PDA

View Full Version : New crate engine from Mopar Performance...and it's a jeep engine!



Prince Valiant
01-08-2010, 12:58 PM
Yep, the 4.0 finally get's the crate engine treatment :thumbsup


Mopar also will introduce a new 4.7-liter I-6 Stroker long block, a powerful upgrade for the 4.0-liter I-6 made famous in Jeep vehicles built from 1991-2006. Because off-road enthusiasts appreciated the dependability and performance of the previous 4.0-liter engine, Mopar developed a more powerful engine that delivers an expected 265 hp and 290 lb.-ft of torque. The engine will fit in any Jeep vehicle previously equipped with the 4.0-liter I-6 engine.

Basically the 4.0 with with the 4.2 crank....and a couple other goodies as well :thumbsup

Yoo, you need to sell me back my GC so I can put this in there :goof

07ROUSHSTG3
01-08-2010, 01:21 PM
isn't the 4.0 an AMC motor from back in the day?

Moparjim
01-08-2010, 01:32 PM
Yes, same basic motor as the old 258, etc. Made in Kenosha in various displacements and versions for like 50 years until it was cancelled a few years ago.

Prince Valiant
01-08-2010, 01:36 PM
isn't the 4.0 an AMC motor from back in the day?Yep, derived from the 4.2 that's been around since the mid 60's. When chrysler acquired Jeep, mopar performance integrated Jeep performance under the mopar banner. Mopar has supplied performance parts for the jeep 2.5/4.0/4.2 and even the AMC v8's (290/304/343/360/390/401) for years...but this is the first instance that they've extended the crate engine treatment to the I6.

The 4.0 and 4.2 are (of course) basically the same engine. One is a big bore/shorter stroke (4.0) version, and the other a smaller bore/long stroke version (4.2).

The 4.0 was originally developed by AMC to replace/modernize the aging 4.2, with more modern head, fuel injection, etc. In AMC guise, it was to produce something around upper 170hp. When Chrysler acquired jeep, they added a different fuel injection and small revisions to the intake and exhaust manifolds, and power went to 190hp and was referred to as the 4.0 H.O.

It's long been an old trick to use 4.2 crank and rods, w/ 4.0 pistons to get a 4.7 liter (w/ 0.030 overbore) I6.

07ROUSHSTG3
01-08-2010, 01:39 PM
^^
that is what i thought.

Yooformula
01-08-2010, 04:32 PM
this Jeep? http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/albums/album04/IMG00011.sized.jpg
http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/albums/album04/SANY0006.sized.jpg

hahahaha thanks for the info Chris but get in line!

jbiscuit
01-08-2010, 05:14 PM
That fugger is clean! haha

Prince Valiant
01-08-2010, 05:31 PM
lol...it's cleaner than when I sold it! God I miss that thing...

GTSLOW
01-08-2010, 06:26 PM
I woulda loved something like this for my Rubicon. Although with the 4.0:1 tcase she'd go thru anything anyways :D

wrath
01-08-2010, 06:27 PM
Sweet, another Chrysler engine that still can barely compete with a 4.3L V6 or a 302, except in weight. :thumbsup

Prince Valiant
01-08-2010, 07:25 PM
Sweet, another Chrysler engine that still can barely compete with a 4.3L V6 or a 302, except in weight. :thumbsup
By 302, do you mean the 302 ford v8? Perhaps you meant the 300 I6?

Actually, when the 190hp 4.0 HO hit the streets in 91, it made more power than either the 4.3 (150-160ish?), ford 300 I6 (145?) or 2.9 (140hp?) or later 4.0 ford? Hell, do you even mean the Ford 302 v8 (170) Chevy 305 (170ish again?) or mopar 318 (175hp)?

Compete? When it came out, it was heads and shoulders above everything else in it's class, outclassing many of the small v8's at it's time.

Not that the 4.3's a bad engine, but it's beyond stupid to say the 4.0 barely competes...

