From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Sat Feb 4 11:36:45 2006 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Saturday, February 4 2006 Volume 01 : Number 2581 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: fsj: Re: xj: 42RE fsj: NP219 with a manual? fsj: 4.0 vs 4.7 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: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:28:14 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: 42RE I have a valve body from a '97 42RE that I took apart and studied. (trans was smashed beyond rebuilding unfortunately) The lockup is electrically controlled, but so are the upshifts. Prior to '93 Mopar had the same trans (to fit their engines, not Jeeps) but the whole thing was hydraulic controlled, including lockup. (Sea-Tac has a valvebody waiting for me once I find a 42RE to rewind) The drawback to a 42RE or any 9XX based trans is the weak input shaft and converter neck. I have twisted off the shaft right at the front drum on a 999 (with a Mopar 360 in front of it) and I now know that when you get a certain vibration on takeoff, the converter or input shaft is about to take a dump! I killed several of those converters on my Eagle. (Elmo had the 999 and a HD replacement converter with brazed on forged steel neck. Converter alone set me back $200 but the better fuel economy and power over the 727 was worth it.) BTW, those carbs we got were messed up due to IH stuff being thrown into the mix! (that's why one had a reverse throttle!) As for mixing and matching other parts, I have learned to test fit before saying yay or nay! (and going direct to the source helps too! I found out that NP219 had 2 different input depths. One for std and one for auto!) build your truck right the first time! On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Allen Zylstra wrote: >-->I don't know. It may be a possible upgrade. Mine has 147K on it, but >I >-->have seen/read about some with less than 100K getting replaced. I think >-->some were done that only needed adjustments are sensors replaced. Jim >-->mentioned a change to all electric after 97. Need an experts opinion. I'm not sure Jim has a complete understanding or experience with these models. The documentation I have, factory WJ manuals, says that the 42RE has an electric lockup torque converter, while the 45RFE is full electronic. This is from a 1999-200x WJ manual, so I can say quite clearly that the 42RE is not all electric, and it's after '97. The pdf is still in the temp space so read it yourself... Jim is usually pretty dang close on most issues. But having worked with him on a number of projects here he's been off by just a little bit more than once. It's not really his fault, it's Jeep/Chrysler/AMC... they make subtle changes to parts that look alike. Jim and I have wandered around swap meets picking up carb parts and found that they did not interchange as we had hoped. We've tried to intermingle XJ and Eagle parts, again we were stymied. I suspect that the same kind of thing might happen with transmissions, at least based on what I'm hearing, reading and imagine. He's close... but these ain't hand grenades, atombombs or horseshoes, so close doesn't work. :) Besides, most of his experience is with older models, as is most of ours. The documentation I have indicates some major differences to what Jim is saying. Of course this documentation doesn't come out and say that it's a 904/999/727 with this or that, or if those models even were carried over. A transmission shop or dealership might have useful info. I've been thinking about calling a transmission shop to get more info. Will also help me make a decision on whether to keep my 4.0 or 4.7L WJ. I know that when the WJ came out Jeep claimed it was all new. I know many folks with Zjs that had trans trouble, but no one with a WJ. I'm thinking they are not the same transmission, but unless I get my hands on a factory manual for a ZJ, or talk to a paid expert with direct and recent experience, I'll remain skeptical. _________________________________________________________________ Don^Rt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:40:57 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: NP219 with a manual? On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Jim Blair wrote: > -->direct to the source helps too! I found out that NP219 had 2 different input > -->depths. One for std and one for auto!) I've never heard of an NP219 being attached to a manual... I haven't researched it in depth, but from the factory manuals it looks like Jeep only offered the Quadratrac with automatics (the NP219 is Quadratrac, used from '80-'82) john ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://JohnMeister.com **** http://wagoneers.com ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold ** http://freegift.net *** http://greatcom.org/laws/languages.html ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:35:34 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: 4.0 vs 4.7 for the 1999 model year. displ cyl trans drv cty hwy cmb ucty uhwy ucmb 4.0 6 Auto(L4) 4 16 21 18 17.44 26.64 20.65 4.7 8 Auto(L4) 4 15 19 16 16.2 23.9 18.95 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fedata.htm displ - displacement in liters cyl - number of engine cylinders trans - transmission type drv - drive axle type: F - front wheel drive R - rear wheel drive 4 - 4-wheel or all-wheel drive cty - estimated city mpg (miles/gallon) hwy - estimated highway mpg (miles/gallon) cmb - estimated combined mpg (miles/gallon) ucty - unadjusted city mpg uhwy -unadjusted highway mpg ucmb - unadjusted combined mpg - ------------ with amsoil in the driveline of a 4.7 I've seen 21. I haven't converted the '99 4.0 completely over to amsoil, just the engine. Haven't taken it on a long trip of any kind, but going over Stevens Pass we saw 18.3 mpg. The 4.7L V8 is getting 13 to 15 in town, while the 4.0L is getting 14 to 15 in town. Still trying to decide which way to go... the wife is not basing her decision on the driveline, but on the noises the jeeps make and how nice the dash looks... FWIW, she thinks the new Revos are too noisy... john ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://JohnMeister.com **** http://wagoneers.com ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold ** http://freegift.net *** http://greatcom.org/laws/languages.html ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2581 **************************