From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Thu Jun 25 14:08:24 2009 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Thursday, June 25 2009 Volume 01 : Number 3366 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: fsj: RE: RE: emissions test fsj: RE: Google Alert - Jeep Gladiator RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 Re: fsj: RE: Google Alert - Jeep Gladiator RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 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, 25 Jun 2009 11:49:44 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: RE: RE: emissions test I would change oil first. (High CO usually means contaminated oil from blowby is being sucked into the motor at RPM) Timing too far retarded can cause CO as well (spark doesn't get a chance to fully burn the mix before the exhaust valves open) What were the NOx readings?? Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 - ---------------------------------------- > From: mbalea-at-hotmail.com > To: john-at-wagoneers.com; joe-at-j-hughes.com > CC: fsj-at-digest.net > Subject: RE: fsj: RE: RE: emissions test > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:00:20 +0000 > > High CO is really incomplete combustion due to an unbalanced mix, just like > the folks who die in their home w all the fresh air vent plugged, they breath > high CO. > > So either plugged AF or too much gas being dumped: as said "idle mixture" is a > quick cheat but at 6x the passing value: it can be a overactive power valve at > cruise, partially closed choke flapper. If we give us the idle value that will > be nice. Without AIR, you will get higher HC, without EGR it is high NOX. > Sometime people lean the carb too much and get some high HC. I suspect that > the choke was checked prior to testing, and that the engine was at running > temp for 10 miles or so and that it was left idling prior to testing. > > Michel > >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:10:08 -0700 >> From: john-at-wagoneers.com >> To: joe-at-j-hughes.com >> CC: fsj-at-digest.net >> Subject: fsj: RE: RE: emissions test >> >> cruise >> _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that^Rs right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:56:29 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: fsj: RE: Google Alert - Jeep Gladiator http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3351213 http://spokane.craigslist.org/pts/1238087195.html _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria l_QuickAdd_062009 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:05:36 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 If the T18 output shaft and tail stock is interchangeable with the T19, it should be a piece of cake to do. I really like the AW4 and the fact it is much more fuel efficient than the 727 and 42RE. Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 - ---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:13:33 -0700 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: xj-at-digest.net > CC: fsj-at-digest.net > Subject: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 > > yeah, if I use the scout d300/t19 I'll have to flip the xfr case > to get a driver's side drop... not sure if I can use the t18 pieces > to mate the np208, which is the same size as the xfr cases found > in xjs... > > I don't know, will have to talk to my tranny guy, the aw4 locks > up nicely... behaves well... same kind of "gut" feeling in the > positive sense with my 45RFE... > > I simply have bad vibes toward 727s and 42res... :) > > and I'm not sure I want to do a manual in anything... remember all those > stop lights before we hit I-5? well there's the same number on > the other side of I-5 and the that > manage the lights can't seem to get them in sync... I was stopped by > almost EVERY one of them this morning... there's 14 by quick count... > on the other side... only 9... try getting a 4,000lb tug rolling 23 > times... no wonder I'm only getting 18 mpg. :) > > 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 Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Kevin wrote: > > # The AW4 is absolutely bad for efficiency. The difference between 21 and > # 25 is ... well, almost 20%. The 31s will knock down the revs on the > # highway, but the extra inch of rubber of it over the black jeep might be > # part of the problem. > # > # The 42RE was great. Great at heading to the shop. I'm not a big fan of the > # 45RFE either (it's way too complex, even though it seems to behave itself, > # and seems to be coupled to bigger power than a 4.7, so a jeep isn't likely > # to hurt it). > # > # Haven't seen an SD33 in the flesh in probably seven years. I'd imagine a 727 > # would fit, given the size of the AX-15 about ten yards from me and the fact > # that it looks about the size of the 727 I have as a spare for the hornet. 