From owner-xj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Sep 18 13:12:41 2002 From: xj-digest xj-digest Wednesday, September 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 1516 Forum for Discussion of XJ cherokees and wagoneers Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: xj: Need MJ e-brake hardware xj: Re: gearing for a 4.0L xj motor in a J10... xj: 235s vs 31s vs 3.54s vs 4.10s xj: Re: 235s vs 31s vs 3.54s vs 4.10s xj: 4.10s - more votes of confidence xj: Re: fsj: 4.10's it is. Thanx! Re: xj: 4.10s - more votes of confidence xj: Re: 4.10s - more votes of confidence XJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeep/xj/ Send submissions to xj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to xj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to xj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:59:55 -0700 From: "Phil" Subject: xj: Need MJ e-brake hardware Ok, made up my mind. I'm going to convert the e-brake to the MJ foot style... After taking a trip to Oregon this weekend I'm fed up with the crappy console and want to make my own for it. I'm going to incorporate handles into it for holding onto while wheeling and getting in. I also desperately need a cupholder. So...any of you MJ folks have spare e-brake junk you wanna get rid of? Wanna trade for XJ handles? Anyone? I need the foot brake, brackets, cables, etc... Phil M. - Kent, WA Locked, Lifted, and Addicted! http://www.PNWXJ.com The Pacific NorthWest XJ Group ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:26:38 -0300 From: "samfans" Subject: xj: Re: gearing for a 4.0L xj motor in a J10... Depends on the tire choice in the end: 235 - 3.73 31" - 4.10 IMHO Bill - ----- Original Message ----- From: john To: Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 5:02 AM Subject: xj: gearing for a 4.0L xj motor in a J10... > I'm trying to decide which R&P to use on my J10 project for > the best fuel economy. Performance is desired, but a distant second... > > I'm putting a '96 Cherokee 4.0L HO engine and Aisin Warner > 4 speed automatic into my '83 J10 Stepside. (it previously > had a 258 (4.2L) with a T-5 and 3.31 gears). Running either > 235's or 31's tires. > > The '96 XJ Cherokee the engine came out of had 3.55's. > > I'm planning on swapping the Model 20 rear axle for a Dana 44. > The rear Dana 44 has 4.10s in it right now. > > I also have access to a set of 3.54's for a Dana 44. > > The benefit of using Dana 44's in going with OX LOCKERS or ARBs. > > I also have the 4.10's out of my '75 J10 (that's where > the rear Dana 44 is coming from). > > So, the question is: > > FOR THE BEST FUEL ECONOMY AND then for OVERALL PERFORMANCE, > WHICH GEAR RATIO do you recommend: > > a.) 3.31 > b.) 3.54 > c.) 3.73 > d.) 4.10 > > notes: > a.) requires obtaining 3.31s for a rear D44 > b.) have D44's and D44 R&P's (two R&P swaps) > c.) DO NOT HAVE R&P for this ratio... $+$ > d.) have a pair of D44's with this ratio, HOWEVER, > the front axle has the wrong drop, will need > to swap R&P in front. > > I guess my least painful options are 3.54s or 4.10s. > > http://www.wagoneers.com/SuperDawg/DawgYear2002/J10-axle-ratios.htm > > I didn't run the numbers on 4.10's... or 3.73's. > However I have the numbers here: > http://www.wagoneers.com/JEEPS/tech/GEARING/ > and of course the formula here: > http://www.wagoneers.com/JEEPS/tech/GEARING/gears.html > > (I know about the on line calculators, but feel free to post the > link for others if you must... ;) > > Anyway, the Aisin Warner has a .75 overdrive so the 4.10's might > not be a bad way of going... not really sure though... I want > the fuel economy... The J10 will mainly be used to drive back > and forth to work... about 14 miles one way, stop and go somewhat, > average speed around 40 mph... > > thanx for the ideas... and let me know if you know any good > sources for the OX or ARB lockers... and which you'd recommend. > > Since I'll be running an NP219 Quadratrac unit I want to keep the > axles "open" for street use, also works better on ice and snow... > but still have lockers for serious wheeling... > > later, > john meister > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ > Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... > jesus, don't leave life without him, please! