No the Sergeant just lifted it, to give the officers his estimate
of the prototype's weight, then testify it was under twelve hundred
pounds. I think Olympic champions still can only clean and jerk about
the weight of a Harley Davidson.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> What, he lifted it over his head?
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html

 

"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gastov0g9e6rt0knoqq8j94cpgt6iaer75@4ax.com...
> If I got a Jeep with Dana 30 front, Dana 20 xfer case, and
> AMC 20 rear-end (I hear that's not a great one) does that sound like
> it would be crazy to put 35" tires on that kind of driveline?

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

 

"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gastov0g9e6rt0knoqq8j94cpgt6iaer75@4ax.com...
> If I got a Jeep with Dana 30 front, Dana 20 xfer case, and
> AMC 20 rear-end (I hear that's not a great one) does that sound like
> it would be crazy to put 35" tires on that kind of driveline?

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

 

"travis" <travist34removethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gastov0g9e6rt0knoqq8j94cpgt6iaer75@4ax.com...
> If I got a Jeep with Dana 30 front, Dana 20 xfer case, and
> AMC 20 rear-end (I hear that's not a great one) does that sound like
> it would be crazy to put 35" tires on that kind of driveline?

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

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3F8EF426.253A65B6@***.net...
> I guess Kaiser Jeep's M-151, (the sole owner of Jeep '53-'70) that
> used four wheel independent suspension, doesn't count:

youre right bill, it doesnt count. the m151 MUTT is not a jeep.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3F8EF426.253A65B6@***.net...
> I guess Kaiser Jeep's M-151, (the sole owner of Jeep '53-'70) that
> used four wheel independent suspension, doesn't count:

youre right bill, it doesnt count. the m151 MUTT is not a jeep.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3F8EF426.253A65B6@***.net...
> I guess Kaiser Jeep's M-151, (the sole owner of Jeep '53-'70) that
> used four wheel independent suspension, doesn't count:

youre right bill, it doesnt count. the m151 MUTT is not a jeep.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

Approximately 10/16/03 12:23, travis uttered for posterity:
> 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?

If you go for "truck" high torque intake manifold and a good 4 barrel
you might be able to get up to the level of the 4.0 I-6 before it
has been stroked...

For the 4 barrel you'll want one with fairly small 2 barrel section
and a good progressive open of the extra barrels. This way you can
crawl at low RPM with good torque, but out on the highway you can
also pass vehicles other than those made by Schwinn safely. Except
for a bad tendency to set fires, the old Quadrajet made a pretty
good 2-4 conversion with the Edelbrock torquer manifold.

But the newer I-6 gets 195 hp out of the box, and with nothing but
a good catback you can beat that 200. Add a good header, oversize
exhaust, low restriction cat [if needed] and muffler and easy in the
220 range. Plus it has a larger oil and cooling capability in addition
to far more torque in the lower rpm.

Then later as you lose your sanity, stroke it or add a blower, or
both.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/16/03 12:23, travis uttered for posterity:
> 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?

If you go for "truck" high torque intake manifold and a good 4 barrel
you might be able to get up to the level of the 4.0 I-6 before it
has been stroked...

For the 4 barrel you'll want one with fairly small 2 barrel section
and a good progressive open of the extra barrels. This way you can
crawl at low RPM with good torque, but out on the highway you can
also pass vehicles other than those made by Schwinn safely. Except
for a bad tendency to set fires, the old Quadrajet made a pretty
good 2-4 conversion with the Edelbrock torquer manifold.

But the newer I-6 gets 195 hp out of the box, and with nothing but
a good catback you can beat that 200. Add a good header, oversize
exhaust, low restriction cat [if needed] and muffler and easy in the
220 range. Plus it has a larger oil and cooling capability in addition
to far more torque in the lower rpm.

Then later as you lose your sanity, stroke it or add a blower, or
both.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***

 

Approximately 10/16/03 12:23, travis uttered for posterity:
> 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?

If you go for "truck" high torque intake manifold and a good 4 barrel
you might be able to get up to the level of the 4.0 I-6 before it
has been stroked...

For the 4 barrel you'll want one with fairly small 2 barrel section
and a good progressive open of the extra barrels. This way you can
crawl at low RPM with good torque, but out on the highway you can
also pass vehicles other than those made by Schwinn safely. Except
for a bad tendency to set fires, the old Quadrajet made a pretty
good 2-4 conversion with the Edelbrock torquer manifold.

But the newer I-6 gets 195 hp out of the box, and with nothing but
a good catback you can beat that 200. Add a good header, oversize
exhaust, low restriction cat [if needed] and muffler and easy in the
220 range. Plus it has a larger oil and cooling capability in addition
to far more torque in the lower rpm.

Then later as you lose your sanity, stroke it or add a blower, or
both.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ***