New at this, trying to understand horse power
01-02-2005, 03:13 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
There are oodles of factors involved that determine horsepower. Without
going into depth, here are a few things to consider:
A Honda Accord has 220some HP. This just means it has a lot of take-off
power and can probably pull a fair-sized load. However, this car is designed
for higher RPM and smooth operation. For the sake of explanation, add a 6"
lift and put some 33" tires on the Accord and try and go through a mud hole.
The car has little low-end torque and a completely wrong set of gears. So,
given that the GC (about 190HP?) and Accord have comparable HP ratings, they
are designed to do completely different things.
Next up, consider gas mileage. I'm using the Accord VS GC example again
because it is more black VS white. The car is aerodynamic whereas your GC is
like driving a barn through a headwind. The car is designed for high-RPM
shifting, quick power transfer to the wheels for a fast take-off, and a
smooth, light ride. The GC is designed to pull my house off the foundation,
tear the pavement to shreds upon take-off, and is unsmooth (good word, eh?)
enough to burp a child. Similar HP but completely different purpose. Also on
the topic of gas mileage, consider the engine design. The GC engine is based
on an old design which is less concerned with conservation of fuel and more
concerned with "gimme lotsa power right-bloody-now and turn it into low-end
torque!!" The Accord engine is based on "must be able to post 35mpg on the
sticker to sell the car quickly" and only delivers the extra fuel when you
stomp on the gas. Not to mention, (awaits argument from Bill), those Jap
engines are extremely efficient when it comes to injection.
Third thing, consider my poor 4cyl rust-bucket, driven-to-hell-and-back '85
CJ7. I doubt that thing has any more than about 60HP now-a-days but when my
buddy's '91 YJ was up to the fenders in mud, I had absolutely no problem
pulling him out. For comparison-sake, I'd challenge any Infinity driver out
there to a 30 foot long X 1 foot deep mud bog and despite having 200HP, 2
extra cylinders, and an extra litre of displacement, I would still put my $
on my old CJ. Why? Cuz my little baby is designed to turn that 60HP into
"plow-power" and the Infinity is designed to carry Mrs.Anderson and her 4
kids to the grocery store.
As for technical info ...best bet is to just look it up on google. A lot of
high performance sites will have lengthy technical data, comparisons, and
diagrams. As a quick answer to your question though, I wouldn't call it
"better" engineering or technology. It *is* newer and more efficient ...but
it's just a "different" design for a different purpose. I can't say I know a
person who bought a Jeep because they wanted good MPG. I'm usually happy
with anything over 8mpg ;p One day I'm gonna do the engine/tranny/EFi swap.
One day.
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks
>
>
going into depth, here are a few things to consider:
A Honda Accord has 220some HP. This just means it has a lot of take-off
power and can probably pull a fair-sized load. However, this car is designed
for higher RPM and smooth operation. For the sake of explanation, add a 6"
lift and put some 33" tires on the Accord and try and go through a mud hole.
The car has little low-end torque and a completely wrong set of gears. So,
given that the GC (about 190HP?) and Accord have comparable HP ratings, they
are designed to do completely different things.
Next up, consider gas mileage. I'm using the Accord VS GC example again
because it is more black VS white. The car is aerodynamic whereas your GC is
like driving a barn through a headwind. The car is designed for high-RPM
shifting, quick power transfer to the wheels for a fast take-off, and a
smooth, light ride. The GC is designed to pull my house off the foundation,
tear the pavement to shreds upon take-off, and is unsmooth (good word, eh?)
enough to burp a child. Similar HP but completely different purpose. Also on
the topic of gas mileage, consider the engine design. The GC engine is based
on an old design which is less concerned with conservation of fuel and more
concerned with "gimme lotsa power right-bloody-now and turn it into low-end
torque!!" The Accord engine is based on "must be able to post 35mpg on the
sticker to sell the car quickly" and only delivers the extra fuel when you
stomp on the gas. Not to mention, (awaits argument from Bill), those Jap
engines are extremely efficient when it comes to injection.
Third thing, consider my poor 4cyl rust-bucket, driven-to-hell-and-back '85
CJ7. I doubt that thing has any more than about 60HP now-a-days but when my
buddy's '91 YJ was up to the fenders in mud, I had absolutely no problem
pulling him out. For comparison-sake, I'd challenge any Infinity driver out
there to a 30 foot long X 1 foot deep mud bog and despite having 200HP, 2
extra cylinders, and an extra litre of displacement, I would still put my $
on my old CJ. Why? Cuz my little baby is designed to turn that 60HP into
"plow-power" and the Infinity is designed to carry Mrs.Anderson and her 4
kids to the grocery store.
