Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
09-27-2004, 12:50 AM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<4153A244.9597A333@***.net>...
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-27-2004, 12:50 AM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<4153A244.9597A333@***.net>...
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-27-2004, 12:50 AM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<4153A244.9597A333@***.net>...
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
> 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.
There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
could go on the block either way.
In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-27-2004, 12:19 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-27-2004, 12:19 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-27-2004, 12:19 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
know what the f**k you were talking about.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> There was (and still are-some are still in production, but not for
> on-road) a 53, 71, 92, 110 and 149 Series engines.
>
> The 53 came in a 2,3,4, V6 and V8.
>
> The 71 was the most long-lived in terms of production and numbers and
> the biggest variety. There are 1,2,3,4, and 6 cylinder inlines and a
> V6, V8, V12 and a V16. There are oddball variants that even most
> Detroit mechanics don't know about such as marine engines with
> centrifugal rather than Roots blowers.
>
> The 92s are essentially 71s with wet rather than dry liners and all
> are V's, V6, V8 and V16. There may be a 12, I can't remember. One
> oddball was an all aluminum one that had stainless steel cranks and
> cams and titanium conrods. It was made for use in minesweeping boats
> and had an absolutely minimal magnetic signature.
>
> The 110s and 149s were strictly industrial engines and not very
> common and aside from a 6-110 I have no idea as to their varieties.
>
> The 71 was a revolutionary deal when it was introduced.The blower
> could go on either side, the crank could turn either way, the head
> could go on the block either way.
>
> In any event, it's irrelevant because even a 3-53 is way too heavy
> for a Jeep, except maybe an old Wagoneer.
09-28-2004, 04:29 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<41583D79.4DFE47DB@***.net>...
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
09-28-2004, 04:29 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<41583D79.4DFE47DB@***.net>...
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
09-28-2004, 04:29 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
L.W.(ßill) ------ III <----------@***.net> wrote in message news:<41583D79.4DFE47DB@***.net>...
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
> Except you wrote "71/92 Detroits" clearly indicating you didn't
> know what the f**k you were talking about.
That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
for the other.
09-28-2004, 04:40 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel Conversion for Wrangler
And I thought those whom know about engines wrote: 305", 307",
327", 350" or maybe just 327-350, as in the small block type Chevy,
which of course is not the big block. Just like, 71 sleeves won't fit 92
Detroits.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
> with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
> all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
> for the other.
327", 350" or maybe just 327-350, as in the small block type Chevy,
which of course is not the big block. Just like, 71 sleeves won't fit 92
Detroits.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> That's a lie too. You know 71s and 92s are related engine families
> with a lot of commonality.Mechanics and engineers say 71/92 Detroits
> all the time, generally because what's good for one is usually good
> for the other.
