From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Sat Sep 22 11:24:12 2007 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Saturday, September 22 2007 Volume 01 : Number 2926 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW fsj: 124, wj, xj or sj, that is the question... fsj: Re: xj: pictures... fsj: Re: xj: xj mileage Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW fsj: Re: xj: pictures... 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, 21 Sep 2007 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW It'll be fine... http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/TransferCase/transfer-case-discussion.html according to that discussion a 231 should be beefier than an NP208. the 4bt may have a lot of torque, but I don't think it has neck snapping performance so unless someone puts the nose of their vehicle up against a wall or a tree and stands on the go pedal and holds it and the tires some how magically maintain traction that it could cause damage... the tires should slip before the chain snaps. :) john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Kevin wrote: # Is it just me, or does that seem like too much torque and too much weight # for an aluminum chain drive case like a 231? # # On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:06:48PM -0700, john wrote: # > way too much for what it is... # > the guy should finish it... # > # > ----- # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > # > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Jim Blair wrote: # > # > # 2a. 1987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer, unfinished Cummins # > # 4bt swap # > # Posted by: "Landen Schooler" # > # skoullar-at-ix.netcom.com skoullar # > # Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:15 pm ((PDT)) # > # # > # Not mine........... sick'um guys. # > # # > # Landen Schooler # > # Palmyra, Iowa # > # # > # Item number: 280152701595 # > # # > # Up for sale is a 1987 jeep grand wagoneer. It is 4 # > # wheel drive # > # and it has dana 44 axles with 3.31 # > # gears. It has a 4bt and a dodge A518 automatic 4 # > # speed out of a # > # 93 W250 truck and a NP231 # > # transfercase. The drivetrain is all mounted, and # > # the exhaust # > # down pipe will fit. The hood closes but # > # it will require a small suspenision lift or oil # > # pan modification # > # to go down the road. There is only # > # about 1/2 an inch between the oil pan and the # > # front pumpkin. The # > # stock springs are sagged, so a 2 # > # inch lift should be plenty. The driveshafts are # > # there, but they # > # need to be modified, and there is # > # also a new radiator. Everything still needs to be # > # hooked up, # > # like wiring, and plumbing and that kind # > # of stuff, but the motor mounts are all made and # > # solid, along # > # with the transmission mounts. The # > # drivetrain is not computer controlled, so wiring # > # will be very # > # simple. The engine has about 100k on # > # it and the transmission has 80k, the transfercase # > # is unknown, # > # and the jeep has 103 on the clock. # > # # > ............................................................................. # > ..................... # > # # > ............................................................................. # > ..................... # > # The jeep is very solid. It came from Washington, # > # so there is no # > # rust on it besides where it was # > # dented and paint chipped off, but that's just # > # surface rust. The # > # paint is faded and in poor # > # condition, but it's rust free. The frame is very # > # solid as well. # > # The previous owner claimed that he # > # put all new brakes on it, and it has 3 new AT # > # tires, the 4 tire # > # was cut and it just has a spare on # > # it. The interior is in above average condition, # > # but it does need # > # to be cleaned. The drivers side # > # door window was broken when I got it, but it has # > # been inside, so # > # it hasn't been weathered. I do have # > # a clear papers for the vehicle. # > # # > ............................................................................. # > ....................... # > # # > ............................................................................. # > ....................... # > # I need the space in my garage and I don't have the # > # time to # > # finish this thing right now, otherwise # > # I'd keep it. I think it would make a really nice # > # light duty tow # > # rig for camping and road trips, or # > # even a daily driver. It was equipped with AC, so # > # all you will # > # need for AC is a compressor, and there # > # is plenty of room for it. It will probably get # > # about 25+ mpg # > # with 31 inch tires. "This vehicle is # > # being sold for parts only and is not operational # > # or street # > # legal. Therefore, upon purchase, it will # > # need to be either towed or put on a trailer. eBay # > # encourages its # > # members to learn about their state # > # laws governing vehicle sales prior to the sale or # > # purchase of a # > # vehicle." # > # # > # exclusive offer. # > # http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_MSNHMTxt_1 # > # # > # # ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:51:10 -0700 From: Kevin Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW That page had a link to nvg's matrix, which sez for a 231: max torque: 1885 (2556 Nm for you metric guys) approximate GVW: 5920 So I guess as long as you didn't load the GW to gross, it would probably be fine ;) For what it's worth, the case in my cummins powered ram (271 or 273 can't remember, but either way it's the same limits) max torque: 7890 approximate GVW: 11500 The NV241HD that made it into some rams as well has a GVW or 11000 and a max torque of 5555. On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:49:32AM -0700, john wrote: > It'll be fine... > http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/TransferCase/transfer-case-discussion.html > > according to that discussion a 231 should be beefier than an NP208. > > the 4bt may have a lot of torque, but I don't think it has > neck snapping performance so unless someone puts the nose of their > vehicle up against a wall or a tree and stands on the go pedal > and holds it and the tires some how magically maintain traction that > it could cause damage... the tires should slip before the chain snaps. :) > > john > > ----- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Kevin wrote: > > # Is it just me, or does that seem like too much torque and too much weight > # for an aluminum chain drive case like a 231? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:39:36 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW cool info... haven't looked at that link for some time... gvw doesn't include towing does it? old blue tipped the scales at 5200lbs with no passengers or cargo... of course he had a 219. old blue II has a 229. john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Kevin wrote: # That page had a link to nvg's matrix, which sez for a 231: # # max torque: # 1885 (2556 Nm for you metric guys) # # approximate GVW: # 5920 # # So I guess as long as you didn't load the GW to gross, it would probably # be fine ;) # # For what it's worth, the case in my cummins powered ram (271 or 273 can't # remember, but either way it's the same limits) # max torque: # 7890 # # approximate GVW: # 11500 # # The NV241HD that made it into some rams as well has a GVW or 11000 and a max # torque of 5555. # # On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:49:32AM -0700, john wrote: # > It'll be fine... # > http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/TransferCase/transfer-case-discussion.html # > # > according to that discussion a 231 should be beefier than an NP208. # > # > the 4bt may have a lot of torque, but I don't think it has # > neck snapping performance so unless someone puts the nose of their # > vehicle up against a wall or a tree and stands on the go pedal # > and holds it and the tires some how magically maintain traction that # > it could cause damage... the tires should slip before the chain snaps. :) # > # > john # > # > ----- # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # > # > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Kevin wrote: # > # > # Is it just me, or does that seem like too much torque and too much weight # > # for an aluminum chain drive case like a 231? # ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:43:13 -0700 From: Kevin Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Sometimes it does. Legally, once you cross the commercial limit of 26k lbs, GVW includes the entire vehicle, trailer and all. Below that, not necessarily. The only real catch to this is for engines like a 6.2 that was designed for 10k gross - there they probably mean including trailer. Otherwise, the vehicle's GVW only has to deal with the tongue weight as part of its GVW, and brakes if the trailer isn't braked. Interesting that old blue was that heavy. MY 77 cherokee with 401 tips the scales at 4600, with some fuel in it, can't remember how much. Jeep gauges, you know :) On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:39:36AM -0700, john wrote: > cool info... haven't looked at that link for some time... > > gvw doesn't include towing does it? > > old blue tipped the scales at 5200lbs with no passengers or cargo... > of course he had a 219. old blue II has a 229. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW Old Blue had a sunroof, padded roof... he was a limited.. and of course that was with some of my tools and gadgets in the back, that was probably close to 200lbs... so if you add that and my 190lbs we'd be just 200lbs over your 77... :) sunroof and roof material, plusher interior and brushguard could have accounted for that... :) unless I deducted my weight from the total... hmmm... that was a long time ago... and Old Blue II hasn't got the padded roof and missing large sections of carpeting. ;) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Kevin wrote: # Sometimes it does. Legally, once you cross the commercial limit of 26k lbs, # GVW includes the entire vehicle, trailer and all. Below that, not necessarily. # # The only real catch to this is for engines like a 6.2 that was designed for # 10k gross - there they probably mean including trailer. Otherwise, the # vehicle's GVW only has to deal with the tongue weight as part of its GVW, and # brakes if the trailer isn't braked. # # Interesting that old blue was that heavy. MY 77 cherokee with 401 tips the # scales at 4600, with some fuel in it, can't remember how much. Jeep gauges, # you know :) # # On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:39:36AM -0700, john wrote: # > cool info... haven't looked at that link for some time... # > # > gvw doesn't include towing does it? # > # > old blue tipped the scales at 5200lbs with no passengers or cargo... # > of course he had a 219. old blue II has a 229. # ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: fsj: 124, wj, xj or sj, that is the question... waiting is not good for me... it allows too much time for thinking... I keep going back and forth... xj or sj. have three viable and nice sj's, but no xj right now... hmmm... that should tell me something shouldn't it? ;) and no money... hmmm... that makes it harder to get another xj doesn't it? Looking for that one vehicle that is 4wd, has a sunroof, automatic, a/c and is a Diesel... that pretty well narrows the field down to the '91 Grand Wagoneer with the 6.2L, if it will ever be ready... or worked on... not much left to do, just ain't getting done, no idea why... no word... let's see... a 124 is the narrowest (that's shadowfax), and an XJ is about 5 inches narrower than an SJ... that's not a lot really... funny that a WJ is less than 2" wider than an XJ, yet it feels like it has so much more room inside and feels bigger... width: Mdl - WB - length - Width ============================ 124 110.0 186.6 68.5 - 26-30 mpg (2.5) XJ 101.4 165.3 70.5 - 16-18 mpg (4.0) WJ 105.9 181.5 72.3 - 13-16 mpg (4.7) SJ 108.7 186.5 75.6 - 8-12 mpg (360) J10 118.8 194.0 78.9 - 14-16 mpg (258) It's funny that my 124 is longer than a Grand Wagoneer! Even more interesting that the WJ is shorter than the GW as well... doesn't feel that way... WB Mdl - WB - length - Width ============================ XJ 101.4 165.3 70.5 WJ 105.9 181.5 72.3 SJ 108.7 186.5 75.6 124 110.0 186.6 68.5 J10 118.8 194.0 78.9 Other options include converting a 124 to 4wd (or AWD), putting a Mercedes Diesel into an XJ or just waiting, and waiting, and waiting... is it May 2007 yet? has it been a month? :) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:29:09 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: Re: xj: pictures... I get about 20 mpg in my '87 Comanche with 4.0L 5 speed with 3.73 gears and 33" tires which gives me the equivalent to my OEM gears (3.07) and stock tires so my speedometer is dead on. Fully loaded with the canopy on it drops to -at-15 mpg. Got a lot of that happening lately with moving. Jim Blair, Kirkland, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10, '73 J4000 (RIP)