208 > # over a 231 might require some sledgehammer because I think they're bigger > # and I'm too lazy to crawl under the red jeep to have a look. I've heard of > # D300s in XJs, but I could swear there was a flip involved. Can't remember > # though, might be thinking of CJ stuff that's passenger drop because it's > # pre 80. > # > # Sorry, brain's fried this week. Drove the diesel landcruiser to work two days > # this week because I didn't want to try to debug a fishbiting gasser :) > # > # On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:22PM -0700, john wrote: > #> I've seen 17/21 with an '87 with 3.55s, 31's, 3" of lift, AW4/np231 > #> > #> I don't think the AW4 is all that bad for efficiency... I like it > #> better than the 42re they used in the Zj and the 4.0 WJs... the > #> 45RFE in my 4.7 WJ seems to be quite good. I've seen 21 with it... > #> although towing the J10 trailer I barely made 13 mpg at 70. > #> > #> next question... would a SD33T with a 727/d300 or np208 fit in an XJ? :) > # _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria l_QuickAdd_062009 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: RE: Google Alert - Jeep Gladiator I've had daydreams of dropping a 455 in a wag, lowering it a bit, big sway bars, wide tires and then go out and stomp on bmws... ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Blair wrote: # http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3351213 # # http://spokane.craigslist.org/pts/1238087195.html # # _________________________________________________________________ # Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. # http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria # l_QuickAdd_062009 # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:33:26 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 I agree with you on the AW4, not sure what Kevin was on about... the AW4s shift crisply, locks up as intended... same with my 45RFE. not so with tf727s or 42res. ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Blair wrote: # # # If the T18 output shaft and tail stock is interchangeable with the T19, it should be a piece of cake to do. I really like the AW4 and the fact it is much more fuel efficient than the 727 and 42RE. # # # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 # # # # # # # ---------------------------------------- # > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:13:33 -0700 # > From: john-at-wagoneers.com # > To: xj-at-digest.net # > CC: fsj-at-digest.net # > Subject: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 # > # > yeah, if I use the scout d300/t19 I'll have to flip the xfr case # > to get a driver's side drop... not sure if I can use the t18 pieces # > to mate the np208, which is the same size as the xfr cases found # > in xjs... # > # > I don't know, will have to talk to my tranny guy, the aw4 locks # > up nicely... behaves well... same kind of "gut" feeling in the # > positive sense with my 45RFE... # > # > I simply have bad vibes toward 727s and 42res... :) # > # > and I'm not sure I want to do a manual in anything... remember all those # > stop lights before we hit I-5? well there's the same number on # > the other side of I-5 and the that # > manage the lights can't seem to get them in sync... I was stopped by # > almost EVERY one of them this morning... there's 14 by quick count... # > on the other side... only 9... try getting a 4,000lb tug rolling 23 # > times... no wonder I'm only getting 18 mpg. :) # > # > 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 Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Kevin wrote: # > # > # The AW4 is absolutely bad for efficiency. The difference between 21 and # > # 25 is ... well, almost 20%. The 31s will knock down the revs on the # > # highway, but the extra inch of rubber of it over the black jeep might be # > # part of the problem. # > # # > # The 42RE was great. Great at heading to the shop. I'm not a big fan of the # > # 45RFE either (it's way too complex, even though it seems to behave itself, # > # and seems to be coupled to bigger power than a 4.7, so a jeep isn't likely # > # to hurt it). # > # # > # Haven't seen an SD33 in the flesh in probably seven years. I'd imagine a 727 # > # would fit, given the size of the AX-15 about ten yards from me and the fact # > # that it looks about the size of the 727 I have as a spare for the hornet. 