V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
10-25-2007, 07:09 PM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
Sucker.
But the fifty pound flywheel like used on the Buick V6 to allow it to
idle did have a secondary advantage of storing inertia energy. Your V6 won't
have it as also eats gasoline. But you may buy them for the wimpy four
bangers. And of course we all know of the go quick small block, thirteen
pound wheel, and it's rough idle.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Jon" <jongoddard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193351840.169021.31780@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
> kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
> "minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
> race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
> rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
> driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
> powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
> talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
> too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?
>
> Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
> rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....
>
>
> Jon
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
But the fifty pound flywheel like used on the Buick V6 to allow it to
idle did have a secondary advantage of storing inertia energy. Your V6 won't
have it as also eats gasoline. But you may buy them for the wimpy four
bangers. And of course we all know of the go quick small block, thirteen
pound wheel, and it's rough idle.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Jon" <jongoddard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193351840.169021.31780@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
> kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
> "minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
> race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
> rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
> driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
> powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
> talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
> too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?
>
> Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
> rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....
>
>
> Jon
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
10-25-2007, 07:09 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
Sucker.
But the fifty pound flywheel like used on the Buick V6 to allow it to
idle did have a secondary advantage of storing inertia energy. Your V6 won't
have it as also eats gasoline. But you may buy them for the wimpy four
bangers. And of course we all know of the go quick small block, thirteen
pound wheel, and it's rough idle.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Jon" <jongoddard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193351840.169021.31780@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
> kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
> "minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
> race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
> rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
> driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
> powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
> talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
> too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?
>
> Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
> rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....
>
>
> Jon
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
But the fifty pound flywheel like used on the Buick V6 to allow it to
idle did have a secondary advantage of storing inertia energy. Your V6 won't
have it as also eats gasoline. But you may buy them for the wimpy four
bangers. And of course we all know of the go quick small block, thirteen
pound wheel, and it's rough idle.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Jon" <jongoddard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193351840.169021.31780@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
> kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
> "minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
> race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
> rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
> driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
> powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
> talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
> too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?
>
> Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
> rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....
>
>
> Jon
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
10-25-2007, 07:16 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
"nrs" <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193326015.528981.268800@o38g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 25, 9:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> JP Magazine published a torque and HP curve chart from an independent
> dyno test showing both the 4.0 and the new 3.8. The curves are just
> about exactly the same util up high in RPM, then the 3.8 has a bit
> more torque and hp. I have also read that it takes about 5000 miles
> to break into this level of performance so in test drives of new
> vehicles the engine tends to feel sluggish.
>
> Actually, on paper, the torque curve of the 4.0 is crappy compared to
> the 258 and even the old L and F head engines in terms of peak torque
> RPM. However, in practice, jeepers love the 4.0.
>
Part of the consideration to this conversation should probably be made to
the weight of the vehicles as well. The Unlimited JK weighs a full 1000 lbs
more than my YJ. The weight difference in the two I'm sure is what really
gave the JK a sluggish feel when I drove it and not so much even the V6.
I'm willing to bet that the 3.8V6 can do just as well offroad as the 2.5L4
has been doing for people in their Jeeps.
10-25-2007, 07:16 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
"nrs" <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193326015.528981.268800@o38g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 25, 9:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> JP Magazine published a torque and HP curve chart from an independent
> dyno test showing both the 4.0 and the new 3.8. The curves are just
> about exactly the same util up high in RPM, then the 3.8 has a bit
> more torque and hp. I have also read that it takes about 5000 miles
> to break into this level of performance so in test drives of new
> vehicles the engine tends to feel sluggish.
>
> Actually, on paper, the torque curve of the 4.0 is crappy compared to
> the 258 and even the old L and F head engines in terms of peak torque
> RPM. However, in practice, jeepers love the 4.0.
>
Part of the consideration to this conversation should probably be made to
the weight of the vehicles as well. The Unlimited JK weighs a full 1000 lbs
more than my YJ. The weight difference in the two I'm sure is what really
gave the JK a sluggish feel when I drove it and not so much even the V6.
I'm willing to bet that the 3.8V6 can do just as well offroad as the 2.5L4
has been doing for people in their Jeeps.
10-25-2007, 07:16 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
"nrs" <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193326015.528981.268800@o38g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 25, 9:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> JP Magazine published a torque and HP curve chart from an independent
> dyno test showing both the 4.0 and the new 3.8. The curves are just
> about exactly the same util up high in RPM, then the 3.8 has a bit
> more torque and hp. I have also read that it takes about 5000 miles
> to break into this level of performance so in test drives of new
> vehicles the engine tends to feel sluggish.
>
> Actually, on paper, the torque curve of the 4.0 is crappy compared to
> the 258 and even the old L and F head engines in terms of peak torque
> RPM. However, in practice, jeepers love the 4.0.
>
Part of the consideration to this conversation should probably be made to
the weight of the vehicles as well. The Unlimited JK weighs a full 1000 lbs
more than my YJ. The weight difference in the two I'm sure is what really
gave the JK a sluggish feel when I drove it and not so much even the V6.
I'm willing to bet that the 3.8V6 can do just as well offroad as the 2.5L4
has been doing for people in their Jeeps.
10-25-2007, 07:32 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
I'm not the least bit "worried" about it - just curious. I've owned six
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
10-25-2007, 07:32 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
I'm not the least bit "worried" about it - just curious. I've owned six
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
10-25-2007, 07:32 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
I'm not the least bit "worried" about it - just curious. I've owned six
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
Wranglers, starting with a CJ5. And I liked all of 'em. The one I traded in
on the new one was an '03 Sport. And it was a terrific performer. But I like
the '08 far better than any of them - off or on road, but admitedly
especially on road. With the six-speed transmission and a really
down-in-the-basement 1st and 2nd gears, it's a ball to drive anywhere. And
the torque and horsepower curves seem to sum up everything very well.
"ULB" <ultralightbackpacker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193328132.195782.236980@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 7:40 am, "Jack Carter" <jcarter10screws...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi.
>> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
>> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
> since you already own the vehicle, why worry about it? Especially if
> you just bought it with the lifetime warranty.
>
>
10-25-2007, 07:38 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
On Oct 25, 5:49 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBillHug...@------.net> wrote:
> Cool. Let us know the real outcome. Not what a bought and paid for
> magazine would print.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/
>
> "nrs" <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193351380.205139.269050@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > It could be lying but supposedly it is a chart that is not generally
> > made available to the public. Who knows? What I can say is that
> > some local guys who had Yjs and TJs and then bought JKs are pretty
> > happy with them. A shootout was organized locally to test the TJ
> > rubicon and the JK rubicon on the same day, same obstacles, etc and
> > the JK was declared to be the clear winner. Another shootout was
> > organized to compare the TJ rubicon with a Toyota FJ cruiser and the
> > cruiser had to abort because the control arms were getting bent just
> > from the flexing!
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Here is the link. It is in Spanish so not everyone here will
understand but the general consensus was that the JK did a bit
better. You will see from the pictures that it was tough terrain and
the vehicles were used hard.
http://www.jeeperos.com/foros/showth...paracion+TJ+JK
<LWBillHug...@------.net> wrote:
> Cool. Let us know the real outcome. Not what a bought and paid for
> magazine would print.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/
>
> "nrs" <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193351380.205139.269050@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > It could be lying but supposedly it is a chart that is not generally
> > made available to the public. Who knows? What I can say is that
> > some local guys who had Yjs and TJs and then bought JKs are pretty
> > happy with them. A shootout was organized locally to test the TJ
> > rubicon and the JK rubicon on the same day, same obstacles, etc and
> > the JK was declared to be the clear winner. Another shootout was
> > organized to compare the TJ rubicon with a Toyota FJ cruiser and the
> > cruiser had to abort because the control arms were getting bent just
> > from the flexing!
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Here is the link. It is in Spanish so not everyone here will
understand but the general consensus was that the JK did a bit
better. You will see from the pictures that it was tough terrain and
the vehicles were used hard.
http://www.jeeperos.com/foros/showth...paracion+TJ+JK
10-25-2007, 07:38 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: V-6 in '08 Wrangler???
On Oct 25, 5:49 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<LWBillHug...@------.net> wrote:
> Cool. Let us know the real outcome. Not what a bought and paid for
> magazine would print.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/
>
> "nrs" <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193351380.205139.269050@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > It could be lying but supposedly it is a chart that is not generally
> > made available to the public. Who knows? What I can say is that
> > some local guys who had Yjs and TJs and then bought JKs are pretty
> > happy with them. A shootout was organized locally to test the TJ
> > rubicon and the JK rubicon on the same day, same obstacles, etc and
> > the JK was declared to be the clear winner. Another shootout was
> > organized to compare the TJ rubicon with a Toyota FJ cruiser and the
> > cruiser had to abort because the control arms were getting bent just
> > from the flexing!
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Here is the link. It is in Spanish so not everyone here will
understand but the general consensus was that the JK did a bit
better. You will see from the pictures that it was tough terrain and
the vehicles were used hard.
http://www.jeeperos.com/foros/showth...paracion+TJ+JK
<LWBillHug...@------.net> wrote:
> Cool. Let us know the real outcome. Not what a bought and paid for
> magazine would print.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/
>
> "nrs" <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193351380.205139.269050@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > It could be lying but supposedly it is a chart that is not generally
> > made available to the public. Who knows? What I can say is that
> > some local guys who had Yjs and TJs and then bought JKs are pretty
> > happy with them. A shootout was organized locally to test the TJ
> > rubicon and the JK rubicon on the same day, same obstacles, etc and
> > the JK was declared to be the clear winner. Another shootout was
> > organized to compare the TJ rubicon with a Toyota FJ cruiser and the
> > cruiser had to abort because the control arms were getting bent just
> > from the flexing!
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Here is the link. It is in Spanish so not everyone here will
understand but the general consensus was that the JK did a bit
better. You will see from the pictures that it was tough terrain and
the vehicles were used hard.
http://www.jeeperos.com/foros/showth...paracion+TJ+JK