From: Kevin Subject: Re: xj: pictures... On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:12:28PM -0700, john wrote: >mlc, giving serious thought to a '99 xj limited... I'm getting >over it's color... it needs a few things but has the options I >want... looked up the epa rating, 16/22. 22 is good... > >anyone have an XJ with a 4.0 automatic (1999 pre-individual coils) that >gets in the 20's on the freeway? > >if I put larger tires does that ruin the economy? My 93 (4.0HO/AW4/231) gets about 17 mpg (corrected) locked front posi rear with 33x10.5 muds. I haven't heard of too many AW4 XJs breaking the 20 mpg barrier, lifted or not. Let me know if you get 22 out of that thing, my brother's y2k would try as hard as it could to not break 20. Driving a 617.912 could have given him a few bad habits though :) My 89 which seems to be an anomoly would pass 25 mpg fairly easily before it lunched its engine. five speed 4.0, and nobody believes me, but the driveshaft doesn't turn all the way around the third time to get the tire to spin once, and it has factory gearing in it. To your later question, from my limited experience, most AW4 XJs came with 3.55s. 3.55s with the stock 29s will have you spinning too hard on the freeway. Upgrading to 30s or 31s might lower the ratio enough to more than make up for the increased mass and contact patch. Can't say the same for a friend's 94 four-walker, that he upgraded to 31s from the stock 28s. Turns out a tired toyota 22RE has difficulty dealing with the extra rolling mass and resistance. Not to mention a 94 four walker is significantly heavier than a similarly equipped XJ, or even hilux pickup for that matter. Soccer mom effect, anyone? _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft. Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:39:14 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: Re: xj: xj mileage For one, the HO injectors are bigger (stick them into a Renix rig and it goes like hell, but won't pass as many gas stations! Just ask John) A lot of the Strokers list guys trick their sensors with adjustable stuff (MAP sensor esp) and get better economy or switch the other way for more power. Jim Blair, Kirkland, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10, '73 J4000 (RIP)
From: Kevin Subject: Re: xj: xj mileage I wonder if there's anything behind me just casually noticing that renix injected cherokees seem to get better mileage than the HO ones. Anyone else notice that? My brother's y2k is probably going to get a set of 30x9.5s on it next time he's back in town. Will knock down the revs on the freeway a bit, and aren't too wide. They seemed about right on the 89, and that was before it accidentally got a 2" lift. I really need to get that thing back on the road. _________________________________________________________________ It^Rs the Windows Live^Y Hotmail. you love ^W on your phone! http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/mobilehotmail/default.mspx?WT.mc_ID=MobileHMTagline2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:52:40 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: Re: 4BT in GW The 208 was used with GM diesels. The NV241 OR used in the Rubicons (4:1 low range) has a good rating as well. The old ratings from before New Venture are different than New Process (like comparing pre and post '72 engine ratings) Jim Blair, Kirkland, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10, '73 J4000 (RIP)
That page had a link to nvg's matrix, which sez for a 231: max torque: 1885 (2556 Nm for you metric guys) approximate GVW: 5920 So I guess as long as you didn't load the GW to gross, it would probably be fine ;) For what it's worth, the case in my cummins powered ram (271 or 273 can't remember, but either way it's the same limits) max torque: 7890 approximate GVW: 11500 The NV241HD that made it into some rams as well has a GVW or 11000 and a max torque of 5555. On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:49:32AM -0700, john wrote: >It'll be fine... > http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/TransferCase/transfer-case-discussion.html > >according to that discussion a 231 should be beefier than an NP208. > >the 4bt may have a lot of torque, but I don't think it has >neck snapping performance so unless someone puts the nose of their >vehicle up against a wall or a tree and stands on the go pedal >and holds it and the tires some how magically maintain traction that >it could cause damage... the tires should slip before the chain snaps. :) > >john > _________________________________________________________________ Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo! http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_hotmailtextlink1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:16:11 -0700 From: Kevin Subject: fsj: Re: xj: pictures... You always seem to be moving every time I hear from you, Jim :) On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 07:29:09PM -0700, Jim Blair wrote: > I get about 20 mpg in my '87 Comanche with 4.0L 5 speed with 3.73 gears and > 33" tires which gives me the equivalent to my OEM gears (3.07) and stock > tires so my speedometer is dead on. Fully loaded with the canopy on it > drops to -at-15 mpg. Got a lot of that happening lately with moving. ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2926 **************************