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:00:35 -0700 From: john Subject: xj: 235s vs 31s vs 3.54s vs 4.10s question really is, 3.54's or 4.10s... leading polls indicate 4.10's. ;) - ----------- SuperDawg has 235's and 3.31's now. Replacing the stock 4.2L/T-5 with a '96 4.0L HO/Aisin Warner 4spd auto with 31's and 3.31's w/od at 60mph - RPM= 1,650 with 31's and 3.54's w/od at 60mph - RPM = 1,750 with 31's and 4.10's w/od at 60mph - RPM = 2,050 with 235's - 3.31's - 60mph - RPM = 1,750 with 235's - 3.54's - 60mph - RPM = 1,850 with 235's - 4.10's - 60mph - RPM = 2,150 (note, if he had a normal TF727 and no overdrive his current 235's and 3.31's would give 2,300RPM at 60mph) The goal is fuel economy, I'm trying to set this thing up as a daily driver. My drive is mixed, 2 miles of 55mph, then 2 miles 35mph, 3 miles of 40mph, 1 mile of 30mph, 2 miles 35mph, then 30 then 35... grand total about 14 miles... major changes in altitude... start out at 350FT above sea level, drop to sea level and then climb back up to 600 FT. Reverse to go home. I go through 10 stoplights and 2 stop signs... So, with that said should I go with 235's or 31s and then 3.54's or 4.10s. 4.10s are probably the best for that scenario, and with the 25% overdrive of the Aisin Warner tranny the 4.0L engine should be ok on the highway... Looking at the numbers I'm only looking at 100rpm difference in engine speed with the smaller tires... not a big delta... Here's the full charts: http://.wagoneers.com/SuperDawg/DawgYear2002/J10-axle-ratios-235s-tires.html http://wagoneers.com/SuperDawg/DawgYear2002/J10-axle-ratios-31in-tires.html thanx for the input, (in digest mode, ok to cc me) john meister - ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... jesus, don't leave life without him, please! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:00:45 -0600 From: "Aaron Storms" Subject: xj: Re: 235s vs 31s vs 3.54s vs 4.10s John, I'll just throw my .02's worth in here too now - I'd go for the 4:10's to have that peppy feeling again. I'm running 4:10's on my khaki 89xj with 33x12.50's and can almost chirp the tires with the 5spd - should be perfect for the AW4. Aaron - ----- Original Message ----- From: "john" To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:00 PM Subject: xj: 235s vs 31s vs 3.54s vs 4.10s > question really is, 3.54's or 4.10s... leading polls indicate 4.10's. ;) > > ----------- > SuperDawg has 235's and 3.31's now. > Replacing the stock 4.2L/T-5 with a '96 4.0L HO/Aisin Warner 4spd auto > > with 31's and 3.31's w/od at 60mph - RPM= 1,650 > with 31's and 3.54's w/od at 60mph - RPM = 1,750 > with 31's and 4.10's w/od at 60mph - RPM = 2,050 > > with 235's - 3.31's - 60mph - RPM = 1,750 > with 235's - 3.54's - 60mph - RPM = 1,850 > with 235's - 4.10's - 60mph - RPM = 2,150 > > (note, if he had a normal TF727 and no overdrive his > current 235's and 3.31's would give 2,300RPM at 60mph) > > The goal is fuel economy, I'm trying to set this thing up as a daily > driver. My drive is mixed, 2 miles of 55mph, then 2 miles 35mph, > 3 miles of 40mph, 1 mile of 30mph, 2 miles 35mph, then 30 then 35... > grand total about 14 miles... major changes in altitude... start > out at 350FT above sea level, drop to sea level and then climb back > up to 600 FT. Reverse to go home. I go through 10 stoplights and > 2 stop signs... So, with that said should I go with 235's or 31s > and then 3.54's or 4.10s. > > 4.10s are probably the best for that scenario, and with the 25% overdrive > of the Aisin Warner tranny the 4.0L engine should be ok on the highway... > > Looking at the numbers I'm only looking at 100rpm difference in engine > speed with the smaller tires... not a big delta... > > Here's the full charts: > http://.wagoneers.com/SuperDawg/DawgYear2002/J10-axle-ratios-235s-tires.html > http://wagoneers.com/SuperDawg/DawgYear2002/J10-axle-ratios-31in-tires.html > > thanx for the input, (in digest mode, ok to cc me) > john meister > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ > Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... > jesus, don't leave life without him, please! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:42:45 -0700 From: john Subject: xj: 4.10s - more votes of confidence Looks like 4.10s is the best way of going for SuperDawg! After looking at the difference between 235's and 31's, it's only 100 RPM difference... the real question is what is the ideal RPM for cruising? If I take SuperDawg to Portland, OR I'll be cruising at 70mph. Question is will 4.10's, 235's and a 25% overdrive offer me an acceptable RPM at 70 mph for decent fuel economy? At 60mph - 235's/4.10s nets me 2,150 RPM, (2,900 w/o the overdrive!) with 31's it drops to 2,050. The '99 WJ cruises at 75 MPH turning 2,500 RPM! 3.73 gears, not sure of tire size... So, maybe I should see if I can match the 4.0L to that range... hmmm... look at this: with 235's/od and 4.10s', it'll be turning 2,700. (200 rpm more then the WJ...) with 31's/od and 4.10's, it'll be 2,550. BINGO! Hey, I think we've got a winner... a little more Rippems out of the straight six won't hurt anything... and should help propel the 4,000 lbs or so (4,200 I think) around town a bit easier... Mileage in town will probably benefit from the 4.10s, and I guess that's where I should focus my economy efforts, for the long trips we'll probably take the wife's '99 WJ. So, 4.10's look like the way to go. Thanx all for your assistance... Looks like I need to get my '75 J10 rear axle down to Centralia. I'll be looking to buy a light weight trailer axle with electric brakes for the J10 box, won't put my Model 20 from my '83 J10 back under it. I'll give Curtis my 3.31 gear sets for "Rocky", he'd benefit from them over his existing 2.72s. And, we only need to setup the front D44 with the 4.10s from the '75 J10... Sure am glad I didn't sell off that front axle now. :) later, john meister At 08:15 AM 9/17/2002 +0000, 1FSJ-at-yahoogroups.com wrote: > From: Pat Hines >Subject: Re: 4.10's or 3.54's... getting closer... >John, > My '02 Blazer ZR2 has 31 inch tires and 3.73 ratio. It >desperately needs 4.10's, particularly since it has >overdrive in fourth gear, it would need them even in third >(direct drive). The 4.3L V6 is attempting to propel a 4300 >pound vehicle down the road, that takes torque. > On my '79 Cherokee, I installed the 4.10's while planning >to run 33 inch tires, I wish I'd gone with 4.56's instead >since that would allow me to run up to 34 inch tires with >some pulling power. That's with a 360 V8 that has some 350 >ftlbs. torque. > > Go with the 4.10's on your truck, you won't be sorry. > >Pat Hines > >john wrote: > > > > 4.10's seem to be the ratio of recommendation... I still need > > to compare the numbers between 3.54's and 4.10s though - ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... jesus, don't leave life without him, please! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:55:01 -0700 From: john Subject: xj: Re: fsj: 4.10's it is. Thanx! At 11:50 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, Jim B wrote: >I was just going to reply to your post about this. On your XJ you had 4.10 >with smaller tires and the same drivetrain set up with less power right? How right, the little wag was running 30x9.5s, 4.10s and the older renix 4.0l. (actually that combo netted 3% undergearing from the stock 215/3.55s it came with... made it faster off the line, but hurt the overall economy a bit) >was the fuel economy? Getting a heavier vehicle up to speed needs more low >end, and the HO motor's cam moved the power band up higher than the Renix >to get more HP and torque. sounds good, thanx for the confirmation... so, running 4.10s with my current (and very nice) 235/75 Michelin AT's sounds like a great plan, very, very cool. And if I'm finding I'm reving a bit too much, I can use my 31's... or move up to 33's, although bigger heavier tires won't necessarily help economy... except on long runs... getting the mass moving off the line will hurt a bit. thanx Jim, Pat and others for the feedback. of course, thanx to my favorite piece of software, Excel... it's the reason I moved to microsoft in '86 or '87... of course Star Office and KOffice offer suitable alternatives... ;) john meister - ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... jesus, don't leave life without him, please! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:23:32 EDT From: LoveMy90XJ-at-aol.com Subject: Re: xj: 4.10s - more votes of confidence I think you've got it! I do a lot of city driving and with 31's and 3.55's on my XJ with the AW4 it really hurt the city mileage. I found myself wishing for 4.11's, I think you will be happy with that setup, more so than 3.54 gears and the extra weight you have to move. Micheal OKC 90 XJ 4.0 4 1/2" lift 32x11.50 In a message dated 9/17/2002 1:43:36 PM Central Daylight Time, john-at-wagoneers.com writes: > Looks like 4.10s is the best way of going for SuperDawg! > > After looking at the difference between 235's and 31's, it's > only 100 RPM difference... the real question is what is > the ideal RPM for cruising? If I take SuperDawg to Portland, OR > I'll be cruising at 70mph. Question is will 4.10's, 235's > and a 25% overdrive offer me an acceptable RPM at 70 mph > for decent fuel economy? > > At 60mph - 235's/4.10s nets me 2,150 RPM, > (2,900 w/o the overdrive!) > with 31's it drops to 2,050. > > The '99 WJ cruises at 75 MPH turning 2,500 RPM! 3.73 gears, > not