6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
10-16-2003, 03:01 PM
#171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs
"easier" is relative, and "modify" is insignificant here since your original
argument is "stock unmodified jeeps". even still, you statement is
incorrect. there is no major difference in working/modifying either.
>YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs.
i disagree. the tj has only gotten easier to work on over time (dropping
the distributor, dropping the cam position sensor, better components such as
the 3550, etc). i would much rather pull a code and replace a sensor than
attempt to diagnose a carter thats acting up.
> (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
aside from being irrelevant (your statement was "stock unmodified jeeps") id
say putting tires larger than 35's on _any_ swb jeep is a large project.
todays long arm lifts have come a long way and i dare say i could install
one with equal time/tools/ease as doing an SOA + lift or SUA + lift on a
leaf sprung variant.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
older as in pre 75, but what does that have to do with offroad capability?
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
but owner reluctance has nothing to do with offroad capability.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
id love to have a v8 engine for that deep throaty growl coming over a set of
flowmasters......but that has absolutely nothing to do with offroad
capability.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
airbags arent a problem off road, abs is optional, and IFS isnt available
any tj yet (look at the subject line).
youre misguided here a bit joshua, and ive a feeling many others will tell
you the same thing only in harsher terms. what type of jeep do you own
anyway?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs
"easier" is relative, and "modify" is insignificant here since your original
argument is "stock unmodified jeeps". even still, you statement is
incorrect. there is no major difference in working/modifying either.
>YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs.
i disagree. the tj has only gotten easier to work on over time (dropping
the distributor, dropping the cam position sensor, better components such as
the 3550, etc). i would much rather pull a code and replace a sensor than
attempt to diagnose a carter thats acting up.
> (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
aside from being irrelevant (your statement was "stock unmodified jeeps") id
say putting tires larger than 35's on _any_ swb jeep is a large project.
todays long arm lifts have come a long way and i dare say i could install
one with equal time/tools/ease as doing an SOA + lift or SUA + lift on a
leaf sprung variant.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
older as in pre 75, but what does that have to do with offroad capability?
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
but owner reluctance has nothing to do with offroad capability.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
id love to have a v8 engine for that deep throaty growl coming over a set of
flowmasters......but that has absolutely nothing to do with offroad
capability.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
airbags arent a problem off road, abs is optional, and IFS isnt available
any tj yet (look at the subject line).
youre misguided here a bit joshua, and ive a feeling many others will tell
you the same thing only in harsher terms. what type of jeep do you own
anyway?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
10-16-2003, 03:01 PM
#172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs
"easier" is relative, and "modify" is insignificant here since your original
argument is "stock unmodified jeeps". even still, you statement is
incorrect. there is no major difference in working/modifying either.
>YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs.
i disagree. the tj has only gotten easier to work on over time (dropping
the distributor, dropping the cam position sensor, better components such as
the 3550, etc). i would much rather pull a code and replace a sensor than
attempt to diagnose a carter thats acting up.
> (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
aside from being irrelevant (your statement was "stock unmodified jeeps") id
say putting tires larger than 35's on _any_ swb jeep is a large project.
todays long arm lifts have come a long way and i dare say i could install
one with equal time/tools/ease as doing an SOA + lift or SUA + lift on a
leaf sprung variant.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
older as in pre 75, but what does that have to do with offroad capability?
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
but owner reluctance has nothing to do with offroad capability.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
id love to have a v8 engine for that deep throaty growl coming over a set of
flowmasters......but that has absolutely nothing to do with offroad
capability.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
airbags arent a problem off road, abs is optional, and IFS isnt available
any tj yet (look at the subject line).
youre misguided here a bit joshua, and ive a feeling many others will tell
you the same thing only in harsher terms. what type of jeep do you own
anyway?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs
"easier" is relative, and "modify" is insignificant here since your original
argument is "stock unmodified jeeps". even still, you statement is
incorrect. there is no major difference in working/modifying either.
>YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs.
i disagree. the tj has only gotten easier to work on over time (dropping
the distributor, dropping the cam position sensor, better components such as
the 3550, etc). i would much rather pull a code and replace a sensor than
attempt to diagnose a carter thats acting up.
> (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
aside from being irrelevant (your statement was "stock unmodified jeeps") id
say putting tires larger than 35's on _any_ swb jeep is a large project.
todays long arm lifts have come a long way and i dare say i could install
one with equal time/tools/ease as doing an SOA + lift or SUA + lift on a
leaf sprung variant.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
older as in pre 75, but what does that have to do with offroad capability?
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
but owner reluctance has nothing to do with offroad capability.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
id love to have a v8 engine for that deep throaty growl coming over a set of
flowmasters......but that has absolutely nothing to do with offroad
capability.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
airbags arent a problem off road, abs is optional, and IFS isnt available
any tj yet (look at the subject line).
youre misguided here a bit joshua, and ive a feeling many others will tell
you the same thing only in harsher terms. what type of jeep do you own
anyway?
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
10-16-2003, 03:10 PM
#173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
10-16-2003, 03:10 PM
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
10-16-2003, 03:10 PM
#175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
news:b102b6e4.0310161028.3698d9b6@posting.google.c om...
> > V8s are NOT a huge improvement over the I6 offroad, sorry.
>
> Of couse they are.... please defend your ridiculous assertion. You
> can start by explaining why so many folks on this newsgroup have
> upgraded to 8-cylinders or why it is such a popular/sought after mod
> if it is no better than an I6.
youre off base here joshua.
you are basing your statement on _stock_ vehicles as prefaced in your
original statement. for starters:
1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's. typically
theyre swapping in 230hp 5.0's and 300hp 350's.
3) even with the 350, there is no real advantage off road. in fact, the 4.0
produces 85% of its total available torque AT IDLE which is in many cases
superior to the v8's at the same rpm. the advantage to the v8 is on the
highway, in the mud (where upper rpms count), and maybe in being able to use
a higher gear off road but thats not from the stock 304 that youre comparing
here.
> YOU come on. That's just common sense and everyone knows it. When
> you see someone with those magnetic armor things, or avoiding trails
> because of risk of body damage or paint scratches, 99% of the time it
> is a late model rig.
again, driver reluctance has nothing to do with off road capability.
> Libertys are jeeps.
says who? :-)
youll get it......it just takes awhile.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
10-16-2003, 03:22 PM
#176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
>
> Well, just to name a few, off the top of my head:
>
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs, YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs. (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
>
Putting anything larger than 35 on a CJ, YJ, or TJ is lunacy for most
people. The Jeeps that carry larger tires are hardly even recognizable as
ever being a Jeep.
It is actually much easier to do this sort of mod on the new vehicles than
the older ones, ESPECIALLY if one must use off-the-shelf parts because they
do not have the specialized fabrication skills to make this kind of thing
work.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
>
While this is true, the vehicle must be over 30 years old to enjoy such an
exemption. Coupling this with the desire to add 35" tires, then the
fabrication skills of the project manager must be greater, or the checkbook
must be heavier.
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
>
While this is true, you live a very protected life. There are many TJs on
the trail with nary a straight panel on them.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
>
Big whoop.
If one is inclined to put 35" tires on a TJ, he is able to drop a V8 under
the hood. The new models have WAY more accessories available than the older
CJs have.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
AIRBAGS
Not a problem for offroading. They don't deploy at offroading speeds, and if
they do, you probably need them. They can be defeated by pulling two fuses.
ABS
Not a problem for offroading. They can be defeated by pulling a fuse. ABS
offers huge advantages while on the street where even offroaders tend to
travel on occasion. The owner of a TJ can pull the fuse and leave it out, or
he can pull it then put it back in. A really inventive YJ owner, one that
can actually get 35s to work, and the V8 to fit, might even put in a switch
to turn the ABS system off and on.