...but considering the source of the statement...:rolleyes:

Moparjim
01-08-2010, 08:59 PM
Power aside, it is also one of the most bulletproof/indestructible engines EVER by any manufacturer in my opinion. It is not uncommon for them to 300,000 miles on them without a rebuild. Seven huge main bearings, a very simple and stout design being an I6 and all cast iron.

Mine had 315K on it when I cash for clunkered it. It had never had anything done to it besides a water pump and a valve cover gasket. Didn't burn oil, smoke, or anything even. Ran like a top still...

wrath
01-08-2010, 10:07 PM
By 302, do you mean the 302 ford v8? Perhaps you meant the 300 I6?

Actually, when the 190hp 4.0 HO hit the streets in 91, it made more power than either the 4.3 (150-160ish?), ford 300 I6 (145?) or 2.9 (140hp?) or later 4.0 ford? Hell, do you even mean the Ford 302 v8 (170) Chevy 305 (170ish again?) or mopar 318 (175hp)?

Compete? When it came out, it was heads and shoulders above everything else in it's class, outclassing many of the small v8's at it's time.

Not that the 4.3's a bad engine, but it's beyond stupid to say the 4.0 barely competes...

...but considering the source of the statement...:rolleyes:

I've literally worked on fifty 258 I6s. They're a neat engine, for being complete POSs. The early ones with the giant crankshaft counterweights ran pretty smooth. Ford 300-I6 was a fine specimen. Hell, the GM 250-I6 was even better than the 258. The 258 is a POS on a good day.

There's a reason damn near any 258 you find on the road today has either Ford or GM ignition among other things. You'd think that all 258s were California-born by the amount of vacuum line under the hood. The 258s were sweet motors in the respect that they were impossible to blow up because they wouldn't rev past 4300rpm. No one ever swaps a 258 into anything, they just scavenge them for parts for their 4.7L build.


The 4.0HO was a gimmick. It was the original horsepower overstatement engine that Ford perfected by the end of the 90s. Its peak horsepower was on top of its redline. The GM TBI 4.3L made more torque at 2,000rpm than the 4.0HO ever did. There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light. When Chrysler redesigned for the 4.0 in 91 they should have abandoned the crappy valvetrain and the crappy fool-injection at the same time. To this day I haven't seen a more jank rocker/lifter setup. Don't bother ever trying to save the rockers if you have the top of the engine apart, just go buy new ones. The 4.0s leak like Harleys, and once they get below ~30psi at idle they go terminal.


By the end of the 90s the 4.0L was getting more refined but it was still outdated and inefficient--just like the 360V8. Heck, they were trying so much different crap on the 4.0L every year the wiring harness was different and a sensor appeared/disappeared/changed. Made fun for engine swaps.


When the engine finally was killed, it was getting to the point to being on par with where it should be. The problem was that there were now four cylinder engines out there approaching its numbers. The 2000-2001 Cherokees with a 4.0L were fine automobiles and will likely serve their owners well. But still, by this time the GM 4.3L (LU3) was beating the 4.0L-I6 in both horsepower and torque.

Yooformula
01-08-2010, 10:16 PM
338k miles and counting.not burning or blowing oil and fires the first time everytime regardless of how cold either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the best of my knowledge this truck has only ever had a water pump, thermostat, plugs, wires, oil, air filter and distributor cap ever changed under the hood. I'd say thats pretty reliable. sure other stuff has broken but no more than any other car imo.

Yooformula
01-08-2010, 10:23 PM
lol...it's cleaner than when I sold it! God I miss that thing...

no shit. I also took a green pad to the interior its fugging clean as hell!

Prince Valiant
01-08-2010, 11:35 PM
Ford 300-I6 was a fine specimen. Hell, the GM 250-I6 was even better than the 258. The 258 is a POS on a good day. Well, you know, I'm not saying either the 300 or 250 were bad engines. On par with a 4.0, reliability wise, sure...tough engines. On par otherwise? Not so much.

I don't know why you're talking about the 258, since that's not what this engine is....but, well, we are dealing with you.


