox is > full". ill try again. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > With fuel injection and a header, the 6 can put out more power than the 304 without this stuff. Basically, my message is that you are spending way too much effort on the V8 thing. And, the 6 will come with a 4 spd trans that the V8 won't have. I don't know why they ever used that 3 spd, or any 3 spd for that matter, behind the 8, and chose a 4 spd for the 6. I don't know why they did that, but they did. It seems logical that the 4 spd behind the V8 could be an option, but I don't know that it was or not. Another point that I have been trying to make is that horsepower isn't all that critical for trail rides, and crawling. It is extremely important for powering through mud bogs, which is intensely entertaining but is really a niche form of fun, and very useful when passing on the freeway. What you really want more than hp is massive amounts of torque at idle speeds. The I6 makes about 85% of its torque at around 1000 rpm. With the right set up on the 6, you can have in excess of 225 ft lb of available torque, with 190+ ft lb delivered at idle. This is a huge consideration, and you seem to be ignoring it. The trick to offroad travel is not brute strength, it is finesse. OK, brute strength has its attraction, but - personally - I never hit an obsticle with brute strength first. I think that brute strength is highly over rated in an offraod machine. When we go to rock crawling championships, the front runners in the competition frequently have 4 bangers. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > With fuel injection and a header, the 6 can put out more power than the 304 without this stuff. Basically, my message is that you are spending way too much effort on the V8 thing. And, the 6 will come with a 4 spd trans that the V8 won't have. I don't know why they ever used that 3 spd, or any 3 spd for that matter, behind the 8, and chose a 4 spd for the 6. I don't know why they did that, but they did. It seems logical that the 4 spd behind the V8 could be an option, but I don't know that it was or not. Another point that I have been trying to make is that horsepower isn't all that critical for trail rides, and crawling. It is extremely important for powering through mud bogs, which is intensely entertaining but is really a niche form of fun, and very useful when passing on the freeway. What you really want more than hp is massive amounts of torque at idle speeds. The I6 makes about 85% of its torque at around 1000 rpm. With the right set up on the 6, you can have in excess of 225 ft lb of available torque, with 190+ ft lb delivered at idle. This is a huge consideration, and you seem to be ignoring it. The trick to offroad travel is not brute strength, it is finesse. OK, brute strength has its attraction, but - personally - I never hit an obsticle with brute strength first. I think that brute strength is highly over rated in an offraod machine. When we go to rock crawling championships, the front runners in the competition frequently have 4 bangers. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8r0uovo5mhokvrcb4lvta6bsmnf931n61t@4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:41:44 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" > <beerman@yahoo.com> shared the following: > > > > >> > >> I guess I feel like this. I'm about to buy a Jeep. An older CJ. I > >> have a choice of buying one with a I6 or one with a V8 if I stick > >> factory options. The V8 puts out more power. To me, more power is a > >> good thing, that's all. I believe you guys that the I6 is very > >> capable. I know the newer 4.0 engine puts out more torque/hp than an > >> old 304. There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >> I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet. So my > >> options are the I6 or the V8. I choose the V8. > >> > >> > > > >The I6 in the year models you are looking at is a 4.2L. > > I realize that. It puts out less power than the 304 available in the > same model year. Someone else mentioned the 4.0 liter, that's why I > brought it up again. Because it *does* put out more power than the > old 304s, but it's not an option that was available on the old CJs > that I'm looking at. If it *was* available on them then I'd probably > go with one of them rather than the V8. "More power is good" is just > my personal opinion. > > With fuel injection and a header, the 6 can put out more power than the 304 without this stuff. Basically, my message is that you are spending way too much effort on the V8 thing. And, the 6 will come with a 4 spd trans that the V8 won't have. I don't know why they ever used that 3 spd, or any 3 spd for that matter, behind the 8, and chose a 4 spd for the 6. I don't know why they did that, but they did. It seems logical that the 4 spd behind the V8 could be an option, but I don't know that it was or not. Another point that I have been trying to make is that horsepower isn't all that critical for trail rides, and crawling. It is extremely important for powering through mud bogs, which is intensely entertaining but is really a niche form of fun, and very useful when passing on the freeway. What you really want more than hp is massive amounts of torque at idle speeds. The I6 makes about 85% of its torque at around 1000 rpm. With the right set up on the 6, you can have in excess of 225 ft lb of available torque, with 190+ ft lb delivered at idle. This is a huge consideration, and you seem to be ignoring it. The trick to offroad travel is not brute strength, it is finesse. OK, brute strength has its attraction, but - personally - I never hit an obsticle with brute strength first. I think that brute strength is highly over rated in an offraod machine. When we go to rock crawling championships, the front runners in the competition frequently have 4 bangers. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