208 # > # over a 231 might require some sledgehammer because I think they're bigger # > # and I'm too lazy to crawl under the red jeep to have a look. I've heard of # > # D300s in XJs, but I could swear there was a flip involved. Can't remember # > # though, might be thinking of CJ stuff that's passenger drop because it's # > # pre 80. # > # # > # Sorry, brain's fried this week. Drove the diesel landcruiser to work two days # > # this week because I didn't want to try to debug a fishbiting gasser :) # > # # > # On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:22PM -0700, john wrote: # > #> I've seen 17/21 with an '87 with 3.55s, 31's, 3" of lift, AW4/np231 # > #> # > #> I don't think the AW4 is all that bad for efficiency... I like it # > #> better than the 42re they used in the Zj and the 4.0 WJs... the # > #> 45RFE in my 4.7 WJ seems to be quite good. I've seen 21 with it... # > #> although towing the J10 trailer I barely made 13 mpg at 70. # > #> # > #> next question... would a SD33T with a 727/d300 or np208 fit in an XJ? :) # > # # # _________________________________________________________________ # Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. # http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria l_QuickAdd_062009 # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 the trans shop wasn't sure on the differences between the scout t19 and the jeep t18. but I did learn some cool stuff about the scout D300 that might allow me to use it. http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=505924&highlight=flipping+d300 http://www.greatlakeoffroad.com/clock.html the guys were talking about a twin stick conversion, after flipping the scout d300 to provide driver's side drop... need to read more, but that would be cool... granny low with a 2.61 reduction for 2wd low... could pull a 747 around... ok, maybe only a 787... 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 Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Blair wrote: # If the T18 output shaft and tail stock is interchangeable with the T19, it # should be a piece of cake to do. I really like the AW4 and the fact it is much # more fuel efficient than the 727 and 42RE. # # # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 # # # # # # # ---------------------------------------- # > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:13:33 -0700 # > From: john-at-wagoneers.com # > To: xj-at-digest.net # > CC: fsj-at-digest.net # > Subject: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 # > # > yeah, if I use the scout d300/t19 I'll have to flip the xfr case # > to get a driver's side drop... not sure if I can use the t18 pieces # > to mate the np208, which is the same size as the xfr cases found # > in xjs... # > # > I don't know, will have to talk to my tranny guy, the aw4 locks # > up nicely... behaves well... same kind of "gut" feeling in the # > positive sense with my 45RFE... # > # > I simply have bad vibes toward 727s and 42res... :) # > # > and I'm not sure I want to do a manual in anything... remember all those # > stop lights before we hit I-5? well there's the same number on # > the other side of I-5 and the that # > manage the lights can't seem to get them in sync... I was stopped by # > almost EVERY one of them this morning... there's 14 by quick count... # > on the other side... only 9... try getting a 4,000lb tug rolling 23 # > times... no wonder I'm only getting 18 mpg. :) # > # > 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 Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Kevin wrote: # > # > # The AW4 is absolutely bad for efficiency. The difference between 21 and # > # 25 is ... well, almost 20%. The 31s will knock down the revs on the # > # highway, but the extra inch of rubber of it over the black jeep might be # > # part of the problem. # > # # > # The 42RE was great. Great at heading to the shop. I'm not a big fan of # the # > # 45RFE either (it's way too complex, even though it seems to behave # itself, # > # and seems to be coupled to bigger power than a 4.7, so a jeep isn't # likely # > # to hurt it). # > # # > # Haven't seen an SD33 in the flesh in probably seven years. I'd imagine a # 727 # > # would fit, given the size of the AX-15 about ten yards from me and the # fact # > # that it looks about the size of the 727 I have as a spare for the hornet. # 208 # > # over a 231 might require some sledgehammer because I think they're bigger # > # and I'm too lazy to crawl under the red jeep to have a look. I've heard # of # > # D300s in XJs, but I could swear there was a flip involved. Can't remember # > # though, might be thinking of CJ stuff that's passenger drop because it's # > # pre 80. # > # # > # Sorry, brain's fried this week. Drove the diesel landcruiser to work two # days # > # this week because I didn't want to try to debug a fishbiting gasser :) # > # # > # On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:22PM -0700, john wrote: # > #> I've seen 17/21 with an '87 with 3.55s, 31's, 3" of lift, AW4/np231 # > #> # > #> I don't think the AW4 is all that bad for efficiency... I like it # > #> better than the 42re they used