Clem

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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Clem

"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D

And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
I didn't think they were that tough!

I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
of the engine....

But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Clem

"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D

And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
I didn't think they were that tough!

I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
of the engine....

But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Clem

"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D

And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
I didn't think they were that tough!

I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
of the engine....

But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/16/03 15:20, Clem's monkeys randomly typed:

> "Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
> news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
>> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D
>
> And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
> I didn't think they were that tough!

Doug has one if memory serves. Dunno if it was stroked and blown
or just blown.

Lotsa daydream info at Clifford and Hesco

http://cliffordperformanceshop.com/home.htm
or http://www.hescosc.com/
>
> I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
> It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
> boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
> of the engine....
>
> But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Follow my investment strategy, invest in lottery futures.

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/16/03 15:20, Clem's monkeys randomly typed:

> "Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
> news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
>> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D
>
> And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
> I didn't think they were that tough!

Doug has one if memory serves. Dunno if it was stroked and blown
or just blown.

Lotsa daydream info at Clifford and Hesco

http://cliffordperformanceshop.com/home.htm
or http://www.hescosc.com/
>
> I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
> It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
> boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
> of the engine....
>
> But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Follow my investment strategy, invest in lottery futures.

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

Lon Stowell

Roughly 12/16/03 15:20, Clem's monkeys randomly typed:

> "Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
> news:YyrDb.122907$_M.638006@attbi_s54...
>> Roughly 12/15/03 15:08, J's monkeys randomly typed:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D
>
> And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn,
> I didn't think they were that tough!

Doug has one if memory serves. Dunno if it was stroked and blown
or just blown.

Lotsa daydream info at Clifford and Hesco

http://cliffordperformanceshop.com/home.htm
or http://www.hescosc.com/
>
> I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned.
> It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a
> boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side
> of the engine....
>
> But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Follow my investment strategy, invest in lottery futures.

--
Fan of the dumbest team in America.

CJimmie in Iowa

If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''. But
you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test drive
one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.

Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
4x4 Club

"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
>
>

CJimmie in Iowa

If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''. But
you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test drive
one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.

Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
4x4 Club

"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
>
>

CJimmie in Iowa

If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''. But
you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test drive
one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.

Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
4x4 Club

"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
>
>