IFS
This is a horrible option for an offroad vehicle. Thank God, TJs don't have
this yet, and therefore IFS isn't a consideration for this particular buyer.
MY HUMBLE OBSERVATION
For a 16 year old kid, you sure have alot to say about stuff you haven't got
a clue about.
10-16-2003, 03:22 PM
#177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
>
> Well, just to name a few, off the top of my head:
>
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs, YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs. (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
>
Putting anything larger than 35 on a CJ, YJ, or TJ is lunacy for most
people. The Jeeps that carry larger tires are hardly even recognizable as
ever being a Jeep.
It is actually much easier to do this sort of mod on the new vehicles than
the older ones, ESPECIALLY if one must use off-the-shelf parts because they
do not have the specialized fabrication skills to make this kind of thing
work.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
>
While this is true, the vehicle must be over 30 years old to enjoy such an
exemption. Coupling this with the desire to add 35" tires, then the
fabrication skills of the project manager must be greater, or the checkbook
must be heavier.
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
>
While this is true, you live a very protected life. There are many TJs on
the trail with nary a straight panel on them.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
>
Big whoop.
If one is inclined to put 35" tires on a TJ, he is able to drop a V8 under
the hood. The new models have WAY more accessories available than the older
CJs have.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
AIRBAGS
Not a problem for offroading. They don't deploy at offroading speeds, and if
they do, you probably need them. They can be defeated by pulling two fuses.
ABS
Not a problem for offroading. They can be defeated by pulling a fuse. ABS
offers huge advantages while on the street where even offroaders tend to
travel on occasion. The owner of a TJ can pull the fuse and leave it out, or
he can pull it then put it back in. A really inventive YJ owner, one that
can actually get 35s to work, and the V8 to fit, might even put in a switch
to turn the ABS system off and on.
IFS
This is a horrible option for an offroad vehicle. Thank God, TJs don't have
this yet, and therefore IFS isn't a consideration for this particular buyer.
MY HUMBLE OBSERVATION
For a 16 year old kid, you sure have alot to say about stuff you haven't got
a clue about.
10-16-2003, 03:22 PM
#178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310160610.1c931a23@posting.google.c om...
> > > Generally, when talking about stock unmodified jeeps, the earlier the
> > > production year, the more suitable for off-roading.
> >
> > please explain.
>
> Well, just to name a few, off the top of my head:
>
> 1) CJs are easier to work on and modify than YJs, YJs are easier to
> work on and modify than TJs. (Putting anything larger than 35s on a
> TJ is a real nightmare of a project!)
>
Putting anything larger than 35 on a CJ, YJ, or TJ is lunacy for most
people. The Jeeps that carry larger tires are hardly even recognizable as
ever being a Jeep.
It is actually much easier to do this sort of mod on the new vehicles than
the older ones, ESPECIALLY if one must use off-the-shelf parts because they
do not have the specialized fabrication skills to make this kind of thing
work.
> 2) Older vehicles are emissions exempt
>
While this is true, the vehicle must be over 30 years old to enjoy such an
exemption. Coupling this with the desire to add 35" tires, then the
fabrication skills of the project manager must be greater, or the checkbook
must be heavier.
> 3) The older the jeep, the lower the resale value, which is nice for
> a trail rig that is going to see a lot of use and abuse. Most people
> I see in factory fresh TJs, unless they are rich, are too concerned
> about scratching their paint to follow where the well-worn CJs can go.
>
While this is true, you live a very protected life. There are many TJs on
the trail with nary a straight panel on them.
> 4) Older vehicles have some nice options available that are no longer
> made, such as 8-cyl engines
>
Big whoop.
If one is inclined to put 35" tires on a TJ, he is able to drop a V8 under
the hood. The new models have WAY more accessories available than the older
CJs have.
> 5) Newer vehicles are loaded up with highway safety crap that is at
> best marginal off-road, at worst a major hindrance. To name a few:
> Airbags, ABS, IFS.