in the Zj and the 4.0 WJs... the # > #> 45RFE in my 4.7 WJ seems to be quite good. I've seen 21 with it... # > #> although towing the J10 trailer I barely made 13 mpg at 70. # > #> # > #> next question... would a SD33T with a 727/d300 or np208 fit in an XJ? :) # > # # # _________________________________________________________________ # Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. # http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria # l_QuickAdd_062009 # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:47:03 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 I got quite good economy with the 3 autos I drove (far better than the 454/TH400 I currently daily drive at any rate) although my 5 speed did well too. Main thing is matching gears to driving needs. I had 3.07 with 5 speed and 33/9.50/15" tires when I worked in Poulsbo (from Seattle every day) and I got almost 27 mpg but had no power. Putting in 3.73 gears got me back to the match for the OEM programming in the computer (that is important! Even the HO is set to a certain algorithm) They messed with the cam timing to get rid of ping and the EGR valve at the same time. The engine power comes on at a higher RPM, which requires more fuel. Guys who put the Renix injectors into HO rigs got less performance and often got ping too. (the extra fuel smothers the NOx) With the correct fuel timing, engine timing and adjustments to the combustion chamber for quench, the XJ should get closer to 30 mpg, even with an automatic. (this is along with synthetic oils, etc) The Catalytic converter is a dinosaur. With correct engine function, it isn't needed for clean air. It REQUIRES extra fuel to operate! It's a fallacy that has been foisted upon us that they are still needed. ESPECIALLY with the alcohol blended fuels we have now! From: Kevin Subject: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 A few things I've noticed about XJ mileage with the ones I've messed with: 1. you want mileage, forget that jap automatic. Clutch or you're sub 20, period. That behemoth was used in big stuff overseas, and is not anything resembling efficient. Quite durable though. 2. RENIX ones (non-HO) seem to do better in the mileage department. Even 20-30 horsepower down, they're still quite torquey. The two biggest complaints I've heard that were realistic about RENIX was that sensors can be expensive, and that there is really no diagnostics without some dealer/french plugin thing. The former I don't know that I agree with, since its crank sensor lists for half the price of the HO one, but the latter is absolutely true. 3. Most six banger XJs came with 3.55 gears, which has you turning pretty high going down the freeway. Granted, the !-at-#$ automatic doesn't hold well pulling tall gears, but if you're interested in MILEAGE, you want the manual anyways. If you find an XJ with 3.07 gears (which were totally available with the 29 spline 8.25, which suggests they were available in face lifted trucks) that's going to be your best bet for mileage, unless you shoot for a four banger with a stick, but you said 4.0... I'm replacing diesel mercedeses and a volkswagen jetta with an 89 XJ. Before the engine lunched well over 250k, it would reliably pull down at least 25 mpg on the highway turning 75. Going with the above, it's a RENIX truck, has a manual (though it's an AX-15 now, was a BA 10/5), and has ridiculously tall gears with 30" tires. Everyone tells me it's impossible that it has 2.73 gears, but that's what the tach and the GPS seem to think it has. One long freeway blast down I-5 it almost cleared 27 mpg. Stock engine, factory replacement manifold, stock cat and muffler. Who knows what it will get with the reassembled engine, though. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live^Y: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:05:35 -0700 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 Flipping the Scout D300 would be hard since it is Texas pattern. Jeep D300 has the round pattern. Since I can get almost 20 mpg from a 6 cyl full size truck with a hated BBD carb (that passed the Etest regs for 1986 W/O a Cat or AIR pump) I'm pretty sure I could do better with EFI but I'd need more training in the computer language (or someone that can translate the algorithms into non-geekese for me and translate my own diagram into a fuel map for the computer) If I could pull together the financing to live on, and spend all my 40 hours (or more) per week towards this, some VERY needed changes could happen. I have 1 friend so far that might be able to help me realize this goal, but she needs more training as well (she worked on the first terabyte server) Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 - ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:37:51 -0700 