There's a reason damn near any 258 you find on the road today has either Ford or GM ignition among other things.Perhaps because during the AMC days much of AMC parts were supplied by other manufacturers? Like ford starters, Chrysler transmissions (later GM supplied), etc? Is it because AMC was an undercapitalized company that found it easier to outsource many of their parts? Why yep! it was!


You'd think that all 258s were California-born by the amount of vacuum line under the hood.Yeah...pretty common for all engines built b/w 75 and into the 87 or so...and for some engines, into the 90's. I still haven't seen as many vacuum lines as I have from a '80 267 malibu wagon. I don't hold the chevy small block responsible for that at all...just a fact of life.

So really, I don't see your point there :confused



The 258s were sweet motors in the respect that they were impossible to blow up because they wouldn't rev past 4300rpm.Well, again...what's your point? This was true for most inline sixs of this size from this era...there were some other small I6 that'd rev...the OHC pontiacs, the smaller 170ci mopar hyper-pack /6's and what not, but most larger 6's were designed to power rather large trucks and cars...torque was the necessary ingredient, of which most these six's did a respectable job of delivering.

Again, the 258 is not quite the 4.0 though.




The 4.0HO was a gimmick. It was the original horsepower overstatement engine that Ford perfected by the end of the 90s. Its peak horsepower was on top of its redline. The GM TBI 4.3L made more torque at 2,000rpm than the 4.0HO ever did. There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light.Evidence of this? I mean, most stock blazers with the HO 4.3 ran higher 16's (yes, lighter 2wd extreme pick-ups ran quicker...but not blazers). Many cherokee's of the early 90's were lower 16's, slowing to higher 16's toward the end of their production as they gained a bit of weight w/ the 97 redesign.

I'd be willing to bet that Yoo (previously my) old grand cherokee with the 345,000 mile 4.0 in it will still break into the 16's. And that's the larger grand cherokee.



When Chrysler redesigned for the 4.0 in 91 they should have abandoned the crappy valvetrain and the crappy fool-injection at the same time. To this day I haven't seen a more jank rocker/lifter setup.Again, with my experience, and that of everyone I've ever known w/ 4.0 (or 258's for that matter) have never known anyone to have an issue with the valvetrain.



Overall, you read as if your just throwing around a bunch of mud, hoping a little of it would stick. Pretty lame attempt.

Maybe by your reckoning, AMC should have just stuck with the GM supplied 2.8 v6 instead of going to the 4.0? You know, the same 2.8 that had the same horsepower than the standard 2.5 i4?

GTSLOW
01-09-2010, 01:13 AM
If you think the 4.0 offered in Jeeps is a POS then you certainly don't know much about anything. Probably should just stick to the housing market talk. :stare

Prince Valiant
01-09-2010, 08:31 AM
If you think the 4.0 offered in Jeeps is a POS then you certainly don't know much about anything. Probably should just stick to the housing market talk. :stare
But he doesn't even know much about that :rolf

Russ Jerome
01-09-2010, 03:27 PM
4.2 will run without cam bushing, probably run without main bearings long enough to get you home from up north.I've had a few high milage CJ's, hard to beat a 4.2.

There is a certain very clean AMC Eagle station wagon here in town that was converted from 4.2 NA to 4.0mpfi, have to see the swap to apreciate the bolt in apearance.

wrath
01-09-2010, 11:50 PM
Well, you know, I'm not saying either the 300 or 250 were bad engines. On par with a 4.0, reliability wise, sure...tough engines. On par otherwise? Not so much.

Meh, what were the shortcomings? The 250-I6 never even got fuel injection.


I don't know why you're talking about the 258, since that's not what this engine is....but, well, we are dealing with you.

It's the predecessor upon which the 4.0, and this crate engine, was built upon.


Perhaps because during the AMC days much of AMC parts were supplied by other manufacturers? Like ford starters, Chrysler transmissions (later GM supplied), etc? Is it because AMC was an undercapitalized company that found it easier to outsource many of their parts? Why yep! it was!

Nah, it's because they were smart, lazy, and poor. Smart to use other people's already designed parts, lazy enough to not bother making innovative products, and poor from so much mismanagement that it regularly went into bankruptcy.


