ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

ks

I think he meant to respond to CRWLR's statement that offroad.coms grid was
in error.

"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v90mc.109$qn6.32@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Bill, Sean is right. CJ5's were not offered with the 304 after 79. And
Cj7's
> lost them in 82. Check in the Jeep owners bible.... Don't chew his head
off
> for disagreeing with you....???
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4098520F.2D994A29@***.net...
> > Then Sean, YOU should write Off-Road and tell they don't know what
> > they're talking about.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Sean Prinz wrote:
> > >
> > > The last year for the 304 in a CJ-5 was 1979. The 304 was available
for
> a
> > > couple more years in the CJ-7 but not the 5 IIRC.
> > >
> > > Sean
>
>

Jody Heard

I agree with you 100% that the burden of proof should be on the member
with the CJ. The problem is, the head tech has already agreed to let
him run and I am representing the rest of the stock class racer's
trying to prove that this set-up is illegal. Somehow it has become
our duty. They are requiring an official document (manufacturer,
dealer, etc.) proving it was not an option. Pretty tough, huh. Thank
you for the help.

Jody



Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.NEB.4.58.0405041412110.17232@panix2.pan ix.com>...
> I think that you might be trying to prove a negative. Looking through my
> books here and after a bit of a Google search, it _looks_ like the CJ
> series only had the 304 V8 as an alternate engine (and made it moderately
> overpowered), and that option went away in 1981. Why not put the burden
> of proof on your petitioner? Make him come up with a factory line slip
> showing the factory installing the 360, or a letter from his Engineer on
> D-C letterhead, or even a print ad or review showing it as an option for
> his model-year.
>
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jody Heard wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate any and all help anyone could provide me on this
> > subject. I am doing research for the Mud Racing organization I belong
> > to, www.swmmra.org. We have a possible member who would like to join
> > our Stock Class with a CJ-7 running a 360. Our Stock Class rules state
> > that the engine must be available for that truck, that year. I have
> > been researching this for quite some time and all of the information I
> > can come accross states that the 360 was only offered in the j-10
> > pickup and the full size Cherokee. Not in the CJ's. The individual
> > claims that he has spoken to an engineer at Chrysler and that it was a
> > dealer option in which the factory would install a 360 if the
> > dealership requested even though it was never officially listed. This
> > is similar to the COPO Camaros etc. If some one could point me to a
> > definitive, reputable source (ie. dealer, manufacturer info) I would
> > greatly appreciate it.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jody Heard
> >

Jody Heard

I agree with you 100% that the burden of proof should be on the member
with the CJ. The problem is, the head tech has already agreed to let
him run and I am representing the rest of the stock class racer's
trying to prove that this set-up is illegal. Somehow it has become
our duty. They are requiring an official document (manufacturer,
dealer, etc.) proving it was not an option. Pretty tough, huh. Thank
you for the help.

Jody



Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.NEB.4.58.0405041412110.17232@panix2.pan ix.com>...
> I think that you might be trying to prove a negative. Looking through my
> books here and after a bit of a Google search, it _looks_ like the CJ
> series only had the 304 V8 as an alternate engine (and made it moderately
> overpowered), and that option went away in 1981. Why not put the burden
> of proof on your petitioner? Make him come up with a factory line slip
> showing the factory installing the 360, or a letter from his Engineer on
> D-C letterhead, or even a print ad or review showing it as an option for
> his model-year.
>
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jody Heard wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate any and all help anyone could provide me on this
> > subject. I am doing research for the Mud Racing organization I belong
> > to, www.swmmra.org. We have a possible member who would like to join
> > our Stock Class with a CJ-7 running a 360. Our Stock Class rules state
> > that the engine must be available for that truck, that year. I have
> > been researching this for quite some time and all of the information I
> > can come accross states that the 360 was only offered in the j-10
> > pickup and the full size Cherokee. Not in the CJ's. The individual
> > claims that he has spoken to an engineer at Chrysler and that it was a
> > dealer option in which the factory would install a 360 if the
> > dealership requested even though it was never officially listed. This
> > is similar to the COPO Camaros etc. If some one could point me to a
> > definitive, reputable source (ie. dealer, manufacturer info) I would
> > greatly appreciate it.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jody Heard
> >

Jody Heard

I agree with you 100% that the burden of proof should be on the member
with the CJ. The problem is, the head tech has already agreed to let
him run and I am representing the rest of the stock class racer's
trying to prove that this set-up is illegal. Somehow it has become
our duty. They are requiring an official document (manufacturer,
dealer, etc.) proving it was not an option. Pretty tough, huh. Thank
you for the help.

Jody



Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.NEB.4.58.0405041412110.17232@panix2.pan ix.com>...
> I think that you might be trying to prove a negative. Looking through my
> books here and after a bit of a Google search, it _looks_ like the CJ
> series only had the 304 V8 as an alternate engine (and made it moderately
> overpowered), and that option went away in 1981. Why not put the burden
> of proof on your petitioner? Make him come up with a factory line slip
> showing the factory installing the 360, or a letter from his Engineer on
> D-C letterhead, or even a print ad or review showing it as an option for
> his model-year.
>
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jody Heard wrote:
>
> > I would appreciate any and all help anyone could provide me on this
> > subject. I am doing research for the Mud Racing organization I belong
> > to, www.swmmra.org. We have a possible member who would like to join
> > our Stock Class with a CJ-7 running a 360. Our Stock Class rules state
> > that the engine must be available for that truck, that year. I have
> > been researching this for quite some time and all of the information I
> > can come accross states that the 360 was only offered in the j-10
> > pickup and the full size Cherokee. Not in the CJ's. The individual
> > claims that he has spoken to an engineer at Chrysler and that it was a
> > dealer option in which the factory would install a 360 if the
> > dealership requested even though it was never officially listed. This
> > is similar to the COPO Camaros etc. If some one could point me to a
> > definitive, reputable source (ie. dealer, manufacturer info) I would
> > greatly appreciate it.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jody Heard
> >