Jet Power chips?
12-29-2003, 05:49 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
David C. Moller did pass the time by typing:
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
12-29-2003, 05:49 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
David C. Moller did pass the time by typing:
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
12-29-2003, 05:49 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
David C. Moller did pass the time by typing:
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
> The part about performance mods like these that I've never understood
> is, if they are such a good idea, and add such a noticeable
> improvement, why don't they come standard (or at least optional)? With
> the automotive competition out there, one would think the manufacturer
> would want to take advantage of these minor mods to reap the benefits.
EPA/Smog/Fuel Mileage mandates/production limits.
Vehicle makers have to keep an average economy across their whole line.
So to offset performance vehicles they produce tinfoil slugmobiles.
Now for the far extreme, blueprinting, porting, etc. The improvement
comes from extra time spent on the engine that the maker considers
inefficient use of production time.
Interesting to note the first V8 ZJ (93) suffered from an intake
restriction between the intake snorkel and TB. Several aftermarket
vendors came up with a spacer. In 94 Jeep changed the intake snorkel
to improve performance.
Depending on the dealer, some will do this. Some actually specialize in
turning daily drivers into street legal monsters.
--
DougW
12-30-2003, 12:11 AM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com>, "TJim" wrote:
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
12-30-2003, 12:11 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com>, "TJim" wrote:
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
12-30-2003, 12:11 AM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com>, "TJim" wrote:
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
>With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
Agreed, it would probably be helpful in those situations, but I think you might
be being a little generous with "another inch or two of pedal". :-)
>Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>;-)
>--
>Jim
12-30-2003, 12:19 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <6T1Ib.1835$zf.502@okepread05>, "Eric" wrote:
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
12-30-2003, 12:19 AM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <6T1Ib.1835$zf.502@okepread05>, "Eric" wrote:
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
12-30-2003, 12:19 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jet Power chips?
In message <6T1Ib.1835$zf.502@okepread05>, "Eric" wrote:
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>I wonder how many people have even taken a 2.5L on a road trip... or done
>any mods to it to see how well it performs. Interesting that the majority
>of comments on what it can/does/should do come from those without one.
>Could just be my skewed perspective. If I could do it over again, 4.0L, no
>doubt. But I still like my lil' SE. It's great in town. Just those
>highway trips are KILLER.
>
>Should be interesting when I tow my bike over 900 miles.. *cringe*
That doesn't sound like fun. Aside from the obvious power difference, I just
can't wait to get out of a 2.5L after listening to it scream and vibrate during
a short road test. The 4.0L is a much more comfortable ride.
Maybe I'm just gettin' old. :-)
>
>Eric
>99 TJ SE
>"TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:qvqdnaFpSvwIsm2iRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> With a 2.5L on the highway, you spend more time at WOT. It does help in
>> that situation. It effectively gives you another inch or two of pedal.
>> Funny, though. I don't seem to have that problem with my Grand Waggy...
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jim
>> --
>> 98 TJ SE
>> 90 SJ GW
>> http://www.delawareja.com/gallery/JDJeep98
>> "You can do any job in the world with the wrong tool if you try hard
>> enough..."
>> "4x4" in caps is "$X$"
>>
>>
>> "bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
>> news:v7kvuvsm409ipm9nq6p975ntl30pku6miq@4ax.com...
>> > In message <KZKHb.30576$PK3.24616@okepread01>, "DougW" wrote:
>> >
>> > >bllsht did pass the time by typing:
>> > >> A larger throttle body *may* help at WOT. For normal driving, the
>PCM
>> will
>> > >> simply adapt to it the same way it adapts to vacuum leaks. It adds
>> more fuel
>> > >> and you gain no performance.
>> > >
>> > >Actually it changes the whole power curve, not just the top end with
>> > >the net result being the engine can breathe easier at higher revs.
>> > >By itself you might be looking at 2-3HP gain, the benefit comes when
>> > >your moving more air like I do with the supercharger.
>> >
>> > By using a larger throttle body, you're just increasing the maximum
>amount
>> of
>> > air that can get into the engine at WOT, so you may get more top end
>> power.
>> > Less than WOT, and it's the same as opening the throttle a little more
>on
>> a
>> > stock TB, or pulling off a big vacuum hose to allow more air in. Yeah,
>> the RPM
>> > goes up, but has there been a hp gain? It may be "perceived" as more
>> power
>> > because it takes less throttle action to let the same amount of air in.
>> The
>> > same perception could be gained by changing accelerator linkage
>geometry.
>> >
>> > A supercharger is a different ball game, and would probably benefit from
>a
>> > larger TB.
>> >
>> > >Within limits anything that lowers intake and exhaust resistance
>improves
>> > >efficiency. I say "within limits" because resistance is necessary for
>> the
>> > >engine to scavenge properly. Most modern engines use the O2 sensor to
>> > >set the mix, with the TPS acting as a sanity check and WOT signal.
>> > >
>> > >> "DougW" wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> BNB7 did pass the time by typing:
>> > >>>> I was thinking about putting one of these chips in my '95 XJ. Does
>> anyone
>> > >>>> have any experience with these chips. Do they actually work? Do you
>> think
>> > >>>> they're worth couple hundred bucks or what could I buy for the same
>> money
>> > >>>> that would do the same thing?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Save your money.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Best first steps would be
>> > >>> 1) cat-back, gibson, borla, etc.
>> > >>> 2) new exhaust headers
>> > >>> 3) bored over throttle body.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't give an engine size so be aware of this gotcha.
>> > >>> If you have the 4 banger, the TB from a I6 is the largest you
>> > >>> want to go. If you put a bored out TB for the I6 on your 4
>> > >>> it will run so lean the engine will melt. :) Well, maby not
>> > >>> that lean, but it will run like crap cause you essentially overtook
>> > >>> the injectors.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wmerritt@bear.com
Jeep Mailing List
4
07-21-2006 04:12 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)