Yeah...pretty common for all engines built b/w 75 and into the 87 or so...and for some engines, into the 90's. I still haven't seen as many vacuum lines as I have from a '80 267 malibu wagon. I don't hold the chevy small block responsible for that at all...just a fact of life.

Yeah, but those engines didn't have mystery sensors.



Well, again...what's your point? This was true for most inline sixs of this size from this era...there were some other small I6 that'd rev...the OHC pontiacs, the smaller 170ci mopar hyper-pack /6's and what not, but most larger 6's were designed to power rather large trucks and cars...torque was the necessary ingredient, of which most these six's did a respectable job of delivering.

Again, the 258 is not quite the 4.0 though.

The 258 did so well because of its low-end torque for its day. But it was fat, didn't like to spin, was slow to respond, and had difficulty meeting emmisions. Just like the 242. Anyone that ever had to deal with the RENIX 4.0s missed the 258.


Evidence of this? I mean, most stock blazers with the HO 4.3 ran higher 16's (yes, lighter 2wd extreme pick-ups ran quicker...but not blazers). Many cherokee's of the early 90's were lower 16's, slowing to higher 16's toward the end of their production as they gained a bit of weight w/ the 97 redesign.

The most common LB4 TBI 4.3L Chevy (the one with roller rockers and no counterbalancer) was 160hp@4000 rpm and 235ftlb@2400 rpm. The CPI ones were around 200hp@4800 and 260ftlbs@3600, IIRC. My Mom has one, it goes pretty good. In fact, my Mom has a fleet of firstgen S10 Blazers.

The early 90s XJs weighed 3300lbs, the 2 door S10s Blazers weighed 3500lbs.


I'd be willing to bet that Yoo (previously my) old grand cherokee with the 345,000 mile 4.0 in it will still break into the 16's. And that's the larger grand cherokee.

I'd hope a ZJ not in disrepair would continue to perform the same. We're not talking about a carbureted engine with 100k on it.



Again, with my experience, and that of everyone I've ever known w/ 4.0 (or 258's for that matter) have never known anyone to have an issue with the valvetrain.

I've had a bunch of them apart, and a stack of 150-I4. My Dad's 94YJ with a gentle 95k on it was shot when we tore it apart to figure out why it was so gutless.



Maybe by your reckoning, AMC should have just stuck with the GM supplied 2.8 v6 instead of going to the 4.0? You know, the same 2.8 that had the same horsepower than the standard 2.5 i4?

Nah, they should not have ever bought that POS from GM. That engine wasn't even worth being used as a boat anchor.

Prince Valiant
01-10-2010, 07:42 AM
:ripped: Your attempt to save face was even lamer than your initial jab.

Prince Valiant
01-10-2010, 09:03 AM
BTW, when I asked for evidence of your statement "There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light", I really was looking for evidence from you. Not recounting how you thought your Mom's Blazer went :rolf

Try these MT articles:
The 190hp 1997 Blazer 4WD does 0-60 in 9.3 seconds (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_9706_chevrolet_blazer/index.html) vs. the redesigned 97 Jeep Cherokee doing the same feat in 8.2 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_9903_1997_jeep_cherokee/horsepower_interior.html) (and backed up by C&D by doing it in 8.4 (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/01q1/ford_escape_vs._honda_cr-v_hyundai_santa_fe_jeep_cherokee_and_seven_more_co mpact_suvs-comparison_tests/jeep_cherokee_sport_page_3), which featured a curb wt. of 3600+lbs, unlike the erroneous M/T article listing it at an improbably light 3100lbs...couldn't find C&D results for the blazer). Mag racing at it's finest....but at least it's evidence. I know there are faster blazers out there and slower cherokee's (even a glance at dragtimes.com bares this out for both the blazer (http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet--S10-Blazer-Drag-Racing.html) and the jeep (http://www.dragtimes.com/Jeep--Cherokee-Drag-Racing.html)), but it seems to suggest your statement was just uninfounded bluster from the get go.