All I am saying is, if the right CJ comes along, don't pass it up just
because it has a 6. A quality frame and body with a 6 is a much better buy than a "well used" body and frame with an 8. If you find a good CJ with an 8, then you have a bonus. Personally, I would be looking for any CJ from '76 or newer, and would only have issues with a 4 banger. The 4 is a worthy offroad machine, IF trail riding on dry ground. the 4 is weak on the freeway (an important consideration to me), and it underpowered for serious mud. I think your focus is misdirected, that's all. You should be looking for good condition of the body and frame, and no leaks. If you can find all of this, and the motor is a 6, then jump on it. If the motor is an 8, then BONUS. "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8m9uov0n8rjlnes8pj8dgb97ad8c5gfhbp@4ax.com... > On 16 Oct 2003 20:50:09 GMT, mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon (Matt > Macchiarolo) shared the following: > > >In article <p60uovo4aj3ac3vfbbmsasbfqt0ivm2op0@4ax.com>, travis > ><travist34removethis@hotmail.com> writes: > > > >>There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >>I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet > > > >There's a good reason for that, they weren't available in CJ's. The 4.0 is the > >4.2 successor. > >* * * > > Yeah........ I know that and already said that earlier. That is > exactly my point. The engines that ARE available in the older CJs > that I'm looking at are typically the 4.2 and the V8. The V8 puts out > more power than the 4.2 if both are in stock trim. That is one of the > reasons I prefer the V8. Again I say *if* the 4.0 was in the older > CJs that I'm looking at then I'd strongly consider them over the V8 > but they are not... That's why I said I hadn't seen any. Someone has > probably gotten their hands on a newer 4.0 and put it in an older CJ > but I haven't seen one yet. MOST of the older CJs I look at DO have > the I6 instead of the V8. I said I hadn't seen any 4.0 engines and > that "There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs I'm > looking at" because I realized the 4.0 engines were not options in the > older CJs. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over but > I've said it a few times in other posts already and for some reason > I'm getting the impression that I'm not being clear since people > continue to tell me the 4.0 was not available in older CJs. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
All I am saying is, if the right CJ comes along, don't pass it up just
because it has a 6. A quality frame and body with a 6 is a much better buy than a "well used" body and frame with an 8. If you find a good CJ with an 8, then you have a bonus. Personally, I would be looking for any CJ from '76 or newer, and would only have issues with a 4 banger. The 4 is a worthy offroad machine, IF trail riding on dry ground. the 4 is weak on the freeway (an important consideration to me), and it underpowered for serious mud. I think your focus is misdirected, that's all. You should be looking for good condition of the body and frame, and no leaks. If you can find all of this, and the motor is a 6, then jump on it. If the motor is an 8, then BONUS. "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8m9uov0n8rjlnes8pj8dgb97ad8c5gfhbp@4ax.com... > On 16 Oct 2003 20:50:09 GMT, mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon (Matt > Macchiarolo) shared the following: > > >In article <p60uovo4aj3ac3vfbbmsasbfqt0ivm2op0@4ax.com>, travis > ><travist34removethis@hotmail.com> writes: > > > >>There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >>I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet > > > >There's a good reason for that, they weren't available in CJ's. The 4.0 is the > >4.2 successor. > >* * * > > Yeah........ I know that and already said that earlier. That is > exactly my point. The engines that ARE available in the older CJs > that I'm looking at are typically the 4.2 and the V8. The V8 puts out > more power than the 4.2 if both are in stock trim. That is one of the > reasons I prefer the V8. Again I say *if* the 4.0 was in the older > CJs that I'm looking at then I'd strongly consider them over the V8 > but they are not... That's why I said I hadn't seen any. Someone has > probably gotten their hands on a newer 4.0 and put it in an older CJ > but I haven't seen one yet. MOST of the older CJs I look at DO have > the I6 instead of the V8. I said I hadn't seen any 4.0 engines and > that "There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs I'm > looking at" because I realized the 4.0 engines were not options in the > older CJs. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over but > I've said it a few times in other posts already and for some reason > I'm getting the impression that I'm not being clear since people > continue to tell me the 4.0 was not available in older CJs. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
