How about your opinions.
 

I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
and an auto trans.

Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
(150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
(and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.

As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.

Thanks Jim

Re: How about your opinions.
 

If they are 4WD then I'd choose the 92. Before that they were still AMC (not
necessarily bad) and they did not keep the front driveshaft spinning while
the vehicle was in 2WD. IMO that's just asking for trouble being that it's
more complex of a design. My '92 has the front driveshaft always spinning,
and it's ready to shift right in to 4WD without having to wait for the
synchro to get the front shaft up to speed. Makes for a long lived 4X4
system that hardly ever has any trouble.

As for the engines, both are ok. The 4 cylinder will be easier to rebuild
(well.. it does have 2 fewer cylinders). But the 4.0 is tough and long lived
(can't speak for the 4 banger). They generally last more than 200 thousand
miles with regular oil changes. The 4 cylinder will have lower gears, I
believe. Better for off-roading (so I've heard). I have never had gear ratio
problems with my 4.0's setup.

I would choose the 4.0 over the 2.5 although the 5 speed would make it
hard.... The Jeep auto transmissions are very tough. Both from what I've
read and what I've experienced.

I don't know about the 2.5's common problems, but the 4.0 commonly has a
valve cover leak, rear main seal leak, and problems with cracking that big
ol' exhaust manifold. Mine has a slight rear main leak, and I fixed the
valve cover with some rtv silicone. But she's tough as nails and a blast to
drive. It's faster than most people expect.


"J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:r9rDb.125325$Vu5.7837429@twister.southeast.rr .com...
> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the
4.0L
> and an auto trans.
>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price
on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little
($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go
to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
charged
> and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
>

Re: How about your opinions.
 

If they are 4WD then I'd choose the 92. Before that they were still AMC (not
necessarily bad) and they did not keep the front driveshaft spinning while
the vehicle was in 2WD. IMO that's just asking for trouble being that it's
more complex of a design. My '92 has the front driveshaft always spinning,
and it's ready to shift right in to 4WD without having to wait for the
synchro to get the front shaft up to speed. Makes for a long lived 4X4
system that hardly ever has any trouble.

As for the engines, both are ok. The 4 cylinder will be easier to rebuild
(well.. it does have 2 fewer cylinders). But the 4.0 is tough and long lived
(can't speak for the 4 banger). They generally last more than 200 thousand
miles with regular oil changes. The 4 cylinder will have lower gears, I
believe. Better for off-roading (so I've heard). I have never had gear ratio
problems with my 4.0's setup.

I would choose the 4.0 over the 2.5 although the 5 speed would make it
hard.... The Jeep auto transmissions are very tough. Both from what I've
read and what I've experienced.

I don't know about the 2.5's common problems, but the 4.0 commonly has a
valve cover leak, rear main seal leak, and problems with cracking that big
ol' exhaust manifold. Mine has a slight rear main leak, and I fixed the
valve cover with some rtv silicone. But she's tough as nails and a blast to
drive. It's faster than most people expect.


"J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:r9rDb.125325$Vu5.7837429@twister.southeast.rr .com...
> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the
4.0L
> and an auto trans.
>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price
on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little
($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go
to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
charged
> and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
>

Re: How about your opinions.
 

If they are 4WD then I'd choose the 92. Before that they were still AMC (not
necessarily bad) and they did not keep the front driveshaft spinning while
the vehicle was in 2WD. IMO that's just asking for trouble being that it's
more complex of a design. My '92 has the front driveshaft always spinning,
and it's ready to shift right in to 4WD without having to wait for the
synchro to get the front shaft up to speed. Makes for a long lived 4X4
system that hardly ever has any trouble.

As for the engines, both are ok. The 4 cylinder will be easier to rebuild
(well.. it does have 2 fewer cylinders). But the 4.0 is tough and long lived
(can't speak for the 4 banger). They generally last more than 200 thousand
miles with regular oil changes. The 4 cylinder will have lower gears, I
believe. Better for off-roading (so I've heard). I have never had gear ratio
problems with my 4.0's setup.

I would choose the 4.0 over the 2.5 although the 5 speed would make it
hard.... The Jeep auto transmissions are very tough. Both from what I've
read and what I've experienced.

I don't know about the 2.5's common problems, but the 4.0 commonly has a
valve cover leak, rear main seal leak, and problems with cracking that big
ol' exhaust manifold. Mine has a slight rear main leak, and I fixed the
valve cover with some rtv silicone. But she's tough as nails and a blast to
drive. It's faster than most people expect.


"J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:r9rDb.125325$Vu5.7837429@twister.southeast.rr .com...
> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the
4.0L
> and an auto trans.
>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price
on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little
($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go
to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
charged
> and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
>

Re: How about your opinions.
 

Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
> and an auto trans.

Go for the 4.0 all else being equal. The auto is veryy good and
that engine is barely broken in if it has been given minimal care.

The 4.0 can crawl all day at low rpm and yet cruise on the highway
at any speed she should ever be driving in a short wheelbase Jeep
plus a bit more. Far more relaxed power train than buzzing along
a highway with the 4 banger like an old british "beginner" sports car.

Try driving both at 65-70 and see the difference as the 4.0 just
lopes along and the 2.5 buzzes its brains out.

>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.

Easily fixed aftermarket.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
> and the tank filled with gas.

The 4.0 is much nicer driving as you charge up the battery and make
sure the gas stays fresh. This works best if you drive it every day
and give it a good run every now and then. >:-)

> Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.

In an aero body the 4.0 can get just over 20 with 3.73 rear gears,
dunno about the more bricklike SWB Jeep. The lockup torque convertor
in that auto really helps keep the engine nice and relaxed at
sane highway speeds.

> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.