Likewise, your complaints of the bendix fuel injection system is similarly silly since that was what AMC used when they developed the 4.0...when chrysler incorporated the 4.0 under it's banner, they switched to the chrysler MPFI system, at which point it followed the typical advancements/used same sensors as rest of chrysler line through OBDI, OBII, and beyond. Likewise, Bendix being a poor system or not doesn't really reflect on the 4.0...just bendix. Like blaming the 258 for having too many vacuum hoses in the 70's and 80's :rolleyes:

Plum Crazy
01-10-2010, 11:04 AM
those 4.0s are tough SOB's! they were always the longest runners under Cash for Clunkers, record time was 14 miniutes, where as the longest Blazer we had was 4 miniutes and it lauched a rod. Chrysler had a slight issue with the 4.0 in the 2004 Grand Cherokees, the cams would eat into the #3 or #4 lifter and would cause a tick at idle, but other than that, basicly no major issues.

wrath
01-10-2010, 12:11 PM
BTW, when I asked for evidence of your statement "There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light", I really was looking for evidence from you. Not recounting how you thought your Mom's Blazer went :rolf

I'll be honest, I don't care that much. You're the one that has a rough day massaging old lady's feet at Bally's and then comes home to be an eThug. I really don't care that much other than to point out that "whoop-dee-friggin-doo". Honestly, this shit was played out before Halloween when the news release came out. I was slightly more excited then... but then they released that the long block would be $4k for the pre-99 and $4800 for the post-99.

Might as well spend a couple grand more and get a 5.7L hemi.



Try these MT articles:
The 190hp 1997 Blazer 4WD does 0-60 in 9.3 seconds (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_9706_chevrolet_blazer/index.html) vs. the redesigned 97 Jeep Cherokee doing the same feat in 8.2 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_9903_1997_jeep_cherokee/horsepower_interior.html) (and backed up by C&D by doing it in 8.4 (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/01q1/ford_escape_vs._honda_cr-v_hyundai_santa_fe_jeep_cherokee_and_seven_more_co mpact_suvs-comparison_tests/jeep_cherokee_sport_page_3), which featured a curb wt. of 3600+lbs, unlike the erroneous M/T article listing it at an improbably light 3100lbs...couldn't find C&D results for the blazer). Mag racing at it's finest....but at least it's evidence. I know there are faster blazers out there and slower cherokee's (even a glance at dragtimes.com bares this out for both the blazer (http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet--S10-Blazer-Drag-Racing.html) and the jeep (http://www.dragtimes.com/Jeep--Cherokee-Drag-Racing.html)), but it seems to suggest your statement was just uninfounded bluster from the get go.

Sweet, MotorTrend is like the Consumer Reports of automobiles.

The second generation S10 Blazer put on 400lbs. Most of the 4 door 4wd second generation ones were in excess of 4000lbs.

FailureTrend also had a report on a blinged-out 4 door LT trim (according to the article) vs a generic XJ Sport.


Likewise, your complaints of the bendix fuel injection system is similarly silly since that was what AMC used when they developed the 4.0...when chrysler incorporated the 4.0 under it's banner, they switched to the chrysler MPFI system, at which point it followed the typical advancements/used same sensors as rest of chrysler line through OBDI, OBII, and beyond. Likewise, Bendix being a poor system or not doesn't really reflect on the 4.0...just bendix. Like blaming the 258 for having too many vacuum hoses in the 70's and 80's :rolleyes:

RENIX was a POS from day one and when Chrysler junked it everything got better. The reason GM's 305 was such a POS was because some tard put a flakey ESC and a carburetor with APT Quadrajet and later the E4M Quadrajet. But that's no excuse, much like a crap engine management system made by renault/bendix slapped on an AMC/Chrysler engine has no excuse.

The 258 had so much emissions crap on it that clearly no one ever thought it through because I've cut 10+ feet out of 80s CJ7s with no ill-effect--leaving all the sensors plugged in.

And at the end of the day you can pick up a brand new 265hp and 290ftlbs 4.7L or pick up a 332hp/352ftlbs GM 5.3L (#19165628), or even a Ford 302 crate engine for the same price. Maybe the cult Jeep enthusiasts will buy the 4.7L but that's probably about it.