All I am saying is, if the right CJ comes along, don't pass it up just
because it has a 6. A quality frame and body with a 6 is a much better buy than a "well used" body and frame with an 8. If you find a good CJ with an 8, then you have a bonus. Personally, I would be looking for any CJ from '76 or newer, and would only have issues with a 4 banger. The 4 is a worthy offroad machine, IF trail riding on dry ground. the 4 is weak on the freeway (an important consideration to me), and it underpowered for serious mud. I think your focus is misdirected, that's all. You should be looking for good condition of the body and frame, and no leaks. If you can find all of this, and the motor is a 6, then jump on it. If the motor is an 8, then BONUS. "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8m9uov0n8rjlnes8pj8dgb97ad8c5gfhbp@4ax.com... > On 16 Oct 2003 20:50:09 GMT, mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon (Matt > Macchiarolo) shared the following: > > >In article <p60uovo4aj3ac3vfbbmsasbfqt0ivm2op0@4ax.com>, travis > ><travist34removethis@hotmail.com> writes: > > > >>There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs > >>I'm looking at. Actually I haven't seen a single one yet > > > >There's a good reason for that, they weren't available in CJ's. The 4.0 is the > >4.2 successor. > >* * * > > Yeah........ I know that and already said that earlier. That is > exactly my point. The engines that ARE available in the older CJs > that I'm looking at are typically the 4.2 and the V8. The V8 puts out > more power than the 4.2 if both are in stock trim. That is one of the > reasons I prefer the V8. Again I say *if* the 4.0 was in the older > CJs that I'm looking at then I'd strongly consider them over the V8 > but they are not... That's why I said I hadn't seen any. Someone has > probably gotten their hands on a newer 4.0 and put it in an older CJ > but I haven't seen one yet. MOST of the older CJs I look at DO have > the I6 instead of the V8. I said I hadn't seen any 4.0 engines and > that "There are going to be very few 4.0 engines in the older CJs I'm > looking at" because I realized the 4.0 engines were not options in the > older CJs. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over but > I've said it a few times in other posts already and for some reason > I'm getting the impression that I'm not being clear since people > continue to tell me the 4.0 was not available in older CJs. > > > -- > Travis > http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html > The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. > :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > Ditto. > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > hi travis, > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that may > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute best > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way up > > from there. > > > > -- > > Nathan W. Collier > > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > Ditto. > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > hi travis, > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that may > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute best > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way up > > from there. > > > > -- > > Nathan W. Collier > > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > Ditto. > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > hi travis, > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that may > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute best > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way up > > from there. > > > > -- > > Nathan W. Collier > > http://7SlotGrille.com |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Mental note to self, try not to attract Nathan, he might want to love on me
.... "Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote in message news:uUDjb.12900$kZ5.5948@twister.southeast.rr.com ... > "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:l62uov80k8poatqkcofd8bibp74v8j7th2@4ax.com... > > Mental note to self: Try to not piss off Nathan. > > ha......nah, i dont get mad anymore anyway. i love everybody. :-) > > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com > > > > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Mental note to self, try not to attract Nathan, he might want to love on me
.... "Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote in message news:uUDjb.12900$kZ5.5948@twister.southeast.rr.com ... > "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:l62uov80k8poatqkcofd8bibp74v8j7th2@4ax.com... > > Mental note to self: Try to not piss off Nathan. > > ha......nah, i dont get mad anymore anyway. i love everybody. :-) > > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com > > > > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Mental note to self, try not to attract Nathan, he might want to love on me
.... "Nathan Collier" <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote in message news:uUDjb.12900$kZ5.5948@twister.southeast.rr.com ... > "travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:l62uov80k8poatqkcofd8bibp74v8j7th2@4ax.com... > > Mental note to self: Try to not piss off Nathan. > > ha......nah, i dont get mad anymore anyway. i love everybody. :-) > > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://7SlotGrille.com > > > > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three".