The 4.0 has all sorts of rebuild stuff available including the ability
to get really nutso and stroke it to 4.5 to 4.9 and/or turbo it for
dealing with riced out shitboxes.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: How about your opinions.
 

Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
> and an auto trans.

Go for the 4.0 all else being equal. The auto is veryy good and
that engine is barely broken in if it has been given minimal care.

The 4.0 can crawl all day at low rpm and yet cruise on the highway
at any speed she should ever be driving in a short wheelbase Jeep
plus a bit more. Far more relaxed power train than buzzing along
a highway with the 4 banger like an old british "beginner" sports car.

Try driving both at 65-70 and see the difference as the 4.0 just
lopes along and the 2.5 buzzes its brains out.

>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.

Easily fixed aftermarket.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
> and the tank filled with gas.

The 4.0 is much nicer driving as you charge up the battery and make
sure the gas stays fresh. This works best if you drive it every day
and give it a good run every now and then. >:-)

> Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.

In an aero body the 4.0 can get just over 20 with 3.73 rear gears,
dunno about the more bricklike SWB Jeep. The lockup torque convertor
in that auto really helps keep the engine nice and relaxed at
sane highway speeds.

> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.

The 4.0 has all sorts of rebuild stuff available including the ability
to get really nutso and stroke it to 4.5 to 4.9 and/or turbo it for
dealing with riced out shitboxes.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: How about your opinions.
 

Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
> would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
> and an auto trans.

Go for the 4.0 all else being equal. The auto is veryy good and
that engine is barely broken in if it has been given minimal care.

The 4.0 can crawl all day at low rpm and yet cruise on the highway
at any speed she should ever be driving in a short wheelbase Jeep
plus a bit more. Far more relaxed power train than buzzing along
a highway with the 4 banger like an old british "beginner" sports car.

Try driving both at 65-70 and see the difference as the 4.0 just
lopes along and the 2.5 buzzes its brains out.

>
> Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
> (150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
> (and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
> both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
> as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.

Easily fixed aftermarket.
>
> As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
> the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
> and the tank filled with gas.

The 4.0 is much nicer driving as you charge up the battery and make
sure the gas stays fresh. This works best if you drive it every day
and give it a good run every now and then. >:-)

> Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.

In an aero body the 4.0 can get just over 20 with 3.73 rear gears,
dunno about the more bricklike SWB Jeep. The lockup torque convertor
in that auto really helps keep the engine nice and relaxed at
sane highway speeds.

> Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
> up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
> not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.

The 4.0 has all sorts of rebuild stuff available including the ability
to get really nutso and stroke it to 4.5 to 4.9 and/or turbo it for
dealing with riced out shitboxes.


--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Re: How about your opinions.
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:07 GMT, "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote:

>I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
>would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
>and an auto trans.
>
>Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
>(150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
>(and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
>both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
>and the tank filled with gas.
Once you start driving that Jeep around town I bet you will find you
get to like the Jeep, nothing like a Jeep in a crowded parking lot
when your fighting for a spot.
>Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
Here is an example of half doors as for the rest of your questions I
will leave that to the experts. BTW that isn't an example of the top
you will be getting it is just an example of a half door.
http://www.4softtops.com/door_kits.asp

Here is a Bikini top >>>
http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/s..._Jeep_CJ7.jpeg

Knowing the younger generation she would be happier with the 92 and
the soft top assuming you don't live in the great white north like I
do, I have a hard top for the winter and a 1/2 top for the summer.

My half top >>> http://members.shaw.ca/kb57/jeep.htm

Re: How about your opinions.
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:07 GMT, "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote:

>I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
>would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
>and an auto trans.
>
>Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
>(150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
>(and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
>both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
>and the tank filled with gas.
Once you start driving that Jeep around town I bet you will find you
get to like the Jeep, nothing like a Jeep in a crowded parking lot
when your fighting for a spot.
>Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
Here is an example of half doors as for the rest of your questions I
will leave that to the experts. BTW that isn't an example of the top
you will be getting it is just an example of a half door.
http://www.4softtops.com/door_kits.asp

Here is a Bikini top >>>
http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/s..._Jeep_CJ7.jpeg

Knowing the younger generation she would be happier with the 92 and
the soft top assuming you don't live in the great white north like I
do, I have a hard top for the winter and a 1/2 top for the summer.

My half top >>> http://members.shaw.ca/kb57/jeep.htm

Re: How about your opinions.
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:07 GMT, "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote:

>I posted last week asking about how a 91 Wrangler with a 2.5L and 5-speed
>would perform. Now I found another Wrangler, this one is a 92, with the 4.0L
>and an auto trans.
>
>Both are in about identical condition, have almost the same mileage
>(150,000+/-), come with Hardtop, 91 also has bikini top, 92 has soft top
>(and half doors ????? I guess they are talking about the top half) Price on
>both is the same, maybe I can talk the owner of the 92 down a little ($200)
>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
>
>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to go to
>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery charged
>and the tank filled with gas.
Once you start driving that Jeep around town I bet you will find you
get to like the Jeep, nothing like a Jeep in a crowded parking lot
when your fighting for a spot.
>Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me make
>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they are
>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the holidays.
>
> Thanks Jim
>
Here is an example of half doors as for the rest of your questions I
will leave that to the experts. BTW that isn't an example of the top
you will be getting it is just an example of a half door.
http://www.4softtops.com/door_kits.asp

Here is a Bikini top >>>
http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/s..._Jeep_CJ7.jpeg

Knowing the younger generation she would be happier with the 92 and
the soft top assuming you don't live in the great white north like I
do, I have a hard top for the winter and a 1/2 top for the summer.

My half top >>> http://members.shaw.ca/kb57/jeep.htm