From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Fri Apr 14 06:04:06 2006 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Friday, April 14 2006 Volume 01 : Number 2624 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: OT: oil and politiks rant fsj: alternate fuels fsj: Re: alternate fuels Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels fsj: alternate fuels fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? fsj: new Jeeps! Re: fsj: new Jeeps! RE: fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? RE: fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels 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: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:59:56 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: fsj: OT: oil and politiks rant john said: {- you do realize of course that we, as a planet, are only {- using about 2.3% of the available land for growing things... {- check out the CIA website for total land use. Which sounds great to us midwesterners, all that opportunity... Until you remember that we have pretty much the best soil in the world, and other places can't produce nearly as much per acre as we can. A lot of what they count as potential farmland is actually pretty bad soil, and you wouldn't get much out of it. {- you also realize that the federal government actually pays {- farmers NOT to plant things, in part for crop rotation, and {- in part to manage supply to keep costs within reason and keep {- the prices up for farmers so they don't lose their investments. {- there is some wisdom involved in managing price fluctuations, {- but if there is something they can grow all the better. True on both counts. If they need more crops and want to stop paying them for land that is idle entirely for market reasons, that would be fine. But one way or the other, we do have to pay farmers enough to make sure they can make a decent living without trying to overwork the land (which wouldn't work for very long at all anyway). In fact, several years ago, Iowa's biggest crop switched from corn to soybeans, partially because soybeans are so versatile (used for a huge range of products); but mainly because with corn, you pretty much can only farm each parcel of land every other year, while with soybeans, you can farm it two out of three years. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What the grasshopper calls "mayhem," the master calls "natural selection." - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: alternate fuels jim, the 2.3% is worldwide... I didn't have time to analyze the data completely, and am working from memory, but the cia website has all the data in summary form. as far as quality of soil, that's not a show stopper, organic or non-organic methods to enhance. there are vast tracts of land even in the US that sit in federal land areas... it's quite interesting to see what we're not using, and what could be put into use with a little bit of water... john On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Dan Black wrote: >-->john said: >-->{- you do realize of course that we, as a planet, are only >-->{- using about 2.3% of the available land for growing things... >-->{- check out the CIA website for total land use. >--> >-->Which sounds great to us midwesterners, all that opportunity... Until >-->you remember that we have pretty much the best soil in the world, and >-->other places can't produce nearly as much per acre as we can. A lot of >-->what they count as potential farmland is actually pretty bad soil, and >-->you wouldn't get much out of it. >--> >-->{- you also realize that the federal government actually pays >-->{- farmers NOT to plant things, in part for crop rotation, and >-->{- in part to manage supply to keep costs within reason and keep >-->{- the prices up for farmers so they don't lose their investments. >-->{- there is some wisdom involved in managing price fluctuations, >-->{- but if there is something they can grow all the better. >--> >-->True on both counts. >--> >-->If they need more crops and want to stop paying them for land that is >-->idle entirely for market reasons, that would be fine. >--> >-->But one way or the other, we do have to pay farmers enough to make sure >-->they can make a decent living without trying to overwork the land (which >-->wouldn't work for very long at all anyway). >--> >-->In fact, several years ago, Iowa's biggest crop switched from corn to >-->soybeans, partially because soybeans are so versatile (used for a huge >-->range of products); but mainly because with corn, you pretty much can >-->only farm each parcel of land every other year, while with soybeans, you >-->can farm it two out of three years. >--> >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> What the grasshopper calls "mayhem," the master calls "natural selection." >-->-------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to fry some phish: http://castlecops.com/pirt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:36:37 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: fsj: Re: alternate fuels john said: {- there are vast tracts of land even in the US that sit in {- federal land areas... it's quite interesting to see what {- we're not using, and what could be put into use with a little {- bit of water... Heh, that's easy for you to say, living near the ocean and getting rain 200 days out of the year. Ask western Colorado about water. ;) I also think the federal land areas are important to protect from development, so people like us can enjoy them for recreation. I know you didn't say to pave them; I'm just sayin'. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults. - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels getting water seems to be a big issue. dams and reservoirs seem to be the best bet, provided fish ladders are included and it's not in my backyard. ;) using vast tracts of open range and land for agriculture will eventually become cost effective, meaning that they'll figure a way of getting water to it... this will also offset the fear of rainforest loss as we hydrate other parts that are arid oxygen will be produced and climate will be changed. the planet is quite dynamic and rebounds well to our ignorance and neglect. of course it has to be that way considering the natural disasters that take place that man has no control over like volcanoes, lighting strike fires, floods, hurricanes and tornados to name a few. sometimes the damage we do seems pretty tame. ;) So, in the grand scheme of things we can deal with our energy problems, even continue using our FSJs/XJs etc by growing the fuel, collecting rain water and snow runoff and desalinating salt water... even synthetic oil can be made from things we can grow (in fact it is). things are not as bleak as they might seem. just because well meaning people are ignorant of science and technical alternatives does not mean that those of that are rational can't placate their stupidity, I mean ignorance, by working through their objections step by step. unless of course they have an agenda... and that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? ;) john On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Dan Black wrote: >-->john said: >-->{- there are vast tracts of land even in the US that sit in >-->{- federal land areas... it's quite interesting to see what >-->{- we're not using, and what could be put into use with a little >-->{- bit of water... >--> >-->Heh, that's easy for you to say, living near the ocean and getting rain >-->200 days out of the year. Ask western Colorado about water. ;) >--> >-->I also think the federal land areas are important to protect from >-->development, so people like us can enjoy them for recreation. I know >-->you didn't say to pave them; I'm just sayin'. >--> >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults. >-->-------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to fry some phish: http://castlecops.com/pirt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:07:27 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: alternate fuels I've got 55 gallons of waste veggie oil in the drive... I filter it down to 10 microns and run some of it in my Mercedes Diesel... if I used pure veggie oil I could run it unfiltered, but still only want to mix to about 30% with Diesel because of it's viscosity and lubricity. I have used motor oil in a pinch when I ran out of fuel on the Hewitt Avenue (US2) Trestle... :) half a quart of motor oil got me off the bridge and to a station... try that with a gasoline engine. :) I should price out veggie oil at costco... :) I have burned oil oil used to make fries at home... my rabbit smelled like a popcorn machine... running waste veggie oil from a burger place smells like a nice bbq... I love Diesels. Can hardly wait for Superdawg to be done. That 6.2L in the J10 will be perfect for setting up a series of filters and heaters in the bed so I can run just about anything I want in it. john On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Ed Kummel wrote: >-->Apparently biodiesel is quite popular in europe and as a result, it has driven cooking oil through the roof. >--> You gotta consider at what point is cooking oil you can buy from the store cheaper than getting your diesel at the pump....I can just see it now..."honey, I have to stop by the Safeway and fill up the Jeep!" >--> Ed >--> web/gadget guru >--> >-->Jim Blair wrote: >--> The problem with biodiesel (and ethanol) is it uses a LOT of renewable >-->resources to produce. How much farm land (which has been disappearing for >-->years and is a finite resource) will be switched to that production and >-->where will the food come from? >--> >-->"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation >-->gone under." >--> >-->- Ronald Reagan ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to fry some phish: http://castlecops.com/pirt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? got a call from a friend, he has a problem with his '85 XJ, 4speed, 4 cylinder with a noisy NP229. I didn't realize they used the 229 behind manual trans in the XJ. Anyway, my guess is it's a 21 spline input and not interchangeable with the FSJ 229... also, I'm guessing here, that the transmissions wouldn't be the same so there might be a different coupling. thoughts? experience? 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 ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to fry some phish: http://castlecops.com/pirt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:45:09 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: fsj: new Jeeps! Just got an email from Jeep. They just showed new Jeeps at the NY Auto Show: all: http://www.jeep.com/vehicles.html Patriot: http://www.jeep.com/en/07patriot/ (Fall 2006) Looks like a cross between the Liberty (front) and Commander (back), in between their sizes. Maybe intended as a Cherokee replacement, even though the Liberty was about the same size (even though it looked deceptively small) and really intended for that? Or could they even be discontinuing the Liberty in favor of this? Oh, or maybe the Grand Cherokee -- hadn't they intended to discontinue that with the Cherokee anyway, but caved since people liked it so