6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
#321
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Choose the V8, unless it really is the 304".
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
#322
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Choose the V8, unless it really is the 304".
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
#323
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:28:56 -0700, L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
#324
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:28:56 -0700, L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
#325
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:28:56 -0700, L.W.(ßill) ------ III
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
<----------@***.net> shared the following:
> I think it would be vary hard to find a classic 304", more than
>likely they've bin replaced by an earlier high compression 360" or maybe
>the 401", 400 horsepower that are still plentiful in the bone yards:
>http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
torque. WOW!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>mailto:--------------------
>
>travis wrote:
>>
>> *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!
--
Travis
http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
:wq!
#326
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#327
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#328
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
travis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> 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.
>
> --
That 4.2 carb engine in the CJ's can be easily tweaked for some nice
power. It is a stronger low end torque engine than the new de-stroked
4.0 version and will still haul butt on the highway.
Not much can be done to the fuel injected 4.0 for any radical power
boost, but a carb engine can be 'played with', with effect.
I can crest sand pit walls under good torque at 4 or 500 rpm in 3rd low,
get too steep and it will just dig in my 33" muds rather than stall and
my 4th will bury the spedo on the highway, forget 5th.
I am running the stock Carter BBD carb with no computer controls. I
only have a hot coil and a straight pipe with a Dynomax high flow
muffler on for mods.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#329
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
It's on the Javelin page.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
> about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
> a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
> upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
> 360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
> But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
> torque. WOW!
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
> about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
> a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
> upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
> 360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
> But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
> torque. WOW!
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
#330
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
It's on the Javelin page.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
> about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
> a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
> upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
> 360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
> But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
> torque. WOW!
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Really? That would be a good thing... I think... Right? The CJ5 I'm
> about to go look at Saturday supposedly has a 304 in it but if it has
> a more powerful, larger motor then I can't see myself getting very
> upset about it. Is there something I should be worried about with a
> 360 or 401? That url you list above... I don't see any 401 on it.
> But I like the looks of that 1970 390 with 340 hp and 430 lb-ft of
> torque. WOW!
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!