sure of tire size... So, maybe I should see if I can > match the 4.0L to that range... hmmm... look at this: > > with 235's/od and 4.10s', it'll be turning 2,700. > (200 rpm more then the WJ...) > with 31's/od and 4.10's, it'll be 2,550. BINGO! > > Hey, I think we've got a winner... a little more Rippems > out of the straight six won't hurt anything... and should > help propel the 4,000 lbs or so (4,200 I think) around town > a bit easier... > > Mileage in town will probably benefit from the 4.10s, and I > guess that's where I should focus my economy efforts, for the > long trips we'll probably take the wife's '99 WJ. > > So, 4.10's look like the way to go. Thanx all for your > assistance... Looks like I need to get my '75 J10 rear > axle down to Centralia. I'll be looking to buy a light weight > trailer axle with electric brakes for the J10 box, won't > put my Model 20 from my '83 J10 back under it. I'll give Curtis > my 3.31 gear sets for "Rocky", he'd benefit from them over his > existing 2.72s. And, we only need to setup the front D44 with > the 4.10s from the '75 J10... Sure am glad I didn't sell off > that front axle now. :) > > later, > john meister ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:57:26 -0600 From: "Aaron Storms" Subject: xj: Re: 4.10s - more votes of confidence John, you worry about this stuff way too much - you could've been done with the swap by now if you'd spent the same amount of effort wrenching on on SuperDawg as you did trying to figure out the perfect ratio...:) Aaron - ----- Original Message ----- From: "john" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: xj: 4.10s - more votes of confidence > Looks like 4.10s is the best way of going for SuperDawg! > > After looking at the difference between 235's and 31's, it's > only 100 RPM difference... the real question is what is > the ideal RPM for cruising? If I take SuperDawg to Portland, OR > I'll be cruising at 70mph. Question is will 4.10's, 235's > and a 25% overdrive offer me an acceptable RPM at 70 mph > for decent fuel economy? > > At 60mph - 235's/4.10s nets me 2,150 RPM, > (2,900 w/o the overdrive!) > with 31's it drops to 2,050. > > The '99 WJ cruises at 75 MPH turning 2,500 RPM! 3.73 gears, > not sure of tire size... So, maybe I should see if I can > match the 4.0L to that range... hmmm... look at this: > > with 235's/od and 4.10s', it'll be turning 2,700. > (200 rpm more then the WJ...) > with 31's/od and 4.10's, it'll be 2,550. BINGO! > > Hey, I think we've got a winner... a little more Rippems > out of the straight six won't hurt anything... and should > help propel the 4,000 lbs or so (4,200 I think) around town > a bit easier... > > Mileage in town will probably benefit from the 4.10s, and I > guess that's where I should focus my economy efforts, for the > long trips we'll probably take the wife's '99 WJ. > > So, 4.10's look like the way to go. Thanx all for your > assistance... Looks like I need to get my '75 J10 rear > axle down to Centralia. I'll be looking to buy a light weight > trailer axle with electric brakes for the J10 box, won't > put my Model 20 from my '83 J10 back under it. I'll give Curtis > my 3.31 gear sets for "Rocky", he'd benefit from them over his > existing 2.72s. And, we only need to setup the front D44 with > the 4.10s from the '75 J10... Sure am glad I didn't sell off > that front axle now. :) > > later, > john meister > > At 08:15 AM 9/17/2002 +0000, 1FSJ-at-yahoogroups.com wrote: > > From: Pat Hines > >Subject: Re: 4.10's or 3.54's... getting closer... > >John, > > My '02 Blazer ZR2 has 31 inch tires and 3.73 ratio. It > >desperately needs 4.10's, particularly since it has > >overdrive in fourth gear, it would need them even in third > >(direct drive). The 4.3L V6 is attempting to propel a 4300 > >pound vehicle down the road, that takes torque. > > On my '79 Cherokee, I installed the 4.10's while planning > >to run 33 inch tires, I wish I'd gone with 4.56's instead > >since that would allow me to run up to 34 inch tires with > >some pulling power. That's with a 360 V8 that has some 350 > >ftlbs. torque. > > > > Go with the 4.10's on your truck, you won't be sorry. > > > >Pat Hines > > > >john wrote: > > > > > > 4.10's seem to be the ratio of recommendation... I still need > > > to compare the numbers between 3.54's and 4.10s though > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ > Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... > jesus, don't leave life without him, please! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of xj-digest V1 #1516 *************************