Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Planning on going next month. Cool place.
"Paul Brogren" <pibrogren@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2rc2irF178bfmU1@uni-berlin.de...
> The rail buggies are really cool. Bill, I know you probably have some
> pic's. I miss them. I grew up near Silver Lake Sand Dunes in MI. They
> rail buggies rocked. I road 3 wheelers then.
>
> --
> Thanks Always !!!
> Paul '75 CJ5 258
> Vail, CO.
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:41507AAC.FA8B8D2@***.net...
> > If you were an American, you'd remember where the dune buggies came
> > from.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > That's one of the more stupider ideas I have heard. If he wanted
> > > something that heavy he'd just have the pickup.
> > >
> > > A lot of people want light smallbore diesel engines, not PowerStrokes
> > > or B/ISB Cumminses.
>
>
"Paul Brogren" <pibrogren@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2rc2irF178bfmU1@uni-berlin.de...
> The rail buggies are really cool. Bill, I know you probably have some
> pic's. I miss them. I grew up near Silver Lake Sand Dunes in MI. They
> rail buggies rocked. I road 3 wheelers then.
>
> --
> Thanks Always !!!
> Paul '75 CJ5 258
> Vail, CO.
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:41507AAC.FA8B8D2@***.net...
> > If you were an American, you'd remember where the dune buggies came
> > from.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > That's one of the more stupider ideas I have heard. If he wanted
> > > something that heavy he'd just have the pickup.
> > >
> > > A lot of people want light smallbore diesel engines, not PowerStrokes
> > > or B/ISB Cumminses.
>
>
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
It would probably be as easy to get a six cylinder Isuzu as a four, or
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
It would probably be as easy to get a six cylinder Isuzu as a four, or
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
It would probably be as easy to get a six cylinder Isuzu as a four, or
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
possibly a SD42 Nissan. They probably aren't likely any longer than
the 4 liter Jeep six.
Have you thought about the Benz five cylinder? They're pretty common
and already in automotive trim.
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<Ct14d.931$Cs3.9442407@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<Ct14d.931$Cs3.9442407@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<Ct14d.931$Cs3.9442407@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
> no, he's not a nutter, he just hates diesels, probably because US diesels
> *are* old and dirty.
>
> The Jeep I6 puts out 302 g/km of CO2 and weighs 1670kg.
> The BMW 3.0 td puts out 184 g/km of CO2 for the same car weight.
> The BMW engine puts out 369lb ft torque @ 2000 rpm, and the Jeep engine 221
> lb/ft
> @ 3500 rpm.
He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
the old peckerwood way.
Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
brain.
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
FYI the 71 and 92 refer to the number of cubic inches per cylinder,
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
FYI the 71 and 92 refer to the number of cubic inches per cylinder,
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
FYI the 71 and 92 refer to the number of cubic inches per cylinder,
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.
the 4, 6, 8, and 12 refer the the number of cylinders of that engine.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> He's no environmentalist. He thinks old piece of ---- musclecars with
> oversized carburetors, leaded fuel, and points ignition are great, so
> are BIG slobbering 855 Cumminses and 71/92 Detroits. He hates small
> diesels, alternate fuels, and basically anything that is contrary to
> the old peckerwood way.
>
> Anything different would make him think, and thinking hurts his
> brain.