6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
#331
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!
#332
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
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!
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!
#333
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
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!
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!
#334
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
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!
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!
#335
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Yes, like Ford also built Bantams design. It was designed by Ford
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
#336
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Yes, like Ford also built Bantams design. It was designed by Ford
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
#337
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Yes, like Ford also built Bantams design. It was designed by Ford
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
and later built by Kaiser, AM
General Corporation, and GM: http://www.m38a1.ca/m151.html and:
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/M151.html for a couple.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I was under the impression Ford designed and built those.
> * * *
> Matt Macchiarolo
> www.townpeddler.com
> www.wolverine4wd.org
> http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
#338
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> 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:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
#339
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> 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:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!
#340
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
travis wrote:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> 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:
>
> Mental note to self: Try to not **** off Nathan.
>
> --
> Travis
> http://jeepadventures.dyndns.org/jeep.html
> The meek shall inherit the earth. After I'm finished with it.
> :wq!