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
> >
> >
>
>

 

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
> >
> >
>
>

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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..

 

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..

 

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..