Prince Valiant
01-10-2010, 12:51 PM
I'll be honest, I don't care that much. You're the one that has a rough day massaging old lady's feet at Bally's and then comes home to be an eThug.E-thugs threaten violence. Do I?

Do I even work at Bally's? Granted, if I did, it'd probably beat sitting at some desk all day thinking I'm getting screwed by everyone, driving to my rented home, unable to find a house despite crap-ton of houses on the market, hoping to pay off a G6, and utterly miserable with life.

Bet you want to work at Bally's now, eh?

I really don't care that much other than to point out that "whoop-dee-friggin-doo". No, you cared enough to make a flippant and ignorant statement about the 4.0. You then proceeded to care enough to try to defend it to save face, only coming off less informed and dishonest in the process.

Might as well spend a couple grand more and get a 5.7L hemi.If the hemi was a suitable drop in for a wrangler, cherokee, or older grand cherokee, then sure.

Sweet, MotorTrend is like the Consumer Reports of automobiles.No, Consumer Reports is the consumer reports of automobiles. Man, your ignorance knows no bounds.


The second generation S10 Blazer put on 400lbs. Most of the 4 door 4wd second generation ones were in excess of 4000lbs.Hmph. Sounds like y'all got a weight problem. Maybe I can help you at Bally's. Provided they hire me. And I get my personal trainer certificate.

But then, perhaps they didn't exactly "...always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light." At least, the evidence doesn't suggest this. For the record, my Jeep Classic (not some stripped down sport) ran a 16.5 @ 83 mph at GLD. And I'm still willing to bet Yoo's fairly well optioned grand cherokee would crack into the 16's, something the cited Blazer could not do.

Maybe the cult Jeep enthusiasts will buy the 4.7L but that's probably about it.Yeah, I'm not expecting the camaro or mustang guys to come running to buy it. :rolf

wrath
01-10-2010, 01:26 PM
E-thugs threaten violence. Do I?

Do I even work at Bally's? Granted, if I did, it'd probably beat sitting at some desk all day thinking I'm getting screwed by everyone, driving home to my rented home, unable to find a house despite crap-ton of houses on the market, hoping to pay off a G6, and utterly miserable with life.

You're always looking for someone to banter with, hoping to prove them wrong and make yourself feel better. I like to banter, plain and simple.

I didn't know you worked at Ballys or owned a G6. I just guessed, appears that I'm correct. :rolf


No, you cared enough to make a flippant and ignorant statement about the 4.0. You then proceeded to care enough to try to defend it to save face, only coming off less informed and dishonest in the process.
If the hemi was a suitable drop in for a wrangler, cherokee, or older grand cherokee, then sure.
No, Consumer Reports is the consumer reports of automobiles. Man, your ignorance knows no bounds.

Neither flippant, ignorant nor dishonest, you clearly haven't spent enough time around this famed 4.0L or the "new stroker" Chrysler released. If you had, you'd be disappointed with it. And you'd think a $4k 4.7L stroker was stupid also.

I've probably replaced the crappy Dana 35c in more XJs and ZJs with a D44 or 8.25 than you've ever even sat in. I've probably replaced more 242-I6s with 4.3LV6 or 302 than you can imagine. When it comes to CJ5s, CJ7s, YJs, and even one CJ8... blah, why even bother. Only two people I know ever even tried going to a stroker 4.0L, and neither people have those engines in their YJs today.

I don't know many people that look for a drop-in that costs $4k. Anywhere an I6 was a hemi can fit.

Consumer Reports is a failed attempt at convincing consumers what's great and what's not. MotorTrend does for cars what Consumer Reports does for blenders.




Hmph. Sounds like y'all got a weight problem. Maybe I can help you at Bally's. Provided they hire me. And I get my personal trainer certificate.

Yeap, I'm a fatass. All I see you do is comment on health-related things and you're confrontational while seeming you're part of a cult. Like someone that works at Bally's.