much? Anyway, it looks nice, maybe based on the Rescue concept, and could replace the Liberty or Grand Cherokee or both. Kinda stupid name, though; reminds me of the PATRIOT Act. Ick. Of course, I also thought (and still tend to think) "Liberty" was a kinda stupid name. They both sound like Jeep's just jumping on the patriotism bandwagon, which has already been on the downhill side for awhile. I think they should be picking names that are more about the outdoors, names that will stand up to the test of time. How 'bout "Moab" or something? Wrangler Unlimited: http://www.jeep.com/en/07wranglerunlimited (Summer 2006) Looks like it has the Rubicon name -- at least that's on the hood of the one pictured. Looks nice -- lotsa fun. Compass: (Summer 2006) http://www.jeep.com/07compass Are these even available with 4wd? I'm not sure about this one. Other than the grille, it really doesn't look like a Jeep to me at all. Just like a run-of-the-mill cute-ute. But then, I guess that will be good for the moms who want a Jeep but don't need or want to pay for the 4wd. Also shown are the 2006 and 2007 Wranglers (the 2007 has a nice square back) and the 2006 Liberty, Grand Cherokee, and Commander. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harrier: (n.) A machine for converting jet fuel into large amounts of stationairy noise. - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:01:42 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: new Jeeps! the wheelbase on the patriot is just a bit longer, by 2", than an xj... looks a lot like an XJ, except for the ugly front end I mean. jeep is in trouble... they've lost it... john On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Dan Black wrote: >-->Just got an email from Jeep. They just showed new Jeeps at the NY Auto >-->Show: >--> >-->all: >-->http://www.jeep.com/vehicles.html >--> >-->Patriot: >-->http://www.jeep.com/en/07patriot/ >-->(Fall 2006) >-->Looks like a cross between the Liberty (front) and Commander (back), in >-->between their sizes. Maybe intended as a Cherokee replacement, even >-->though the Liberty was about the same size (even though it looked >-->deceptively small) and really intended for that? Or could they even be >-->discontinuing the Liberty in favor of this? Oh, or maybe the Grand >-->Cherokee -- hadn't they intended to discontinue that with the Cherokee >-->anyway, but caved since people liked it so much? Anyway, it looks nice, >-->maybe based on the Rescue concept, and could replace the Liberty or >-->Grand Cherokee or both. Kinda stupid name, though; reminds me of the >-->PATRIOT Act. Ick. Of course, I also thought (and still tend to think) >-->"Liberty" was a kinda stupid name. They both sound like Jeep's just >-->jumping on the patriotism bandwagon, which has already been on the >-->downhill side for awhile. I think they should be picking names that are >-->more about the outdoors, names that will stand up to the test of time. >-->How 'bout "Moab" or something? >--> >-->Wrangler Unlimited: >-->http://www.jeep.com/en/07wranglerunlimited >-->(Summer 2006) >-->Looks like it has the Rubicon name -- at least that's on the hood of the >-->one pictured. Looks nice -- lotsa fun. >--> >-->Compass: >-->(Summer 2006) >-->http://www.jeep.com/07compass >-->Are these even available with 4wd? I'm not sure about this one. Other >-->than the grille, it really doesn't look like a Jeep to me at all. Just >-->like a run-of-the-mill cute-ute. But then, I guess that will be good >-->for the moms who want a Jeep but don't need or want to pay for the 4wd. >--> >-->Also shown are the 2006 and 2007 Wranglers (the 2007 has a nice square >-->back) and the 2006 Liberty, Grand Cherokee, and Commander. >--> >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> Harrier: (n.) A machine for converting jet fuel into large amounts of >--> stationairy noise. >-->-------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- to fry some phish: http://castlecops.com/pirt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:22:18 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: RE: fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? A: 23 spline on 4 cyl and V6 904 autos (84 to '87ish). 21 spline on AW4 autos (4.0L and 2.5L) till '91. Then 23 spline till the end. The manual trans should have a NP231, NP207 or possibly a NP242 unless someone did a trans "upgrade" (My son and I found a Dakota with 4 cyl and AX-15 trans to part for his Comanche in Canada to get a 23 spline AX-15 (instead of the AX-5) and he'll be running the NP208J I pulled from an '81 Cherokee I parted. "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." - - Ronald Reagan got a call from a friend, he has a problem with his '85 XJ, 4speed, 4 cylinder with a noisy NP229. I didn't realize they used the 229 behind manual trans in the XJ. Anyway, my guess is it's a 21 spline input and not interchangeable with the FSJ 229... also, I'm guessing here, that the transmissions wouldn't be the same so there might be a different coupling. thoughts? experience? john _________________________________________________________________ Don^Rt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:23:07 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: RE: fsj: 229 xfr case in '85 xj, 21 or 23 spline? PS: Some 4 cyls came with T4 or T5 or SR4/5 trans which is 23 spline. _________________________________________________________________ Don^Rt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:28:15 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels TREES make oxygen from the CO2 and not other green plants. (well, they do, but on an extremely small scale