t5->'89 4.2?
09-13-2005, 04:55 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
09-13-2005, 04:55 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
09-13-2005, 04:55 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
nice.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>
>
> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>
09-13-2005, 11:28 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
09-13-2005, 11:28 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
09-13-2005, 11:28 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
09-13-2005, 11:28 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
>nice.
>
>
>
>"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
>news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
>> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
>>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
>>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
>>>
>>
>> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
>> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
>>
>
09-14-2005, 09:17 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
If you can keep the idle tubes clear, it runs great. I highly recommend
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >
09-14-2005, 09:17 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
If you can keep the idle tubes clear, it runs great. I highly recommend
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >
09-14-2005, 09:17 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: t5->'89 4.2?
If you can keep the idle tubes clear, it runs great. I highly recommend
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >
reaming out the crimped end on the idle tubes like in this link:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/engine/carter.html
I used welding torch tip tools to do mine and it really helped.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
bllsht wrote:
>
> He's right, it is a POS. They can run nice for a little while, but always end
> up with ---- stuck in the idle tubes. Not a good design. The older carbs
> didn't seem to suffer so badly from that problem.
>
> In message <j1HVe.237960$HI.146337@edtnps84>, "Pi-Eyed Piper" wrote:
>
> >It's not a POS, just very choked out, as Mike said they can be made to run
> >nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> >news:dg73r50bmj@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> "aGraham" <aarongraham@mac.com.removeme> wrote in message
> >> news:aarongraham-7E05C8.13290913092005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> >>>I have a chance to get a 4.2 from an 89 Wrangler to replace my tired 258
> >>> in my '79 CJ-7. Will that bolt up to the T5 I currently have? ( I know
> >>> I should replace it while I am at it but limited budget dictates)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should bolt right up using the '79's bits. The carb on the '89 is a total
> >> POS, you'll want to stick with the (not-much-better) '79 peripherals.
> >>
> >