Jeff White

Bill
Where did you come up with the weight for the 258? The heaviest weight I
could find was 525 lbs; less that what you produced for the V-8.
Also, pre-1972 horsepower figures were gross, not net. No emissions
equipment, no alternator, no power steering pump. Not exactly real world.
That accounts for the most of the large difference in horsepower numbers
between the two pages.
Yes, there is nothing like the sound of a V-8. But the reality, for most
of us in this country, is that emission testing is becoming mandatory and
fuel prices are becoming an issue.
The stroked 4.0 offers decent mileage(around 20mpg), the ability to pass
emission standards that a 1970's V-8 can't and the reliabilty and economy of
modern fuel-injection. With at least 275 lb/ft of torque at 1500 rpm and
over 300 lb/ft from 2000-4500 rpm, even a person that only offroads his CJ
could be happy.
If the 0-60 and quarter/mile times that Dino posted on his website for
his XJ are accurate; then a 4.0 stroker in something as light as a CJ could
be running about dead even with the new GTOs and Mustangs.



"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41D4BDEF.8AFB2557@***.net...
> The AMC 304" V8 weighs in at 540 pounds:
> http://www.hotrodsandhemis.com/he---.html that's less than your six.
> And why settle for 275 horse when you could find a stock AMC with
> 340: http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Jeff White wrote:
>>
>> Here is another angle for you to think about. How about a 4.2 crank in
>> a
>> 4.0 block using the factory fuel injection? Good emssions, decent mileage
>> and the reliabililty of modern fuel injection. Join the Strokers Group
>> and
>> spend some time poking around. This is the way that I am going when the
>> time
>> comes. 275 ponies and over 300 lbs/feet of torque, those are V-8 numbers,
>> without the addded weight of a V-8 up front. I have included a couple of
>> more very good sites with lots of great information. Dino Savva has done
>> a
>> tremendous job with the second website.
>>
>> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/strokers
>> http://www.jeep4.0performance.4mg.com/stroker.html
>> http://www.go.jeep-xj.info/

Jeff White

Bill
Where did you come up with the weight for the 258? The heaviest weight I
could find was 525 lbs; less that what you produced for the V-8.
Also, pre-1972 horsepower figures were gross, not net. No emissions
equipment, no alternator, no power steering pump. Not exactly real world.
That accounts for the most of the large difference in horsepower numbers
between the two pages.
Yes, there is nothing like the sound of a V-8. But the reality, for most
of us in this country, is that emission testing is becoming mandatory and
fuel prices are becoming an issue.
The stroked 4.0 offers decent mileage(around 20mpg), the ability to pass
emission standards that a 1970's V-8 can't and the reliabilty and economy of
modern fuel-injection. With at least 275 lb/ft of torque at 1500 rpm and
over 300 lb/ft from 2000-4500 rpm, even a person that only offroads his CJ
could be happy.
If the 0-60 and quarter/mile times that Dino posted on his website for
his XJ are accurate; then a 4.0 stroker in something as light as a CJ could
be running about dead even with the new GTOs and Mustangs.



"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41D4BDEF.8AFB2557@***.net...
> The AMC 304" V8 weighs in at 540 pounds:
> http://www.hotrodsandhemis.com/he---.html that's less than your six.
> And why settle for 275 horse when you could find a stock AMC with
> 340: http://www.----------.com/amchpchart.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Jeff White wrote:
>>
>> Here is another angle for you to think about. How about a 4.2 crank in
>> a
>> 4.0 block using the factory fuel injection? Good emssions, decent mileage
>> and the reliabililty of modern fuel injection. Join the Strokers Group
>> and
>> spend some time poking around. This is the way that I am going when the
>> time
>> comes. 275 ponies and over 300 lbs/feet of torque, those are V-8 numbers,
>> without the addded weight of a V-8 up front. I have included a couple of
>> more very good sites with lots of great information. Dino Savva has done
>> a
>> tremendous job with the second website.
>>
>> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/strokers
>> http://www.jeep4.0performance.4mg.com/stroker.html
>> http://www.go.jeep-xj.info/

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

There's no substitute for cubic inches.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff White wrote:
>
> Bill
> Where did you come up with the weight for the 258? The heaviest weight I
> could find was 525 lbs; less that what you produced for the V-8.
> Also, pre-1972 horsepower figures were gross, not net. No emissions
> equipment, no alternator, no power steering pump. Not exactly real world.
> That accounts for the most of the large difference in horsepower numbers
> between the two pages.
> Yes, there is nothing like the sound of a V-8. But the reality, for most
> of us in this country, is that emission testing is becoming mandatory and
> fuel prices are becoming an issue.
> The stroked 4.0 offers decent mileage(around 20mpg), the ability to pass
> emission standards that a 1970's V-8 can't and the reliabilty and economy of
> modern fuel-injection. With at least 275 lb/ft of torque at 1500 rpm and
> over 300 lb/ft from 2000-4500 rpm, even a person that only offroads his CJ
> could be happy.
> If the 0-60 and quarter/mile times that Dino posted on his website for
> his XJ are accurate; then a 4.0 stroker in something as light as a CJ could
> be running about dead even with the new GTOs and Mustangs.

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

There's no substitute for cubic inches.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff White wrote:
>
> Bill
> Where did you come up with the weight for the 258? The heaviest weight I
> could find was 525 lbs; less that what you produced for the V-8.
> Also, pre-1972 horsepower figures were gross, not net. No emissions
> equipment, no alternator, no power steering pump. Not exactly real world.
> That accounts for the most of the large difference in horsepower numbers
> between the two pages.
> Yes, there is nothing like the sound of a V-8. But the reality, for most
> of us in this country, is that emission testing is becoming mandatory and
> fuel prices are becoming an issue.
> The stroked 4.0 offers decent mileage(around 20mpg), the ability to pass
> emission standards that a 1970's V-8 can't and the reliabilty and economy of
> modern fuel-injection. With at least 275 lb/ft of torque at 1500 rpm and
> over 300 lb/ft from 2000-4500 rpm, even a person that only offroads his CJ
> could be happy.
> If the 0-60 and quarter/mile times that Dino posted on his website for
> his XJ are accurate; then a 4.0 stroker in something as light as a CJ could
> be running about dead even with the new GTOs and Mustangs.

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

There's no substitute for cubic inches.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff White wrote:
>
> Bill
> Where did you come up with the weight for the 258? The heaviest weight I
> could find was 525 lbs; less that what you produced for the V-8.
> Also, pre-1972 horsepower figures were gross, not net. No emissions
> equipment, no alternator, no power steering pump. Not exactly real world.
> That accounts for the most of the large difference in horsepower numbers
> between the two pages.
> Yes, there is nothing like the sound of a V-8. But the reality, for most
> of us in this country, is that emission testing is becoming mandatory and
> fuel prices are becoming an issue.
> The stroked 4.0 offers decent mileage(around 20mpg), the ability to pass
> emission standards that a 1970's V-8 can't and the reliabilty and economy of
> modern fuel-injection. With at least 275 lb/ft of torque at 1500 rpm and
> over 300 lb/ft from 2000-4500 rpm, even a person that only offroads his CJ
> could be happy.
> If the 0-60 and quarter/mile times that Dino posted on his website for
> his XJ are accurate; then a 4.0 stroker in something as light as a CJ could
> be running about dead even with the new GTOs and Mustangs.

83 CJ

Thanks for all the input and help. I've checked them out and think
they will help.

83 CJ

Thanks for all the input and help. I've checked them out and think
they will help.

83 CJ

Thanks for all the input and help. I've checked them out and think
they will help.