As for technical info ...best bet is to just look it up on google. A lot of
high performance sites will have lengthy technical data, comparisons, and
diagrams. As a quick answer to your question though, I wouldn't call it
"better" engineering or technology. It *is* newer and more efficient ...but
it's just a "different" design for a different purpose. I can't say I know a
person who bought a Jeep because they wanted good MPG. I'm usually happy
with anything over 8mpg ;p One day I'm gonna do the engine/tranny/EFi swap.
One day.
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks
>
>
01-02-2005, 03:13 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
There are oodles of factors involved that determine horsepower. Without
going into depth, here are a few things to consider:
A Honda Accord has 220some HP. This just means it has a lot of take-off
power and can probably pull a fair-sized load. However, this car is designed
for higher RPM and smooth operation. For the sake of explanation, add a 6"
lift and put some 33" tires on the Accord and try and go through a mud hole.
The car has little low-end torque and a completely wrong set of gears. So,
given that the GC (about 190HP?) and Accord have comparable HP ratings, they
are designed to do completely different things.
Next up, consider gas mileage. I'm using the Accord VS GC example again
because it is more black VS white. The car is aerodynamic whereas your GC is
like driving a barn through a headwind. The car is designed for high-RPM
shifting, quick power transfer to the wheels for a fast take-off, and a
smooth, light ride. The GC is designed to pull my house off the foundation,
tear the pavement to shreds upon take-off, and is unsmooth (good word, eh?)
enough to burp a child. Similar HP but completely different purpose. Also on
the topic of gas mileage, consider the engine design. The GC engine is based
on an old design which is less concerned with conservation of fuel and more
concerned with "gimme lotsa power right-bloody-now and turn it into low-end
torque!!" The Accord engine is based on "must be able to post 35mpg on the
sticker to sell the car quickly" and only delivers the extra fuel when you
stomp on the gas. Not to mention, (awaits argument from Bill), those Jap
engines are extremely efficient when it comes to injection.
Third thing, consider my poor 4cyl rust-bucket, driven-to-hell-and-back '85
CJ7. I doubt that thing has any more than about 60HP now-a-days but when my
buddy's '91 YJ was up to the fenders in mud, I had absolutely no problem
pulling him out. For comparison-sake, I'd challenge any Infinity driver out
there to a 30 foot long X 1 foot deep mud bog and despite having 200HP, 2
extra cylinders, and an extra litre of displacement, I would still put my $
on my old CJ. Why? Cuz my little baby is designed to turn that 60HP into
"plow-power" and the Infinity is designed to carry Mrs.Anderson and her 4
kids to the grocery store.
As for technical info ...best bet is to just look it up on google. A lot of
high performance sites will have lengthy technical data, comparisons, and
diagrams. As a quick answer to your question though, I wouldn't call it
"better" engineering or technology. It *is* newer and more efficient ...but
it's just a "different" design for a different purpose. I can't say I know a
person who bought a Jeep because they wanted good MPG. I'm usually happy
with anything over 8mpg ;p One day I'm gonna do the engine/tranny/EFi swap.
One day.
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks
>
>
going into depth, here are a few things to consider:
A Honda Accord has 220some HP. This just means it has a lot of take-off
power and can probably pull a fair-sized load. However, this car is designed
for higher RPM and smooth operation. For the sake of explanation, add a 6"
lift and put some 33" tires on the Accord and try and go through a mud hole.
The car has little low-end torque and a completely wrong set of gears. So,
given that the GC (about 190HP?) and Accord have comparable HP ratings, they
are designed to do completely different things.
Next up, consider gas mileage. I'm using the Accord VS GC example again
because it is more black VS white. The car is aerodynamic whereas your GC is
like driving a barn through a headwind. The car is designed for high-RPM
shifting, quick power transfer to the wheels for a fast take-off, and a
smooth, light ride. The GC is designed to pull my house off the foundation,
tear the pavement to shreds upon take-off, and is unsmooth (good word, eh?)
enough to burp a child. Similar HP but completely different purpose. Also on
the topic of gas mileage, consider the engine design. The GC engine is based
on an old design which is less concerned with conservation of fuel and more
concerned with "gimme lotsa power right-bloody-now and turn it into low-end
torque!!" The Accord engine is based on "must be able to post 35mpg on the
sticker to sell the car quickly" and only delivers the extra fuel when you
stomp on the gas. Not to mention, (awaits argument from Bill), those Jap
engines are extremely efficient when it comes to injection.
