How about your opinions.
12-16-2003, 10:11 AM
#21
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
12-16-2003, 10:11 AM
#22
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
12-16-2003, 01:20 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Hi Hank,
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
12-16-2003, 01:20 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Hi Hank,
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
12-16-2003, 01:20 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Hi Hank,
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
supercharger is about three grand:
http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
an air cleaner.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
COLLIDE13@webtv.net wrote:
>
> 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.
12-16-2003, 05:31 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
12-16-2003, 05:31 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
12-16-2003, 05:31 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Hi Hank,
> You're not going to get much for a hundred. Retail a turbo
> supercharger is about three grand:
> http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/newproducts/SVIPower/ It get it's power
> from the exhaust gas pressure, so it's not going to simply bolt on like
> an air cleaner.
That's a supercharger. :)
But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.
This is a turbocharger.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm
> COLLIDE13 wrote:
>>
>> Turbo it?`I saw a turbo kit on ebay for about $100,I liked the idea but
>> couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from
>> inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air
>> intake tube(like K&N?)
Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot
more research or your going to get screwed.
read
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm
Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC.
check out www.hescosc.com , yes, they go for 4K now. For that
price you might be better doing the simple things first.
Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back.
Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.
--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
12-16-2003, 06:15 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Thank for the clarification. :-)
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:nQtDb.767$C05.149885@news.uswest.net...
> 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
> >
> > ($200)
> >
> >>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >>
> >>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> >
> > to
> >
> >>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> >
> > charged
> >
> >>and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> >>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> >>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> >
> > make
> >
> >>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> >
> > are
> >
> >>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >>
> >> Thanks Jim
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:nQtDb.767$C05.149885@news.uswest.net...
> 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
> >
> > ($200)
> >
> >>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >>
> >>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> >
> > to
> >
> >>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> >
> > charged
> >
> >>and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> >>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> >>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> >
> > make
> >
> >>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> >
> > are
> >
> >>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >>
> >> Thanks Jim
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
12-16-2003, 06:15 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
Thank for the clarification. :-)
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:nQtDb.767$C05.149885@news.uswest.net...
> 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
> >
> > ($200)
> >
> >>as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >>
> >>As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> >
> > to
> >
> >>the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> >
> > charged
> >
> >>and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> >>Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> >>reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> >
> > make
> >
> >>up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> >
> > are
> >
> >>not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >>
> >> Thanks Jim
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
"Roy J" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:nQtDb.767$C05.149885@news.uswest.net...
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>