Pretty decent, and twice as much as the Muslim countries of Kuwait: ($2.1m)
and UAE: ($2m) combined contributed to helping their Muslim brethren in
Indonnesia. Not that Saudi was much better at 10 million, but at least they
all contributed something unlike Iran, anything ending -istan, Turkey etc.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41DB97D8.E81EAC16@***.net...
> Your little bubble bee drive, Schumacher:
> http://www.deepthrottle.com/History/usgp_winners.shtml Just gave eight
> million dollars to the Tsunamii fund.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > Yes, at Rockingham - its an oval built a few years ago.
> > Those pics look like the Australian GP though.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

 

Pretty decent, and twice as much as the Muslim countries of Kuwait: ($2.1m)
and UAE: ($2m) combined contributed to helping their Muslim brethren in
Indonnesia. Not that Saudi was much better at 10 million, but at least they
all contributed something unlike Iran, anything ending -istan, Turkey etc.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41DB97D8.E81EAC16@***.net...
> Your little bubble bee drive, Schumacher:
> http://www.deepthrottle.com/History/usgp_winners.shtml Just gave eight
> million dollars to the Tsunamii fund.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > Yes, at Rockingham - its an oval built a few years ago.
> > Those pics look like the Australian GP though.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

 

Pretty decent, and twice as much as the Muslim countries of Kuwait: ($2.1m)
and UAE: ($2m) combined contributed to helping their Muslim brethren in
Indonnesia. Not that Saudi was much better at 10 million, but at least they
all contributed something unlike Iran, anything ending -istan, Turkey etc.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41DB97D8.E81EAC16@***.net...
> Your little bubble bee drive, Schumacher:
> http://www.deepthrottle.com/History/usgp_winners.shtml Just gave eight
> million dollars to the Tsunamii fund.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > Yes, at Rockingham - its an oval built a few years ago.
> > Those pics look like the Australian GP though.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

 

Brian Foster wrote:
> 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?

Yes, uses for utility vehicles like Jeeps are for offroad climbing and
such which needs a lot of low end torque and slow speeds. Also, they
don't handle well at 140mph. :) They don't need a high winding 13,000
rpm engine like your Nissan example.

> Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
> advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?

Gearing in the transmission and differential do take advantage of higher
reving engines and also lower torque engines and everything in
between. You choose the gearing to best suit your needs and what your
engine provides.

>
> 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 $$.

It's all in what you want and what you want to spend. I prefer multiple
vehicles to satisfy these 'needs'. A Jeep and a sports car is a nice
combination. I personally don't get the meld of the two into a vehicle
like the FX or the Cayenne.

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Brian Foster wrote:
> 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?

Yes, uses for utility vehicles like Jeeps are for offroad climbing and
such which needs a lot of low end torque and slow speeds. Also, they
don't handle well at 140mph. :) They don't need a high winding 13,000
rpm engine like your Nissan example.

> Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
> advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?

Gearing in the transmission and differential do take advantage of higher
reving engines and also lower torque engines and everything in
between. You choose the gearing to best suit your needs and what your
engine provides.

>
> 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 $$.

It's all in what you want and what you want to spend. I prefer multiple
vehicles to satisfy these 'needs'. A Jeep and a sports car is a nice
combination. I personally don't get the meld of the two into a vehicle
like the FX or the Cayenne.

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Brian Foster wrote:
> 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?

Yes, uses for utility vehicles like Jeeps are for offroad climbing and
such which needs a lot of low end torque and slow speeds. Also, they
don't handle well at 140mph. :) They don't need a high winding 13,000
rpm engine like your Nissan example.

> Perhaps another stupid question, but couldn't gearing (transmission) take
> advantage of the higher HP at higher RPM without sacrificing tourque?

Gearing in the transmission and differential do take advantage of higher
reving engines and also lower torque engines and everything in
between. You choose the gearing to best suit your needs and what your
engine provides.

>
> 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 $$.

It's all in what you want and what you want to spend. I prefer multiple
vehicles to satisfy these 'needs'. A Jeep and a sports car is a nice
combination. I personally don't get the meld of the two into a vehicle
like the FX or the Cayenne.

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Bill R U seriously trying to say that there are no modern OHC engines that can
match the horsepower/torque of a 50's cast-iron V8? Have you ever heard of
Ferrari? What about Lambourghini? I'll bet an Acura NSX can easily match any
50's cast-iron V8 w/pushrods. Pushrods are "prehistoric" because all that mass
contributes to valve float at high RPM's. Large diameter pistons (i.e. in large
displacement engines) also contribute to inefficient combustion. F1 doesn't use
pushrods -- either in motorcycles or cars.

>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
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

 

Bill R U seriously trying to say that there are no modern OHC engines that can
match the horsepower/torque of a 50's cast-iron V8? Have you ever heard of
Ferrari? What about Lambourghini? I'll bet an Acura NSX can easily match any
50's cast-iron V8 w/pushrods. Pushrods are "prehistoric" because all that mass
contributes to valve float at high RPM's. Large diameter pistons (i.e. in large
displacement engines) also contribute to inefficient combustion. F1 doesn't use
pushrods -- either in motorcycles or cars.

>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
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

 

Bill R U seriously trying to say that there are no modern OHC engines that can
match the horsepower/torque of a 50's cast-iron V8? Have you ever heard of
Ferrari? What about Lambourghini? I'll bet an Acura NSX can easily match any
50's cast-iron V8 w/pushrods. Pushrods are "prehistoric" because all that mass
contributes to valve float at high RPM's. Large diameter pistons (i.e. in large
displacement engines) also contribute to inefficient combustion. F1 doesn't use
pushrods -- either in motorcycles or cars.

>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
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

 

You got something better than this six thousand horsepower fifties
push rod Hemi: http://www.goarmy.com/racing/nhra_top_fuel_dragster.jsp ?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Wblane wrote:
>
> Bill R U seriously trying to say that there are no modern OHC engines that can
> match the horsepower/torque of a 50's cast-iron V8? Have you ever heard of
> Ferrari? What about Lambourghini? I'll bet an Acura NSX can easily match any
> 50's cast-iron V8 w/pushrods. Pushrods are "prehistoric" because all that mass
> contributes to valve float at high RPM's. Large diameter pistons (i.e. in large
> displacement engines) also contribute to inefficient combustion. F1 doesn't use
> pushrods -- either in motorcycles or cars.