Third thing, consider my poor 4cyl rust-bucket, driven-to-hell-and-back '85
CJ7. I doubt that thing has any more than about 60HP now-a-days but when my
buddy's '91 YJ was up to the fenders in mud, I had absolutely no problem
pulling him out. For comparison-sake, I'd challenge any Infinity driver out
there to a 30 foot long X 1 foot deep mud bog and despite having 200HP, 2
extra cylinders, and an extra litre of displacement, I would still put my $
on my old CJ. Why? Cuz my little baby is designed to turn that 60HP into
"plow-power" and the Infinity is designed to carry Mrs.Anderson and her 4
kids to the grocery store.
As for technical info ...best bet is to just look it up on google. A lot of
high performance sites will have lengthy technical data, comparisons, and
diagrams. As a quick answer to your question though, I wouldn't call it
"better" engineering or technology. It *is* newer and more efficient ...but
it's just a "different" design for a different purpose. I can't say I know a
person who bought a Jeep because they wanted good MPG. I'm usually happy
with anything over 8mpg ;p One day I'm gonna do the engine/tranny/EFi swap.
One day.
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks
>
>
01-03-2005, 04:10 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>
> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>
> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
> milage with 80 more HP.
>
First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
don't know the Infinity line up that well.
Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
-Brian
01-03-2005, 04:10 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>
> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>
> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
> milage with 80 more HP.
>
First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
don't know the Infinity line up that well.
Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
-Brian
01-03-2005, 04:10 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>
> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>
> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
> milage with 80 more HP.
>
First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
don't know the Infinity line up that well.
Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
-Brian
01-03-2005, 09:25 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
Thanks for the insight. So the infinity uses "newer" technology if I
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
01-03-2005, 09:25 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
Thanks for the insight. So the infinity uses "newer" technology if I
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
01-03-2005, 09:25 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
Thanks for the insight. So the infinity uses "newer" technology if I
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
understand you right?
The other responses almost all dealt with low RPM tourque in the old
fashioned Jeep Engine VS the newer design infinity power plant. The lower
end tourque is preferable with a Jeep type vehicle than the additional HP at
higher RPM?
Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?
BTW did I notice that the 05 GC has a different engine with less
displacement than before? Something like 3.5 or 3.7 to the old 4.0.
I like my Jeep but I also like the looks (and specs) on the Infinity FX. I
don't do any offroading with my jeep. The Infinity looks like a brute road
handling machine. 20 inch tires and 280 hp is pretty impressive. The
pricetag is in the mid to high 30s and you can buy a lot of Jeep (or a Jeep
& a boat) for that kinda $$.
"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:7rCdnU1Lx52HkUTcRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
>
>
>> From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs
>>
>> from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs
>>
>> The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same
>> gas milage with 80 more HP.
>>
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima -
> I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod
> engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4
> valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression
> etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for
> JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
>
>
01-03-2005, 03:22 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
Brian? "prehistoric pushrod engine"? Say what? There is no modern OHC
engine that compare their horsepower and torque to any engine designed
and sold to the public during the fifties. When the public demanded
power, guess what, they brought back the old Hemi, and of course
performance cars such as Corvette, or the Ford and Chevrolet police cars
never stopped producing their small blocks.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
engine that compare their horsepower and torque to any engine designed
and sold to the public during the fifties. When the public demanded
power, guess what, they brought back the old Hemi, and of course
performance cars such as Corvette, or the Ford and Chevrolet police cars
never stopped producing their small blocks.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
01-03-2005, 03:22 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New at this, trying to understand horse power
Brian? "prehistoric pushrod engine"? Say what? There is no modern OHC
engine that compare their horsepower and torque to any engine designed
and sold to the public during the fifties. When the public demanded
power, guess what, they brought back the old Hemi, and of course
performance cars such as Corvette, or the Ford and Chevrolet police cars
never stopped producing their small blocks.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian
engine that compare their horsepower and torque to any engine designed
and sold to the public during the fifties. When the public demanded
power, guess what, they brought back the old Hemi, and of course
performance cars such as Corvette, or the Ford and Chevrolet police cars
never stopped producing their small blocks.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> First off, I thought you were talking about the glorified Nissan Maxima - I
> don't know the Infinity line up that well.
> Getting back to the question, you can't expect a prehistoric pushrod engine
> to perform anywhere near that of a high compression DOHC 24 valve engine.
>
> The 3.5 utilizes modern age technology to take advantage of;
>
> Volumetric efficiancy - high flow tuned induction, polished intake, 4 valve
> configuration, DOHC, electronic variable valve timing etc.
> Thermal efficiancy - aluminum block, intake and heads, high compression etc.
>
> Is it any wonder why the IRL used them? Mass produced, affordable race
> engines. You won't see too many 4.0's racing except of course for JeepSpeed
> where they need cast iron to keep the front end on the ground!
> http://jeepspeed.com/images/2a.jpg
>
> -Brian