Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
09-30-2004, 07:39 PM
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
So has my '78 Bronco 351M and it's never had the heads off:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
09-30-2004, 07:39 PM
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
So has my '78 Bronco 351M and it's never had the heads off:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
09-30-2004, 07:39 PM
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
So has my '78 Bronco 351M and it's never had the heads off:
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
http://www.----------.com/smog.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> let out a sulfurous butt cloud:
> Stick to your POS diesel, that'll never run.
>
> My POS diesel just rolled over 315,000 miles this morning.
09-30-2004, 07:43 PM
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
I really can't believe just how full of sh*t your are! Although, I
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
09-30-2004, 07:43 PM
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
I really can't believe just how full of sh*t your are! Although, I
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
09-30-2004, 07:43 PM
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
I really can't believe just how full of sh*t your are! Although, I
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
do like the 31 miles to the gallon my '89 Thunderbird gets, but who the
f**k was talking about that.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There are no patents involved. There was tooling. But splayed crank
> journals on "wrong angle" vee engines go back a long time. Patents are
> 17 years with one extension,34 years at most. And Lancia had them in
> the twenties. (Prior art is prior art).
>
> The Chevy 90 degree V6 is all SB Chevy with two less cylinders.
> Bringing up the Buick is like licking your ***** then your *** like
> the previous poster said, aimless wandering off topic. It works with a
> lot of the baby-peckerwoods here but you haven't fooled me yet, you
> old sneaky snake, have you?
>
> I would rather have the Buick or the very underrated 3.8 Ford V6 (do
> a Google search on Dave Blanton)than the Chev because the distributor
> is in the front and parts are no tougher. But if you want a gas
> sucking gas motor instead of an efficient torque-making diesel the 4
> liter inline Six from Jeep you already have is just as good. When it's
> replaced by a Stuttgart designed engine (as it will be, you know) even
> I'll miss it.
>
> A little.
09-30-2004, 08:26 PM
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
He's right. You are wrong. The Buick V6 and the Chevy V6 are no relation. And
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
09-30-2004, 08:26 PM
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
He's right. You are wrong. The Buick V6 and the Chevy V6 are no relation. And
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
09-30-2004, 08:26 PM
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
He's right. You are wrong. The Buick V6 and the Chevy V6 are no relation. And
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
admitted it.
09-30-2004, 09:01 PM
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Read about the Buick, the only odd fire V6 went through at:
http://www.apple.queensu.ca/cj3b/EngineSwap.html We weren't talking
about the engine Chevy designed for the mini trucks:
http://www.high-performance-engines.com/engineswap.html
I wouldn't sign that crap either!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steelgtr62 wrote:
>
> He's right. You are wrong. The Buick V6 and the Chevy V6 are no relation. And
> off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
> Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
> angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
> be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
> degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
> admitted it.
http://www.apple.queensu.ca/cj3b/EngineSwap.html We weren't talking
about the engine Chevy designed for the mini trucks:
http://www.high-performance-engines.com/engineswap.html
I wouldn't sign that crap either!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steelgtr62 wrote:
>
> He's right. You are wrong. The Buick V6 and the Chevy V6 are no relation. And
> off-set crank pins go back a long way. I don't know about Lancia but the
> Ferrari Dino engine was a 65 degree six, which is wrong as are the shallow
> angle Lancia and VW/Audi engines and the 90 degree V6. Sixes and twelves should
> be 60 or 120 degrees and eights should be 90 or 45. I think a V10 should be 72
> degrees but I'm not sure. I know the 90 degree ones are wrong and Dodge
> admitted it.