Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
<carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>adequate power off road while in low range.
It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
<carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>adequate power off road while in low range.
It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
SnoMan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
SnoMan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
SnoMan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
SnoMan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:49:09 -0700, "Carl S"
> <carlsaiyed@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter remains that properly geared, the 2.5L provides
>> adequate power off road while in low range.
>
>
> It is a great mill for this properly geared. Cheap to feed (longer
> wheeling time), easy to cool and weighs less too. Many years ago (in
> 70's) I had a freind that lived near NC/Tenn border that had a old 51
> Dodge military truck that looked like a Jeep on steriods with a flat
> head six and a top speed of about 45. It weighed about 3 tons and had
> military type tires around 36 inches tall in it and a engine driven
> winch. It was a tank off road and would go anywhere you pointed it and
> had right amount of power and gears for off road too. (first gear low
> range was about 2 MPH tops) If hill was too steep to climb you could
> winch yourself up in short order with good line speed and never worry
> about battery dying or winch overheating. I had a chance to buy that
> things years ago and kick myself for never doing it. It was 100% stock
> and it great shape too. Once on a old loging road we feel through a
> old wood bridge about 4 or 5 feet into creak below with a few feet of
> water in it. We simply drove down the creek for a while until we found
> a place to climb out and blaze a trail through brush and small trees
> to get back hillside to old logging road. It was a blast to drive off
> road. A V8 would not have made it any more fun to drive or able. The
> silly thing even supported a snokle but we never used that feature.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
OK, I need to explain myself a bit more here. I agree that the 4 cyl
will do OK in a rig set up properly. However, the picture I responded to
was a YJ with 42" tires and obviously not much capability of
articulating over rocky terrain. If that rig had even looked like it
could off-road on more than a farm field or 2 rut road, I probably
wouldn't have mentioned it. The rig in the picture looked like it would
be able to go mudding with the tires it had, but then the 4 cyl would
more than likely be inadequate. I guess I was analyzing the whole
picture more than just the engine.
Personally, I wouldn't build a 4 cylinder Wrangler, but that is my
personal preference.
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
Garrett wrote:
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
Garrett wrote:
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
Garrett wrote:
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Advice please: '90 YJ Conversion
Garrett wrote:
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
> http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/uceelkins.htm
> so this guy is just a moron who gets 1-2 MPG?
> Not being sarcastic, actually curious, lol.
> Thanks,
> Garrett
Probably gets a few MPG less and has a bit of lugging
in first. Doubt he ever sees top gear.
Doesn't say if he regeared the diffs or has a locker
but if he has a locker the axles aren't going to
last too long if he puts any force on them.
Probably a swamper/mudbuggy.
--
DougW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)