From owner-xj-digest-at-digest.net Thu Apr 30 09:47:54 2009 From: xj-digest xj-digest Thursday, April 30 2009 Volume 01 : Number 2998 Forum for Discussion of XJ cherokees and wagoneers Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: xj: RE: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) xj: RE: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) xj: Re: fsj: Chrysler files bankruptcy 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: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:49:48 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: xj: RE: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) I would sooner do a SD33T (or SD35T which is slightly newer and more powerful if you can find one someone will let go of) than the Onan built engine (unless you find one cheap) The T5 isn't geared right for a diesel engine, nor is it beefy enough to stand up for long to a diesel. (the diesel doesn't spin fast enough to make the tiny amount of oil in the T5 move around enough to lube the trans) The AW4 would need a modded torque converter (much lower stall speed) to function correctly. I was looking at the diesel swap (VW Jetta/Audi) in my DJ5 with the 904 and talked over specs with the guys at Sea-Tac. Stall speed needs to be dropped because the diesel has no RPMs. Idle speed is also much slower than gas engines. Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:31:07 -0700 > From: dieseljohn-at-comcast.net > To: > Subject: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) > > have some reliable specs on the Cummins 6AT, seems that engine was made by Onan. > > however, have heard that parts are hard to come by... (same as for the Nissan SD33/t), and > that the 6AT is not extremely durable, but the folks that have them seem to like them. > > question for me is it worth a swap in the tug, or is it even in the ballpark for > use in my '83 J10 Stepside... the SD33 is amazingly gutless, but economical > and cruises fine on the freeway. for 26 HP and 60 ftlbs of torque I'm > sure it's NOT worth a swap in the tug... > > HOWEVER, as far as my J10, it came this way: > > 83 - J10 4.2L - 115 hp -at- 3,200 - 210 ft lbs -at- 1,800 <-- original > > the SD33 has 94 hp and 160 ftlbs... the 4.2 wasn't all that impressive, > so an SD33 in it would be disappointing, but probably faster than in the > tug... the J10 weighs in at around 4,100, the tug at 4,400. of course > adding the SD33 engine to the J10 would make it about the same, in other > words... NO way am I using the SD33 in my J10. And I really don't think > going to an SD33T is a good long term solution either... parts issues mainly, > I might have better luck tracking down Onan/Cummins 6AT pieces if needed... thoughts? > > > Question is will the 6AT really be worth the trouble, it's pretty close to > the 4.2, and if could mate to my AW4 transmission it might just be > the ticket... > > or if it would mate to my T-5 I'd probably see better > economy and it would probably drop right in the engine bay... hmm.. > comparable specs and size... just need to see if I can find a Chevy > adapter for my T-5 and it'll all just drop in place, no driveline > changes... sounds good... would be a quick way of getting SuperDawg into > the Diesel world... > > QUESTION: Is there a front adapter on my Jeep T-5 that could be swapped for > one that would mate the Chevy adapter on the 6AT? If I recase the T-5 it'll > have to have the Jeep output on the other end to mate to my NP205 or it gets > expensive quickly. :) > > You know... the specs match up nicely... have access to a known good 6AT, > and my J10 is still not reassembled... if we can drop the 6AT into the same > hole as the 4.2 this should go rather smoothly. Then I can get all the bugs > worked out of the dawg and part ways with the tug... > > john > > SPECS: > ------------------------ > 6AT Diesel, 3.4L, 6 cyl , turbo > 120hp -at- 3,600 RPM > 220 lbft -at- 2000 RPM > 665 lbs dry (no flywheel or trans adapter) > > SD33 Diesel 6 cyl, no turbo > 94hp -at- 3600 RPM > 160 lbft -at- 1800 RPM > 672 lbs dry > > SD33T Diesel 6 cyl, no intercooler > 141 hp -at- 3800 RPM > 188 hp -at- 2000 RPM > 673 Lbs > > ------------------------------------------------ > the 6AT has 26 more HP than my SD33, > but 21 HP LESS than an SD33T. > (SD33T has 47 more HP than the non-turbo version). > > the 6AT has 60 ftlbs more torque than the SD33, > and 32 ftlbs MORE than the SD33T. