6 cyl. YJ or 4 cyl. TJ?????????
#371
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#372
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#373
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#374
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#375
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#376
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
#377
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
#378
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
#379
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
#380
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
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!