-- Jim "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vp064d9i3mc24e@corp.supernews.com... > Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too. > > > > > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message > news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > > Ditto. > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > > > hi travis, > > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that > may > > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute > best > > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way > up > > > from there. > > > > > > -- > > > Nathan W. Collier > > > http://7SlotGrille.com > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three".
-- Jim "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vp064d9i3mc24e@corp.supernews.com... > Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too. > > > > > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message > news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > > Ditto. > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > > > hi travis, > > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that > may > > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute > best > > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way > up > > > from there. > > > > > > -- > > > Nathan W. Collier > > > http://7SlotGrille.com > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three".
-- Jim "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vp064d9i3mc24e@corp.supernews.com... > Double Ditto, and I'll raise you a Me Too. > > > > > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message > news:3F8F1069.9941A23E@cox.net... > > Ditto. > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ > > > > Nathan Collier wrote: > > > > > > hi travis, > > > run 31's for awhile and learn how to drive a jeep first. i know that > may > > > sound "mean" but i promise you that advice is given with the absolute > best > > > of intentions. a SWB jeep drives like no other vehicle i know of (cept > > > maybe an fj40). learn its limitations first on 31's, and work your way > up > > > from there. > > > > > > -- > > > Nathan W. Collier > > > http://7SlotGrille.com > |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:02:53 -0400, "TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com>
shared the following: >I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three". I'm probably going to just run with whatever wheels/tires it comes with for a while because I won't have the $$$ to put anything else on it. From the reading I've been doing and the feedback I've gotten out here, when I run out of tread and/or save up enough money I'll probably go with 33" tires.... And a 20" lift! JUST KIDDING. (about the lift part ;-) -- Travis http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:02:53 -0400, "TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com>
shared the following: >I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three". I'm probably going to just run with whatever wheels/tires it comes with for a while because I won't have the $$$ to put anything else on it. From the reading I've been doing and the feedback I've gotten out here, when I run out of tread and/or save up enough money I'll probably go with 33" tires.... And a 20" lift! JUST KIDDING. (about the lift part ;-) -- Travis http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:02:53 -0400, "TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com>
shared the following: >I'll see your "Me Too" and raise you a "Me Three". I'm probably going to just run with whatever wheels/tires it comes with for a while because I won't have the $$$ to put anything else on it. From the reading I've been doing and the feedback I've gotten out here, when I run out of tread and/or save up enough money I'll probably go with 33" tires.... And a 20" lift! JUST KIDDING. (about the lift part ;-) -- Travis http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it. :wq! |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman
Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about the low end. Right? B -- Brian Heller It is easier to tame wild beasts than to conquer the human mind. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman
Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about the low end. Right? B -- Brian Heller It is easier to tame wild beasts than to conquer the human mind. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman
Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about the low end. Right? B -- Brian Heller It is easier to tame wild beasts than to conquer the human mind. |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Approximately 10/17/03 17:58, Brian uttered for posterity:
> What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman > Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty > much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the > gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or > Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about > the low end. Right? Wrong. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Approximately 10/17/03 17:58, Brian uttered for posterity:
> What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman > Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty > much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the > gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or > Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about > the low end. Right? Wrong. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Approximately 10/17/03 17:58, Brian uttered for posterity:
> What's with the obsession with power? Is this just a Tim the toolman > Taylor "ugh! more power!" thing? Unimogs only make 95 HP, and are pretty > much unstoppable off-road. It's not the power, it's the torque and the > gearing. If you wanna pass people on the highway, buy a Corvette, or > Porsche, or Ferrari. If you want to kick rocks off-road, it's all about > the low end. Right? Wrong. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands