From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Jul 11 16:30:43 2001 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, July 11 2001 Volume 01 : Number 1377 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: of V8s Re: fsj: of V8s fsj: mag? where is my FSJ mag!? -at-#%*%*%#-at-^&**!!! fsj: comedy, tradegy or what??? fsj: Re: fsj-digest V1 #1376 Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] fsj: FW: [JEEP-L] Fw: [ZJ] LU - Who rules the trail? Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] fsj: TBI, vacation fsj: Auto to Manual swap fsj: Re: carpeting for Jeep J10 fsj: Who rules the trail? fsj: Possyum - a Red Green special??? ;) fsj: Re: carpeting for Jeep J10 fsj: Re: 1987 Jeep Wranglers Re: fsj: Re: 1987 Jeep Wranglers FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-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 fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: of V8s On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Martin, William PO1 wrote: >-->If you want more info on the TFI upgrade go to >--> http://www.trailhed.com/images/v8upgrade.txt only V8 I have now is in my '99 Grand Cherokee (WJ), it has no distributer... of course I haven't found the plugs for sure either... ;) They have a coil on each plug. The thing is impressive. When you mash the go pedal it goes. It'll dust a 4v powered 360 for certain. Fuel Injection is awesome. The 99 has 3.73's as well... 4.7L engine. I didn't want a V8, wanted another 4.0L, but hey, I'm making due... ;) my old boss was bragging about his 5.9L powered durango... I checked the specs... the WJ with a 4.7L is still over a second faster 0to60... john ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux **** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://junkscience.com ** http://snopes.com ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA ...don't leave life without Jesus, please... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:28:23 EDT From: RKH911-at-aol.com Subject: Re: fsj: of V8s > my old boss was bragging about his 5.9L powered durango... I checked > the specs... the WJ with a 4.7L is still over a second faster 0to60... > I think John Miller and Michael B referred to it as the Drag-ango during a trip to find the remains of the A-12. It's ground clearance compared to a FSJ was less than stellar, as I recall. Rob Harrison 85 Grand Wagoneer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:18:28 -0500 From: "R.J. Baynum" Subject: fsj: mag? where is my FSJ mag!? -at-#%*%*%#-at-^&**!!! I have not gotten mine ether, and they said they were looking at july 4, which has come and gone now.. I sent an email once to them asking about it.. and got bank an email with major attitude! I guess they did not like me asking.. Maybe they took the money and left the country?..hmmmm.. R.J. Date: Wed, 11 July 2001 10:08:55 -0400 From: "Scott & Kristin" Subject: FSJ Magazine I know the latest issue is supposed to be late, but has anyone heard anything lately? Still looking for the May issue. Scott H. 88 Grand Wag 78 Wag Virginia Beach, VA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: comedy, tradegy or what??? not sure if this is a comedy, a tradegy or what... http://netscape.digitalcity.com/seattle/news/article.dci?article=809313 john ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux ** (plain text please!) ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:14:36 -0500 From: Brian Wall Subject: fsj: Re: fsj-digest V1 #1376 The TB cover was leaking antifreeze on 7/11/01 11:29 AM, fsj-digest at owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net wrote: > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:41:21 -0500 > From: Landon Tesar > Subject: fsj: timing chain cover seal > > Brian - you wrote.... > >> They¹re also going to give me an estimate to take out some >> pinion slop in the rear end and replace the timing chain cover seal. About >> the latter of those two: after replacing the water pump yesterday, I found >> it still leaked. >> > what was leaking from the timing chain cover seal - oil ? or antifreeze > ? > > just wondering if it is something you have to go into to change the > water pump or vice versa. > > - - Landon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:48:58 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] Michael Shimniok said: {- But even at 56k, email downloads are doubled or {- tripled by just a few image attachments. "Doubled or tripled"? That's being way too nice. A standard text email would usually take 3-5K without extra HTML encoding and junk. Good ol' plain text. HTML encoding generally triples that on its own. A small graphic of FSJ content would probably take at least 15K, probably more like 30K, and a good-sized one is more in the 100-150K range. MIME encoding typically adds another 50% onto that, so we'll be nice and say 150K for one graphic. That's at least THIRTY TIMES the size of a straight text message, or about 45sec for a standard modem download (figuring about 3.5K/sec, the RealWorld standard speeds -- some get better, some get worse). Start increasing the size more, and you have even more problems. {- So what I'm hearing from those in favor of email attachments is that if I {- want people to see my picture, I should be allowed to force everyone {- on the entire list to download my picture whether they want to or {- not, wasting their valuable time but saving a few minutes of my own time. People also seem to forget when they make arguments for attachments that it's also not just one picture. Here, people often post albums of 20-25 pics on the web (give or take 100...) and use bigger pictures for better detail. So suddenly you're talking about a 4MB email (using an example of 20pics at avg. 200K each, encoded). Now multiply that by several people on the