But then, perhaps they didn't exactly "...always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light." At least, the evidence doesn't suggest this. For the record, my Jeep Classic (not some stripped down sport) ran a 16.5 @ 83 mph at GLD. And I'm still willing to bet Yoo's fairly well optioned grand cherokee would crack into the 16's, something the cited Blazer could not do.
Yeah, I'm not expecting the camaro or mustang guys to come running to buy it. :rolf

Comparatively speaking, they always did beat a Cherokee (XJ).

A "Jeep Classic" is a Cherokee, AKA XJ. It's like calling a Malibu a Chevrolet Classic. It's a farkin' Malibu, regardless of the fancy vinyl letters on the trunk/hatch.

And while a V8 ZJ (especially the FiveNine) hauls some buttocks, the 4.0Ls didn't fare any better than the XJs.

Prince Valiant
01-10-2010, 03:41 PM
Do I even work at Bally's? Granted, if I did, it'd probably beat sitting at some desk all day thinking I'm getting screwed by everyone, driving to my rented home, unable to find a house despite crap-ton of houses on the market, hoping to pay off a G6, and utterly miserable with life.I didn't know you worked at Ballys or owned a G6. I just guessed, appears that I'm correct.Or that reading comprehension wasn't your strongest trait in school. And that you sucked at good comebacks.

You're always looking for someone to banter with, hoping to prove them wrong and make yourself feel better. I like to banter, plain and simple.says the person accusing me of "e-thugging" :rolf

Of course, I like how you think that other people do things to "make themselves feel better" as if that's what other people do to be happy. It's quite revealing about you more than anything.

Neither flippant, ignorant nor dishonest, you clearly haven't spent enough time around this famed 4.0L No...I've just put darn close to 300,000 miles on them. True, aside from replacing a valve cover gasket, EGR valve, radiator, water pump, and 90 degree oil filter adapter, spark plugs, cap and wires...I've never really had to do much to them.

Obviously most in the thread haven't "spent enough time around this famed 4.0" either....we're trying to let YOU enlighten us....if you could just come up with some facts to support your claim. Because we don't want to follow the great-all-knowing Wrath blindly like we're in a "cult" or anything. PLEASE dear Wrath, teach us blind fools why the 4.0 isn't even comparable to the 4.3 or 302! SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!!! :rolf

I've probably replaced the crappy Dana 35c in more XJs and ZJs with a D44 or 8.25 than you've ever even sat in.Hmmm...am I mistaken in the belief that a Dana 35 is not a 4.0 I6?

I don't know many people that look for a drop-in that costs $4k. Anywhere an I6 was a hemi can fit.While I'll agree that someone can make a hemi fit, that doesn't make it the best or easiest option. Swapping long blocks seems to be a much simpler approach.

All I see you do is comment on health-related things and you're confrontational while seeming you're part of a cult. Like someone that works at Bally's.Perhaps that's because I have more than a little training in sports medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_medicine) as an athletic trainer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_trainer). My training provided me the opportunity to work as a physicians extender (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/physician+extender) for 5 years, which added considerably to my general med/surgical knowledge. I answer the questions because I may have knowledge of, or an opinion on the subject about the question asked.

If that makes me seem to you as if I'm a cultish, confrontational employee of Bally's (which according to you, is the norm there), so be it.

Comparatively speaking, they always did beat a Cherokee (XJ).Yeah. There's just no evidence of it...unless, you want to change what you said after the fact to mean something else.

Still trying to save face.

A "Jeep Classic" is a Cherokee, AKA XJ. It's like calling a Malibu a Chevrolet Classic. It's a farkin' Malibu, regardless of the fancy vinyl letters on the trunk/hatch. Well, the reason I pointed out "classic" is because my cherokee wasn't a stripper "sport" package that you seemed to use to explain the why the jeep was so much quicker than the same year 4x4 equipped blazer, as tested by the same guys.

So if you need to feel better about getting a zinger on me because I inadvertently didn't type the word cherokee, fine....touche. But know it's rather like when a grown-up lets some kid score in basketball because they're trying and obviously can't...and you kind of feel sorry for them. You hope to get a point on me due to thoughtlessness...whereas you lose when you try to put thought into it.

