How about your opinions.
12-15-2003, 09:11 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
All of the YJ's had the front axle disconnect. Keeps the wear
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
12-15-2003, 09:11 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
All of the YJ's had the front axle disconnect. Keeps the wear
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
12-15-2003, 09:11 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
All of the YJ's had the front axle disconnect. Keeps the wear
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
down, the vac disconnect system is prone to failure due to dry
rot on the rubber connectors and nylon air lines. '92 and later
had the switch for the '4wd' light mounted on the vac motor, the
earlier ones had the switch on the firewall. There is no sycho on
the front axle shifting, just a dog clutch that is in or out.
Clem wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
12-15-2003, 10:51 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
On 15 Dec 2003 02:08 PM, J posted the following:
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
12-15-2003, 10:51 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
On 15 Dec 2003 02:08 PM, J posted the following:
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
12-15-2003, 10:51 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
On 15 Dec 2003 02:08 PM, J posted the following:
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Buy the one with the 4.0L.
----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
12-16-2003, 05:05 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Turbo it?`I saw a turbo kit on ebay for about $100,I liked the idea but
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
12-16-2003, 05:05 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Turbo it?`I saw a turbo kit on ebay for about $100,I liked the idea but
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
12-16-2003, 05:05 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Turbo it?`I saw a turbo kit on ebay for about $100,I liked the idea but
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?
-Hank.
12-16-2003, 10:11 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
I know a few folks with the auto and 4.0 setup and they seem to work
very well.
The 4.0 engine is a very easy one to rebuild or refresh with new bottom
end bearings. I have helped 2 folks from this newsgroup refresh their
engines. Both had very good compression but lost it on the bottom
ends. One was put together wrong by a 'rebuilder' and the other lost
all the oil on the highway. (with a broke oil pressure gauge)
Both got a remanned crank and new bearings, new timing chain and gears,
new seals and both are still running very strong a couple/few years
later.
The auto seems 'sluggish' compared to the 5 speed, but that is
deceiving. When the auto owners drove in my 5 speed they went wow, it's
so much faster than my auto. Then we drove side by side and they both
accelerate almost identically up to 70 mph once moving past 10 mph. (1st
gear in the 5 sp)
The 4.0 is a much better engine for the highway and it is nice to have
that extra punch if needed off road.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
J 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. 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
very well.
The 4.0 engine is a very easy one to rebuild or refresh with new bottom
end bearings. I have helped 2 folks from this newsgroup refresh their
engines. Both had very good compression but lost it on the bottom
ends. One was put together wrong by a 'rebuilder' and the other lost
all the oil on the highway. (with a broke oil pressure gauge)
Both got a remanned crank and new bearings, new timing chain and gears,
new seals and both are still running very strong a couple/few years
later.
The auto seems 'sluggish' compared to the 5 speed, but that is
deceiving. When the auto owners drove in my 5 speed they went wow, it's
so much faster than my auto. Then we drove side by side and they both
accelerate almost identically up to 70 mph once moving past 10 mph. (1st
gear in the 5 sp)
The 4.0 is a much better engine for the highway and it is nice to have
that extra punch if needed off road.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
J 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. 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