list, plus most of us are on multiple lists (FSJ or not)... You could easily be talking about 10MB/day for the trigger-happy people. Then you also have to remember the email account quotas. Many people, high bandwidth or not, use email accounts with a limit of 5-10MB. They start out with some stuff already in them if they've been using it for long, and it could fill their email in a day or two pretty easily. Then they're not getting any email in the meantime (some of which could be important), and it's bouncing to the list owner (I run a couple of my own lists, so I can tell you how annoying those can be). Leave on vacation for a week or two (I'm leaving for two weeks on Friday, for example), and suddenly you're completely swamped. So I agree; large things should never be sent over email unless it's to a very small group and everybody knows it's coming ahead of time. Maybe that'll change in the coming years, but there are still plenty of reasons so far for not doing that. Besides, that's essentially what the web was invented for in the first place (for real). It's there, it's easy, it's virtually free (or at least it's being paid for either way) -- use it! :) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is. -- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:03:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Alexander Wall Subject: Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] I think he meant 2-3 times as LONG to download, not actual file size. :-) - --- Dan Black wrote: > Michael Shimniok said: > {- But even at 56k, email downloads are doubled or > {- tripled by just a few image attachments. > > "Doubled or tripled"? That's being way too nice. A standard text email > would usually take 3-5K without extra HTML encoding and junk. Good ol' > plain text. HTML encoding generally triples that on its own. A small > graphic of FSJ content would probably take at least 15K, probably more > like 30K, and a good-sized one is more in the 100-150K range. MIME > encoding typically adds another 50% onto that, so we'll be nice and say > 150K for one graphic. That's at least THIRTY TIMES the size of a > straight text message, or about 45sec for a standard modem download > (figuring about 3.5K/sec, the RealWorld standard speeds -- some get > better, some get worse). Start increasing the size more, and you have > even more problems. > > {- So what I'm hearing from those in favor of email attachments is that if I > {- want people to see my picture, I should be allowed to force everyone > {- on the entire list to download my picture whether they want to or > {- not, wasting their valuable time but saving a few minutes of my own time. > > People also seem to forget when they make arguments for attachments that > it's also not just one picture. Here, people often post albums of 20-25 > pics on the web (give or take 100...) and use bigger pictures for better > detail. So suddenly you're talking about a 4MB email (using an example > of 20pics at avg. 200K each, encoded). > > Now multiply that by several people on the list, plus most of us are on > multiple lists (FSJ or not)... You could easily be talking about > 10MB/day for the trigger-happy people. > > Then you also have to remember the email account quotas. Many people, > high bandwidth or not, use email accounts with a limit of 5-10MB. They > start out with some stuff already in them if they've been using it for > long, and it could fill their email in a day or two pretty easily. Then > they're not getting any email in the meantime (some of which could be > important), and it's bouncing to the list owner (I run a couple of my > own lists, so I can tell you how annoying those can be). Leave on > vacation for a week or two (I'm leaving for two weeks on Friday, for > example), and suddenly you're completely swamped. > > > So I agree; large things should never be sent over email unless it's to > a very small group and everybody knows it's coming ahead of time. Maybe > that'll change in the coming years, but there are still plenty of > reasons so far for not doing that. > > Besides, that's essentially what the web was invented for in the first > place (for real). It's there, it's easy, it's virtually free (or at > least it's being paid for either way) -- use it! :) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; > but in practice, there is. > -- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut > -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ===== Alexander Wall Spokane, WA ================================================== "Where there's a will, there's a way." - Eliza Cook "Where there's a way, there's a construction crew disrupting traffic!" - Alexander Wall ================================================== Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: David Charles Gedraitis Subject: Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] hmmm-Maybe someone can tell me-what's this "download speed" thing I keep hearing about? ~dave (being a smartass over a T3 line) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:17:09 -0700 From: "Phillips, Scott" Subject: fsj: FW: [JEEP-L] Fw: [ZJ] LU - Who rules the trail? Just got this from Tom Zehrback via the Jeep-L. I think we all need to send in an e-mail to TIME about this type of reporting. Scott From: Z [mailto:tzehrbach-at-home.com] > Read the last sentence first. > > http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010716/atv.html Sent to Time in response: Ms Amanda Ripley: "Then again, off-roaders have never been known for slavishly obeying official signs." Nice character assignation on OHV users. I really appreciate the fair and balanced approach on this article. (That's sarcasm, if you didn't catch it.) I was just in the White River National Forest this past weekend - in a Jeep. Along with two other Jeeps. Believe it or not, all of us stayed on the trails and actually stopped in wildflower meadows (WITHOUT crushing them into pulp) to take in the magnificent views and aromas. We met a lot of other mechanized visitors too, and they were doing pretty much the same thing - respecting the environment, loving the experience and, I know you'll have a hard time understanding this, but they actually seemed to want to keep their machines on the trails! Yeah, I know, after all the rhetoric the eco-extremists have spouted about mechanized users blazing new trails, I find it amazing that most of us actually want to stay on established trails! (Oh, there I go again, more sarcasm). So, when they prohibit all vehicle-assisted visits to USFS land, will they be changing those quaint National Forest signs from "Land of Many Uses" to "Land of one use"? Disgusted, Thomas R. Zehrbach - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: jeep-l-unsubscribe-at-mailinglists.org For additional commands, e-mail: jeep-l-help-at-mailinglists.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:19:05 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: [Re: fsj: attachments on the lists...] Alexander Wall said: {- I think he meant 2-3 times as LONG to download, not actual file size. {- :-) Ummm, unless you've done something really funky (and intentional), file size and download time should be directly proportional. I know you included a smiley, but I must've misssed the joke... I _did_ get Dave's sarcasm with the T3. :) I don't even know what we have at the univerity now -- I think OC12s, with T3s to our department - -- but I just have a cable modem at home. Download speed isn't bad, but upload speed and reliability suck. I'm switching back to DSL if it comes to my new place, no question. {- --- Dan Black wrote: {- > Michael Shimniok said: {- > {- But even at 56k, email downloads are doubled or {- > {- tripled by just a few image attachments. {- > {- > "Doubled or tripled"? That's being way too nice. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets. - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:25:18 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: fsj: TBI, vacation A little FSJ content to atone for the bandwidth debate. Got the '88 back yesterday. Got the R134a AC conversion; seems to work really well. Under $300 for that, done professionally. He also got the settings changed enough on the TBI (Holley's Commander 950) for it to run fairly smoothly. I took it out and adjusted some more; it's running even better now. I probably won't be able to adjust it much more before vacation (won't have time), but hopefully I'll have plenty of time to play with it on the trip. And the vacation itself: Going up to Apple River (3hrs away? -- MN/WI border) for the weekend, immediately followed by a two-week trip to Colorado, in the Sangre de Cristo mountains. Along the way, I plan to go up Mt. Evans (highest paved road in N.America, 14150') to see how the TBI handles. Wish me luck! :) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like expecting the bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian. -- Dennis Wholey (or Rabbi Harold Kushner?) - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:32:16 -0700 From: Brigart Anderson Subject: fsj: Auto to Manual swap Hello: I just purchased a 1966 Kaiser Jeep Wagoneer, with a 327 V8. It currently has a turbo 400 auto tranny and I would like to switch it over to a manual trans. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Can't spend too much on this rig being the fourth ride in the stable, so easily obtainable junkyard parts would be fine. Thanks in advance. Brigart Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:27:28 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: carpeting for Jeep J10 thanx. I guess I need to choose a color now. :) Will let you know in a couple of weeks at most... (going to pass this along to a few Full Size Jeep folks) john meister On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 rob-at-1aauto.com wrote: >-->John, >--> >-->We do have the carpet available for your 83 J10 Pickup for $132.95 plus >-->$14.00 shipping and handling. The carpets are made up in our Custom Comfort >-->cutpile material, and can be made in almost any color. Please reply if you >-->are interested, or call us at 888-844-3393. >--> >-->Thank You >-->Rob Conlon >-->www.1aauto.com >--> >-->----- Original Message ----- >-->From: john >-->To: >-->Cc: john meister >-->Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:02 PM >-->Subject: carpeting for Jeep J10 >--> >--> >-->> >-->> I need carpeting for my 1983 Jeep J10 pickup. >-->> I was wondering if you had any, and if so how much and what colors and >-->> grades were available. >-->> >-->> thanx, >-->> john meister >-->> snohomish, washington >-->> day ph: 425.356.1663 >-->> >-->> ---- >-->> >-->> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->> ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux **** http://wagoneers.com ** >-->> ** http://junkscience.com ** http://snopes.com ** http://freegift.net ** >-->> Snohomish, Washington USA ...don't leave life without Jesus, please... >-->> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->> >-->> >-->> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux ** (plain text please!) ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:38:22 -0700 From: "Phillips, Scott" Subject: fsj: Who rules the trail? Regarding the TIME article I just forwarded: If ya feel like sending a letter to the editor here's the address. daily-at-timeinc.net Scott Phillips ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:58:21 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: Possyum - a Red Green special??? ;) on the lighter side: http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50900&id=200107110847000267053 (Possums, Number One Pest, Become Dogfood ... The possum, a cat-sized tree-climbing marsupial from Australia, was introduced into New Zealand in 1837 to establish a fur trade.... ) sorry... couldn't resist sharing this one... ;) john ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux ** (plain text please!) ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:12:47 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: carpeting for Jeep J10 On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Pat Hines wrote: >-->Speaking of carpeting, are there any >-->recommendations by anyone for these pre-molded >-->carpet sets you see advertised all the time? >-->>From someone that has actually bought a set. >-->Pat One of the guys on vacation got one, he was happy with it... all I can remember now is his email handle and that he's got a 71 wag... arghh... eastern washington... vacationing in the cheese state, two kids... a ford truck... rats... anyway... I think he was happy with it. rofl... john >--> >-->> >-->are interested, or call us at 888-844-3393. >-->> >-->Thank You >-->> >-->Rob Conlon >-->> >-->www.1aauto.com >-->> >-->To: ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux ** (plain text please!) ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: 1987 Jeep Wranglers On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Wayne Wilde wrote: >-->You seem to know alot about Jeeps. My son has a 1987 Jeep Wrangler. I >-->guess this is the first year for the Wrangler but I've been told it >-->still had the AMC 6 cylinder engine in it. Is that correct? We are yep, the 258, didn't get the 4.0L until later, '90 I think maybe... dunno... I don't know much about the bobtails... (will pass this along to a couple lists to see if we can get the correct answer. ;) >-->having alot of engine problems with oil blow back into the carb and >-->running rough. I have been told it is because it is the AMC engine and usually it's worn rings, but it can also be the oil breather setup. It's pretty normal, and not a real worry. Lots of folks put a "catch" setup on the oil breather tube so it doesn't get into the air cleaner. They'll run the hose to a jug and then another line out the other side. >-->in 1988 they replaced it with the Chrysler straight 6 which is a much >-->better engine. Is that true? Any help would be appreciated. no, the 4.0L engine is still an AMC. But I don't know when the YJ's got them... And they have problems with blowby too, but not as bad, not as early and not as often... I don't think Chrysler has a straight six any more... the old 225 slant six was a good engine. :) Not sure, I'm pretty focused on the XJ and Full Size Jeep models... life is too short to know everything. ;) My '83 J10 is getting a 4.0L HO from a '96 xj installed... the original 4.2L had blowby real bad. :) Suspect a broken ring on #2 cylinder... john >-->Thanks >-->Wayne >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux ** (plain text please!) ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:56:45 -0400 From: mpolkkidodge-at-netscape.net Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 1987 Jeep Wranglers The Wranglers got the 4.0L in 1991. Same as the XJ the High Output Version. Chrysler hasn't had a straight six for many many years. The Slant six was a great engine The 87 Wrangler has it's good and bad points. The Puegot Transmission is weak. The engine is good if properly maintained. and for AMC fans. This was the Last AMC Model Year Open jeep. The 4.0l is a better engine but that mostly has to do with the advanced technology. The 258is great if well maintained but parts do break as in all older autos. john wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Wayne Wilde wrote: >   > > >-->You seem to know alot about Jeeps. My son has a 1987 Jeep Wrangler. I > >-->guess this is the first year for the Wrangler but I've been told it > >-->still had the AMC 6 cylinder engine in it. Is that correct? We are > > yep, the 258, didn't get the 4.0L until later, '90 I think maybe... dunno... > I don't know much about the bobtails...  (will pass this along to a couple > lists to see if we can get the correct answer. ;) > > >-->having alot of engine problems with oil blow back into the carb and > >-->running rough. I have been told it is because it is the AMC engine and > > usually it's worn rings, but it can also be the oil breather setup.  It's > pretty normal, and not a real worry.  Lots of folks put a "catch" setup > on the oil breather tube so it doesn't get into the air cleaner.  They'll > run the hose to a jug and then another line out the other side. > > >-->in 1988 they replaced it with the Chrysler straight 6 which is a much > >-->better engine. Is that true? Any help would be appreciated. > > no, the 4.0L engine is still an AMC.  But I don't know when the YJ's got them... > And they have problems with blowby too, but not as bad, not as early and not > as often...  I don't think Chrysler has a straight six any more... the old > 225 slant six was a good engine. :)  Not sure, I'm pretty focused on the > XJ and Full Size Jeep models...  life is too short to know everything. ;) > > My '83 J10 is getting a 4.0L HO from a '96 xj installed... the original > 4.2L had blowby real bad. :)  Suspect a broken ring on #2 cylinder... > > john > > >-->Thanks > >-->Wayne > >--> > >     ---- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >    ** john-at-wagoneers.com via PINE on Linux  ** (plain text please!) >      **  http://wagoneers.com **    ** http://freegift.net ** >    Snohomish, Washington USA  - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >  ...and remember, leaving life without Jesus just isn't recommended...   > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #1377 **************************