How about your opinions.
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Thanks everyone for your advice.
I already though about this suggestion. I already have a 1980 GMC 4X4
Pick-up, and the ultimate tow car a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville with its 400 ci
engine bored and stroked to 460 chi but it is Christmas and no one deserves
a present more than I do. But last week I was driving my wife's Cadillac on
an errand when someone crossed five lanes of traffic and hit me. I found out
today its totaled, so I have to shop for a new car for her also.
I am going with everyone advice and getting the '92 4.0L.
Thanks everyone.
Jim
"CJimmie in Iowa" <jslaird@trvnet.net> wrote in message
news:bro6a9$aul$1@news.netins.net...
> If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''.
But
> you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
> the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test
drive
> one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
> but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.
>
> Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
> 4x4 Club
>
> "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r9rDb.125325$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
> ($200)
> > as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >
> > As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> to
> > the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> charged
> > and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> > Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> > reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> make
> > up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> are
> > not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >
> > Thanks Jim
> >
> >
>
>
Pick-up, and the ultimate tow car a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville with its 400 ci
engine bored and stroked to 460 chi but it is Christmas and no one deserves
a present more than I do. But last week I was driving my wife's Cadillac on
an errand when someone crossed five lanes of traffic and hit me. I found out
today its totaled, so I have to shop for a new car for her also.
I am going with everyone advice and getting the '92 4.0L.
Thanks everyone.
Jim
"CJimmie in Iowa" <jslaird@trvnet.net> wrote in message
news:bro6a9$aul$1@news.netins.net...
> If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''.
But
> you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
> the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test
drive
> one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
> but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.
>
> Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
> 4x4 Club
>
> "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r9rDb.125325$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
> ($200)
> > as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >
> > As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> to
> > the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> charged
> > and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> > Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> > reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> make
> > up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> are
> > not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >
> > Thanks Jim
> >
> >
>
>
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Thanks everyone for your advice.
I already though about this suggestion. I already have a 1980 GMC 4X4
Pick-up, and the ultimate tow car a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville with its 400 ci
engine bored and stroked to 460 chi but it is Christmas and no one deserves
a present more than I do. But last week I was driving my wife's Cadillac on
an errand when someone crossed five lanes of traffic and hit me. I found out
today its totaled, so I have to shop for a new car for her also.
I am going with everyone advice and getting the '92 4.0L.
Thanks everyone.
Jim
"CJimmie in Iowa" <jslaird@trvnet.net> wrote in message
news:bro6a9$aul$1@news.netins.net...
> If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''.
But
> you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
> the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test
drive
> one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
> but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.
>
> Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
> 4x4 Club
>
> "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r9rDb.125325$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
> ($200)
> > as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >
> > As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> to
> > the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> charged
> > and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> > Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> > reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> make
> > up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> are
> > not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >
> > Thanks Jim
> >
> >
>
>
Pick-up, and the ultimate tow car a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville with its 400 ci
engine bored and stroked to 460 chi but it is Christmas and no one deserves
a present more than I do. But last week I was driving my wife's Cadillac on
an errand when someone crossed five lanes of traffic and hit me. I found out
today its totaled, so I have to shop for a new car for her also.
I am going with everyone advice and getting the '92 4.0L.
Thanks everyone.
Jim
"CJimmie in Iowa" <jslaird@trvnet.net> wrote in message
news:bro6a9$aul$1@news.netins.net...
> If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''.
But
> you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy
> the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test
drive
> one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over,
> but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.
>
> Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers
> 4x4 Club
>
> "J" <triangle@apexmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r9rDb.125325$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
> ($200)
> > as it doesn't have a spare or a spare tire rack.
> >
> > As I said in the post last week this is for my granddaughter to use to
go
> to
> > the beach when she visits, plus I will drive it to keep the battery
> charged
> > and the tank filled with gas. Both supposedly get 19/20 mph to the gal.
> > Which one would be the easiest to rebuild the engine in, later on? How
> > reliable are the auto trans? Anything you can tell me that will help me
> make
> > up my mind is welcome. Both are being sold by private parties, and they
> are
> > not in a hurry to sell, they said they will wait until after the
holidays.
> >
> > Thanks Jim
> >
> >
>
>
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
In message <7yODb.4536$PK3.3157@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
In message <7yODb.4536$PK3.3157@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
In message <7yODb.4536$PK3.3157@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
>L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
>> I sure is, I wasn't thinking when I got the hit. I have an old
>> centrifugal blower myself: http://www.----------.com/supercharger.jpg
>
>Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.
>
>Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic
>isn't as new as it appears. :)
>
>Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)
>http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=450937&page=1
>
>Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.
LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
312" here too, it actually put out four hundred horse power. this
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
312" here too, it actually put out four hundred horse power. this
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: How about your opinions.
312" here too, it actually put out four hundred horse power. this
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
was the McCouch before they sold to Paxton. Ford wanted a better idle,
so the pulley didn't open and increase the ratio until you hit the
switch, some were a vacuum switch:
http://www.----------.com/vacuumswitch.jpg I graduated to 462", there's
no substitute for cubic inches. :-) Four hundred inches for my Real
Jeep.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
J wrote:
>
> Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and
> Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in
> 1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock"
> class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has
> told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci
> engine only produced 300 hp. <lol> From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest
> accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque
> that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires
> and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In
> those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock
> classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better
> performance than a turbo I would think..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tom
Jeep Mailing List
44
07-26-2006 08:33 AM
www.DumpBeds.com
Jeep Mailing List
0
03-14-2005 04:47 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)