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------ > other specs: > -94 - GM 6.5L TD - 215 hp -at- 3,200 - 440 lb-ft -at- 1,800 > -87 300d 3.0L chassis 124.133 /engine 603.960 > 143 hp -at- 4600 rpm, 195 ftlbs -at- 2400 rpm > -91 300d 2.5 Turbo Diesel chassis 124.128 /engine 602.962 > 121 hp -at- 4600 rpm, 165 ftlbs -at- 2400 rpm > -88 - GM 6.2L Dsl- 130 hp -at- 3,600 - 240 ft lbs -at- 2,000 > -99 - WJ 4.7L - 235 hp -at- 4,800 - 295 ft lbs -at- 3,200 <-- WJ (GAS... :( > > also from: > http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/engines-comparison-October-2008.txt > > year - engine - HP -at- rpm - torque -at- rpm > -------------------------------------- > 83 - J10 4.2L - 115 hp -at- 3,200 - 210 ft lbs -at- 1,800 <-- original > 97 - ZJ 4.0L - 185 hp -at- 4,600 - 220 ft lbs -at- 2,400 > > 99 - WJ 4.7L - 235 hp -at- 4,800 - 295 ft lbs -at- 3,200 <-- WJ > 99 - WJ 4.0L - 195 hp -at- 4,600 - 230 ft lbs -at- 3,000 > > 83 - J10 360V8 - 129 hp -at- 3,700 - 245 ft lbs -at- 1,600 <-- Old Blue > 88 - XJ 4.0L - 177 hp -at- 4,500 - 224 ft lbs -at- 2,500 <-- little wagoneer > > 91 - XJ 4.0L - 190 hp -at- 4,750 - 225 ft lbs -at- 4,000 > 97 - ZJ 5.2L - 220 hp -at- 4,400 - 300 ft lbs -at- 3,200 > > 78 - SJ 401V8 - 215 hp -at- 4,400 - 320 ft lbs -at- 2,800 <-- 401 V8 > > 88 - GM 6.2L Dsl- 130 hp -at- 3,600 - 240 ft lbs -at- 2,000 > 94 - GM 6.5L TD - 215 hp -at- 3,200 - 440 lb-ft -at- 1,800 > > > john > > > ----- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > http://AMSOIL.com/redirect.cgi?zo=283461 http://creationwiki.org > http://johnmeister.com http://wagoneers.com http://fotomeister.us > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail.: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Upda tes2_042009 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: xj: RE: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) the specs of the 4.2 and 6AT are very close, the T-5 has worked ok for me, but would prefer the AW4, but it gets more complex that way... could use a 700r4 since the 6at is setup for chevy. and yes, it's very reasonably priced, a friend bought it for his rover project and went a different direction. I wouldn't use a 904, want overdrive. I also have a T18 and could get a T19 and an SD33T for cheap, but it's an unknown... thanx jim, john ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://AMSOIL.com/redirect.cgi?zo=283461 http://creationwiki.org http://johnmeister.com http://wagoneers.com http://fotomeister.us - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Jim Blair wrote: # # I would sooner do a SD33T (or SD35T which is slightly newer and more powerful if you can find one someone will let go of) than the Onan built engine (unless you find one cheap) The T5 isn't geared right for a diesel engine, nor is it beefy enough to stand up for long to a diesel. (the diesel doesn't spin fast enough to make the tiny amount of oil in the T5 move around enough to lube the trans) The AW4 would need a modded torque converter (much lower stall speed) to function correctly. # I was looking at the diesel swap (VW Jetta/Audi) in my DJ5 with the 904 and talked over specs with the guys at Sea-Tac. Stall speed needs to be dropped because the diesel has no RPMs. Idle speed is also much slower than gas engines. # # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 # # # # # > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:31:07 -0700 # > From: dieseljohn-at-comcast.net # > To: # > Subject: fsj: Cummins 6AT compared to Nissan SD33 (and 4.2) # > # > have some reliable specs on the Cummins 6AT, seems that engine was made by Onan. # > # > however, have heard that parts are hard to come by... (same as for the Nissan SD33/t), and # > that the 6AT is not extremely durable, but the folks that have them seem to like them. # > # > question for me is it worth a swap in the tug, or is it even in the ballpark for # > use in my '83 J10 Stepside... the SD33 is amazingly gutless, but economical # > and cruises fine on the freeway. for 26 HP and 60 ftlbs of torque I'm # > sure it's NOT worth a swap in the tug... # > # > HOWEVER, as far as my J10, it came this way: # > # > 83 - J10 4.2L - 115 hp -at- 3,200 - 210 ft lbs -at- 1,800 <-- original # > # > the SD33 has 94 hp and 160 ftlbs... the 4.2 wasn't all that impressive, # > so an SD33 in it would be disappointing, but probably faster than in the # > tug... the J10 weighs in at around 4,100, the tug at 4,400. of course # > adding the SD33 engine to the J10 would make it about the same, in other # > words... NO way am I using the SD33 in my J10. And I really don't think # > going to an SD33T is a good long term solution either... parts issues mainly, # > I might have better luck tracking down Onan/Cummins 6AT pieces if needed... thoughts? # > # > # > Question is will the 6AT really be worth the trouble, it's pretty close to # > the 4.2, and if could mate to my AW4 transmission it might just be # > the ticket... # > # > or if it would mate to my T-5 I'd probably see better # > economy and it would probably drop right in the engine bay... hmm.. # > comparable specs and size... just need to see if I can find a Chevy # > adapter for my T-5 and it'll all just drop in place, no driveline # > changes... sounds good... would be a quick way of getting SuperDawg into # > the Diesel world... # > # > QUESTION: Is there a front adapter on my Jeep T-5 that could be swapped for # > one that would mate the Chevy adapter on the 6AT? If I recase the T-5 it'll # > have to have the Jeep output on the other end to mate to my NP205 or it gets # > expensive quickly. :) # > # > You know... the specs match up nicely... have access to a known good 6AT, # > and my J10 is still not reassembled... if we can drop the 6AT into the same # > hole as the 4.2 this should go rather smoothly. Then I can get all the bugs # > worked out of the dawg and part ways with the tug... # > # > john # > # > SPECS: # > ------------------------ # > 6AT Diesel, 3.4L, 6 cyl , turbo # > 120hp -at- 3,600 RPM # > 220 lbft -at- 2000 RPM # > 665 lbs dry (no flywheel or trans adapter) # > # > SD33 Diesel 6 cyl, no turbo # > 94hp -at- 3600 RPM # > 160 lbft -at- 1800 RPM # > 672 lbs dry # > # > SD33T Diesel 6 cyl, no intercooler # > 141 hp -at- 3800 RPM # > 188 hp -at- 2000 RPM # > 673 Lbs # > # > ------------------------------------------------ # > the 6AT has 26 more HP than my SD33, # > but 21 HP LESS than an SD33T. # > (SD33T has 47 more HP than the non-turbo version). # > # > the 6AT has 60 ftlbs more torque than the SD33, # > and 32 ftlbs MORE than the SD33T. # > ------------------------------------------------ # > # > # > ------------------ # > other specs: # > -94 - GM 6.5L TD - 215 hp -at- 3,200 - 440 lb-ft -at- 1,800 # > -87 300d 3.0L chassis 124.133 /engine 603.960 # > 143 hp -at- 4600 rpm, 195 ftlbs -at- 2400 rpm # > -91 300d 2.5 Turbo Diesel chassis 124.128 /engine 602.962 # > 121 hp -at- 4600 rpm, 165 ftlbs -at- 2400 rpm # > -88 - GM 6.2L Dsl- 130 hp -at- 3,600 - 240 ft lbs -at- 2,000 # > -99 - WJ 4.7L - 235 hp -at- 4,800 - 295 ft lbs -at- 3,200 <-- WJ (GAS... :( # > # > also from: # > http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/engines-comparison-October-2008.txt # > # > year - engine - HP -at- rpm - torque -at- rpm # > -------------------------------------- # > 83 - J10 4.2L - 115 hp -at- 3,200 - 210 ft lbs -at- 1,800 <-- original # > 97 - ZJ 4.0L - 185 hp -at- 4,600 - 220 ft lbs -at- 2,400 # > # > 99 - WJ 4.7L - 235 hp -at- 4,800 - 295 ft lbs -at- 3,200 <-- WJ # > 99 - WJ 4.0L - 195 hp -at- 4,600 - 230 ft lbs -at- 3,000 # > # > 83 - J10 360V8 - 129 hp -at- 3,700 - 245 ft lbs -at- 1,600 <-- Old Blue # > 88 - XJ 4.0L - 177 hp -at- 4,500 - 224 ft lbs -at- 2,500 <-- little wagoneer # > # > 91 - XJ 4.0L - 190 hp -at- 4,750 - 225 ft lbs -at- 4,000 # > 97 - ZJ 5.2L - 220 hp -at- 4,400 - 300 ft lbs -at- 3,200 # > # > 78 - SJ 401V8 - 215 hp -at- 4,400 - 320 ft lbs -at- 2,800 <-- 401 V8 # > # > 88 - GM 6.2L Dsl- 130 hp -at- 3,600 - 240 ft lbs -at- 2,000 # > 94 - GM 6.5L TD - 215 hp -at- 3,200 - 440 lb-ft -at- 1,800 # > # > # > john # > # > # > ----- # > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # > http://AMSOIL.com/redirect.cgi?zo=283461 http://creationwiki.org # > http://johnmeister.com http://wagoneers.com http://fotomeister.us # > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # # _________________________________________________________________ # Rediscover Hotmail.: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. # http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Upda tes2_042009 # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: xj: Re: fsj: Chrysler files bankruptcy Chrysler deserves it for what they did to Jeep... first the ZJ, then the KJ, then the WK... bleech. or worse, they killed the SJ, the XJ, the MJ and the WJ. which offense is worse? creating things that gave Jeep a bad name and ruined the marque, or killing classics? not to mention changing model designators so they did not follow a time honored tradition... using "J". Who might be worthy of rescuing Jeep? Certainly NOT Fiat... or Renault... welcome to the brave new world of government controlled capitalism, they have a name for it, but it escapes me right now... ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://AMSOIL.com/redirect.cgi?zo=283461 http://creationwiki.org http://johnmeister.com http://wagoneers.com http://fotomeister.us - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Jim Blair wrote: # > From: BreakingNews-at-mail.cnn.com # > Subject: CNN Breaking News # > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:04:57 -0700 # > -- Obama administration official: Chrysler will file for bankruptcy now that # negotiations with creditors have collapsed. ------------------------------ End of xj-digest V1 #2998 *************************