compared to trees. IIRC, 1 tree equalled 12 acres of grass) "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." - - Ronald Reagan getting water seems to be a big issue. dams and reservoirs seem to be the best bet, provided fish ladders are included and it's not in my backyard. ;) using vast tracts of open range and land for agriculture will eventually become cost effective, meaning that they'll figure a way of getting water to it... this will also offset the fear of rainforest loss as we hydrate other parts that are arid oxygen will be produced and climate will be changed. the planet is quite dynamic and rebounds well to our ignorance and neglect. of course it has to be that way considering the natural disasters that take place that man has no control over like volcanoes, lighting strike fires, floods, hurricanes and tornados to name a few. sometimes the damage we do seems pretty tame. ;) So, in the grand scheme of things we can deal with our energy problems, even continue using our FSJs/XJs etc by growing the fuel, collecting rain water and snow runoff and desalinating salt water... even synthetic oil can be made from things we can grow (in fact it is). things are not as bleak as they might seem. just because well meaning people are ignorant of science and technical alternatives does not mean that those of that are rational can't placate their stupidity, I mean ignorance, by working through their objections step by step. unless of course they have an agenda... and that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? ;) john http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:57:01 CDT From: Dan Black Subject: Re: fsj: Re: alternate fuels john said: {- getting water seems to be a big issue. dams and reservoirs seem {- to be the best bet, provided fish ladders are included and it's {- not in my backyard. ;) Not if we're still talking about Colorado. Dams and reservoirs there are the best bet to get water and power FOR LOS ANGELES, not for Colorado. Because that's where all their water is already going. Many are accusing those people for the dryness in Colorado, though they haven't been able to prove it yet because there are too many factors involved (so L.A. claims it's the other factors). In reality, it's probably "all of the above", but you'd have serious problems trying to convince me that taking that much water from Colorado isn't having _any_ noticeable effect. {- using vast tracts of open range and land for agriculture will {- eventually become cost effective, meaning that they'll figure {- a way of getting water to it... And that's much more expensive than the old-fashioned method ("rain"), which is why some of those areas haven't been tapped yet. So "become cost effective" means there will first have to be enough demand for existing crops to drive prices up to the point where irrigation to other areas can be competitive. {- the {- planet is quite dynamic and rebounds well to our ignorance {- and neglect. of course it has to be that way considering {- the natural disasters that take place that man has no control {- over like volcanoes, lighting strike fires, floods, hurricanes {- and tornados to name a few. sometimes the damage we do seems {- pretty tame. ;) Yep. I honestly don't know how much impact we have, but I tend to think the over-zealous far-left are wrong. Their hearts are in the right place, but they take the first data we get on a given environmental topic and immediately draw end-of-the-world conclusions from it when we're actually far from understanding all the factors in an extremely dynamic system. I've always thought it was funny how "knowledge" on health issues goes back and forth all the time. Aspirin will be good for you one year and eggs will be bad, then three years later, aspirin will be found to cause cancer and eggs will be good again. Well, it's the same for the environmental issues. Here's the latest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm Basically this study says cleaner air _amplifies_ global warming. Of course, I don't think we have enough knowledge of the entire system to draw absolute conclusions either way. I'm still anti-pollution just because there are obviously major bad things about it, and I'm betting they outweigh any good things you can find. {- So, in the grand scheme of things we can deal with our energy {- problems, even continue using our FSJs/XJs etc by growing the {- fuel, collecting rain water and snow runoff and desalinating {- salt water... even synthetic oil can be made from things {- we can grow (in fact it is). But none of that is cost-effective or very scalable yet. I think desalinating ocean water has the most potential for solving a lot of problems if we can find a better (cheaper) way of doing it. {- things are not as bleak as they might seem. just because well {- meaning people are ignorant of science and technical alternatives {- does not mean that those of that are rational can't placate their {- stupidity, I mean ignorance, by working through their objections {- step by step. unless of course they have an agenda... and that {- couldn't possibly be true, now could it? ;) Yeah, that's another problem with radicals (left- _or_ right-wing). Once they get some ideals set and turn those ideals into a mission, they close their minds and refuse to accept or process any new data or go about it with any kind of logic. It befuddles the minds of us logical geeks, but that's the way they work. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, I've gone and caught a sniffle. -- Indiana Jones - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2624 **************************