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: carnuck-at-hotmail.com > CC: xj-at-digest.net; DZAshby-at-comcast.net; fsj-at-digest.net > Subject: RE: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 > > the trans shop wasn't sure on the differences between > the scout t19 and the jeep t18. > > but I did learn some cool stuff about the scout D300 that might > allow me to use it. > > > http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=505924&highlight=flipping+d300 > http://www.greatlakeoffroad.com/clock.html > > the guys were talking about a twin stick conversion, after flipping > the scout d300 to provide driver's side drop... need to read more, but > that would be cool... granny low with a 2.61 reduction for 2wd low... could > pull a 747 around... ok, maybe only a 787... > > 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 Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jim Blair wrote: > > # If the T18 output shaft and tail stock is interchangeable with the T19, it > # should be a piece of cake to do. I really like the AW4 and the fact it is much > # more fuel efficient than the 727 and 42RE. > # > # > # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > # > # > # > # > # > # > # ---------------------------------------- > #> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:13:33 -0700 > #> From: john-at-wagoneers.com > #> To: xj-at-digest.net > #> CC: fsj-at-digest.net > #> Subject: fsj: Re: xj: fuel economy for the 4.0 > #> > #> yeah, if I use the scout d300/t19 I'll have to flip the xfr case > #> to get a driver's side drop... not sure if I can use the t18 pieces > #> to mate the np208, which is the same size as the xfr cases found > #> in xjs... > #> > #> I don't know, will have to talk to my tranny guy, the aw4 locks > #> up nicely... behaves well... same kind of "gut" feeling in the > #> positive sense with my 45RFE... > #> > #> I simply have bad vibes toward 727s and 42res... :) > #> > #> and I'm not sure I want to do a manual in anything... remember all those > #> stop lights before we hit I-5? well there's the same number on > #> the other side of I-5 and the that > #> manage the lights can't seem to get them in sync... I was stopped by > #> almost EVERY one of them this morning... there's 14 by quick count... > #> on the other side... only 9... try getting a 4,000lb tug rolling 23 > #> times... no wonder I'm only getting 18 mpg. :) > #> > #> 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 Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Kevin wrote: > #> > #> # The AW4 is absolutely bad for efficiency. The difference between 21 and > #> # 25 is ... well, almost 20%. The 31s will knock down the revs on the > #> # highway, but the extra inch of rubber of it over the black jeep might be > #> # part of the problem. > #> # > #> # The 42RE was great. Great at heading to the shop. I'm not a big fan of > # the > #> # 45RFE either (it's way too complex, even though it seems to behave > # itself, > #> # and seems to be coupled to bigger power than a 4.7, so a jeep isn't > # likely > #> # to hurt it). > #> # > #> # Haven't seen an SD33 in the flesh in probably seven years. I'd imagine a > # 727 > #> # would fit, given the size of the AX-15 about ten yards from me and the > # fact > #> # that it looks about the size of the 727 I have as a spare for the hornet. > # 208 > #> # over a 231 might require some sledgehammer because I think they're bigger > #> # and I'm too lazy to crawl under the red jeep to have a look. I've heard > # of > #> # D300s in XJs, but I could swear there was a flip involved. Can't remember > #> # though, might be thinking of CJ stuff that's passenger drop because it's > #> # pre 80. > #> # > #> # Sorry, brain's fried this week. Drove the diesel landcruiser to work two > # days > #> # this week because I didn't want to try to debug a fishbiting gasser :) > #> # > #> # On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:52:22PM -0700, john wrote: > #> #> I've seen 17/21 with an '87 with 3.55s, 31's, 3" of lift, AW4/np231 > #> #> > #> #> I don't think the AW4 is all that bad for efficiency... I like it > #> #> better than the 42re they used in the Zj and the 4.0 WJs... the > #> #> 45RFE in my 4.7 WJ seems to be quite good. I've seen 21 with it... > #> #> although towing the J10 trailer I barely made 13 mpg at 70. > #> #> > #> #> next question... would a SD33T with a 727/d300 or np208 fit in an XJ? :) > #> # > # > # _________________________________________________________________ > # Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.. > # http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria > # l_QuickAdd_062009 > # _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live^Y SkyDrive^Y: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #3366 **************************