AIRBAGS
Not a problem for offroading. They don't deploy at offroading speeds, and if
they do, you probably need them. They can be defeated by pulling two fuses.
ABS
Not a problem for offroading. They can be defeated by pulling a fuse. ABS
offers huge advantages while on the street where even offroaders tend to
travel on occasion. The owner of a TJ can pull the fuse and leave it out, or
he can pull it then put it back in. A really inventive YJ owner, one that
can actually get 35s to work, and the V8 to fit, might even put in a switch
to turn the ABS system off and on.
IFS
This is a horrible option for an offroad vehicle. Thank God, TJs don't have
this yet, and therefore IFS isn't a consideration for this particular buyer.
MY HUMBLE OBSERVATION
For a 16 year old kid, you sure have alot to say about stuff you haven't got
a clue about.
10-16-2003, 03:23 PM
#179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:10:54 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> shared the following:
>
>1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
>did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
>down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
>the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
>2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's.
*gasp* Say it ain't so! :-)
No, I know... I looked up the numbers, too. I still want a V8 but
probably not for the right reasons. The one in the '76 CJ I'm going
to go look at on Saturday should be 150hp, but that's with a 2bbl and
I think it's also with single exhaust. I'm just wondering out loud
how much hp it would make with an Edelbrock performer intake and a
good sized 4bbl carb (600 CFM or so), and some headers and less
restrictive exhaust system. I'd wanna beef up the drivetrain before
doing anything like that, but do you think you could probably get a
good 200 or so hp out of that engine with the changes I listed above?
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> shared the following:
>
>1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
>did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
>down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
>the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
>2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's.
*gasp* Say it ain't so! :-)
No, I know... I looked up the numbers, too. I still want a V8 but
probably not for the right reasons. The one in the '76 CJ I'm going
to go look at on Saturday should be 150hp, but that's with a 2bbl and
I think it's also with single exhaust. I'm just wondering out loud
how much hp it would make with an Edelbrock performer intake and a
good sized 4bbl carb (600 CFM or so), and some headers and less
restrictive exhaust system. I'd wanna beef up the drivetrain before
doing anything like that, but do you think you could probably get a
good 200 or so hp out of that engine with the changes I listed above?
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
10-16-2003, 03:23 PM
#180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:10:54 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> shared the following:
>
>1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
>did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
>down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
>the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
>2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's.
*gasp* Say it ain't so! :-)
No, I know... I looked up the numbers, too. I still want a V8 but
probably not for the right reasons. The one in the '76 CJ I'm going
to go look at on Saturday should be 150hp, but that's with a 2bbl and
I think it's also with single exhaust. I'm just wondering out loud
how much hp it would make with an Edelbrock performer intake and a
good sized 4bbl carb (600 CFM or so), and some headers and less
restrictive exhaust system. I'd wanna beef up the drivetrain before
doing anything like that, but do you think you could probably get a
good 200 or so hp out of that engine with the changes I listed above?
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> shared the following:
>
>1) the stock 4.0 inline 6 produces more power than the stock 304 v8 _ever_
>did. thats right, the _most_ the 304 ever produced was 150hp. that was
>down to 125hp in '80 and thats LESS than todays 4 cylinder (147hp) joshua.
>the numbers are clear http://www.off-road.com/jeep/swb/articles/specgrid.htm
>2) those doing v8 swaps are not swapping in lethargic 304's.
*gasp* Say it ain't so! :-)
No, I know... I looked up the numbers, too. I still want a V8 but
probably not for the right reasons. The one in the '76 CJ I'm going
to go look at on Saturday should be 150hp, but that's with a 2bbl and
I think it's also with single exhaust. I'm just wondering out loud
how much hp it would make with an Edelbrock performer intake and a
good sized 4bbl carb (600 CFM or so), and some headers and less
restrictive exhaust system. I'd wanna beef up the drivetrain before
doing anything like that, but do you think you could probably get a
good 200 or so hp out of that engine with the changes I listed above?
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!