Not that you could care less, right?

And while a V8 ZJ (especially the FiveNine) hauls some buttocks, the 4.0Ls didn't fare any better than the XJs.
Of which by the evidence, didn't appear to be too shabby.

Yooformula
01-10-2010, 06:00 PM
:yawn::yawn: damm and here I thought my naps for the day were done.:goof

Moparjim
01-11-2010, 12:14 PM
I don't have time to qoute and dig up specifics, but it is abuntantly clear to almost every objective observer that you are truly a moron if you can't agree that the 4.0L was one of the most successful engines Chrysler/AMC or any other manufacturer ever made. By successful I mean all around - from a reliability, performance, and financial perspective the engine would easily make most informed people's top ten list. There are obvious reasons why it was made for around 50 years in it's various forms...

Apparently you just like to start an argument for argument's sake.

GTO RLY?
01-17-2010, 11:10 AM
The 2000-2001 Cherokees with a 4.0L were fine automobiles and will likely serve their owners well. But still, by this time the GM 4.3L (LU3) was beating the 4.0L-I6 in both horsepower and torque.

And now GM makes a 4 banger with more power than any of their sixes, yet they refuse to use the LNF in anything but a Solstice, HHR, or Cobalt. :rolleyes:

hrsp
02-11-2010, 12:40 AM
we know the 4.0 is a bullet proof motor...what about the 4.7's?

WickedSix
02-11-2010, 10:28 AM
I can't remember if these had a crossflow head on them or not?.... I know it was a major pain with my ford 300 when i rebuild it...elegante isn't quite the word for having intake and exhaust ports in such close proximity.....heat soak sucked on my f150 and the 300 had a hard time getting past 3500 lol it was more like driving a diesel truck than a gasser imho. The only gripe i'd seen with the 4.0 in jeeps was cracked exhaust manifolds and that weird long start.... like 3-4 rotations of the engine to fire...but they all seems that way. I'd take an engine with more main bearings than cylinders for a reliable vehicle anyday...just watch the video of cash for clunkers of the jeep for proof of how bulletproof the mechanical design was in an inline 6....and the vacuum hoses...well i never saw a jeep half as bad as say the california model of a honda with that 3 barrel carb...pretty sure thats what it was anyway...it looked like field mice made nest with vacuum hose in those...

eyeball
02-11-2010, 10:09 PM
You know what this thread needs? 4.0L pics:

http://www.extremepsi.org/gallery/albums/86-AMC-Eagle/fri_005.jpg

The 4.0 was a reliable, good performing engine with great longevity. That said, I wouldn't buy a MP high perf long block. A supercharger maybe, but definitely not a longblock at those prices.

Wasn't there someone running at the Grove in one of those old pick-up things with a 4.0l and a bunch of bolt-ons from the MP catalog? I think this was maybe eight years ago. The guy used to make laps during the week and was switching off driving duties with his wife. I remember it being slow but consistent...

Prince Valiant
02-11-2010, 11:26 PM
Wasn't there someone running at the Grove in one of those old pick-up things with a 4.0l and a bunch of bolt-ons from the MP catalog? I think this was maybe eight years ago. The guy used to make laps during the week and was switching off driving duties with his wife. I remember it being slow but consistent...Actually, there was a commanche (the pick-up) running mid/high 13's for some time...not sure if it was the same one you're speaking of.

It was the "eliminator" package as I recall.

eyeball
02-12-2010, 05:33 PM
Actually, there was a commanche (the pick-up) running mid/high 13's for some time...not sure if it was the same one you're speaking of.

It was the "eliminator" package as I recall.

Perhaps it was the same one. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I thought the one I saw was in the high 14s or possibly slower. Who knows if they were ironing out a tune or ? I seem to remember that the engine had bumped up compression and an MP head. It also had a straight exhaust. It seemed horrendously slow for the amount of money that was put into it. That's probably the only reason I remember it.