Attempting to buy Jeep, Am I Wrong? - Page 3 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 09-13-2011, 04:21 PM   #61
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,916
Heh Heh, yea, I'm afraid that we--in the lowend torque crowd, aren't very high in the population list !!


Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
Two major things are sticking in my mind with the 2012. The AT downshifting at the slightest touch of the shifter, and the exhaust loop. Hard top leaks annoy me too, but..........

Maybe they'll offer a slate gray and dark blue. My fear is DI finds it way into the 3.6, and/or an 8 speed AT???????????????? I think I'd pass then. A 6 speed AT might be a plus!

I'm thing if they wanted to they could tune the engine, change a cam, or possibly the pistions and rods to give it a bit more low end grunt? An engine builder would know better though.
They need freeway ops to appeal to the crowds !!

JIMBO

__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 12:11 AM   #62
Newb
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
I was insistent on not having a first year engine too, then I found out it's not a first year engine. This is just the first year it's in the Wrangler.
True, I think the 2012 Wrangler engine is used in the new GC...But, something always changes when they put it in a new body...been there...done that..

fsrtwo is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 01:01 AM   #63
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
ShaneDiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Alamogordo
Posts: 222
I just built a 2012 on both the USAA and the ZAG sites (Both were identical BTW) and my TL discount at only the 1% below invoice was better by a little over $100.

On a side note anyone else notice that both the USAA and ZAG build sheets don't have a 3 piece hard top option to pick. They only have the Dual top option at dual top price...but in the description it says 3 piece hard top *delete sun rider soft top*
ShaneDiddy is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 09:16 AM   #64
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMBOX View Post
There's no way the 3.6l has enough lowend torque for off-roading, with bigger tires so they're gonna have to have regearing possible and if you think your mileage can be that much better with the 5spd auto--BAM, it just hunts outta O/D into 4th gear, so----regearing is still gonna be the answer !!
With stock tires it needs regeared. I got the 3.73s and took it out to do some real mild wheeling within 48 hours of having it and had to put it in 4L just to putt around some of the terrain in the pasture. It does absolutely NOTHING below 2000 rpm where you need it, which may be helped with a better tune at the expense of being smooth. I have the 6 speed, so the lack of low end is more apparent that with the new automatic, but it needs help.

Quote:
They've also gotta do something with that exhaust loop, that sticks way down and the auto cooler line, that crosses right under the tranny---whatsup with that ??
The exhaust loop is an eyesore, but I really don't think it's going to be an issue. The photos I've seen posted on the web do not accurately depict the position and dangle of the loop. It is right next to the control arm bracket and doesn't hang down lower than the bracket. The trans cooler line is a real head scratcher. Who the hell thought that one up? I can hear the conversation in my head. "Hey guys, do you see any problem running the line right here?" "No, it should be fine. Nobody will drag the trans pan across a log or drive anywhere that a loose branch or root could grab it and rip it out of the vehicle leaving them stranded in BFE forever. Let's go with that."

Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
I think if they wanted to they could tune the engine, change a cam, or possibly the pistons and rods to give it a bit more low end grunt? An engine builder would know better though.
There isn't much there for the engine. At least not in the rpm range we need it. The best engine builders in the world can squeak out about 1.4-1.5 ft-lbs of torque for every cubic inch of displacement doing a straight dyno test with every thing optimized and they're doing this around 5000 rpm. The 3.6 is subject to the restrictions of the SAE J1349 test to get it's 260 ft-lb rating on 216 cubic inches. That's about 1.2 ft-lbs per cubic inch. If you get rid of the SAE restrictions you'll probably see about 1.4 ft-lbs per cubic inch, so it's pretty good as it is. There just aren't enough cubic inches there to do much more. With variable valve timing a cam isn't going to help and the compression ratio is up there near the limits of realistic pump gas usage already. Adding compression isn't a very good way to add power anyway, but upping it could help the mileage a little more.

There are definitely not many of us that would rather have low end torque than high rpm power. Torque is what ultimately moves the vehicle, not power. That's why we regear: more torque turning the wheels. It makes so much more sense to start with torque in the first place, but power sells. I think it's quite funny that my 150 hp truck that weighs more than a 285 hp JK can out accelerate it gear for gear at about any legal speed. My truck is all done by about 75 mph, but it's also old and worn out and was built with 30 year old technolocy. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. EVERY Jeep owner would be happier if they had an engine that is what they REALLY want instead of one that they THINK they want. The average consumer makes no distinction between torque and horsepower and only complains about the latter. If we had a 4.5-5L V6 optimized for life at or below 4500 rpm we could have 330-350 ft-lbs of torque available right off idle, about 240-250 hp, excellent mileage, and the ability to turn big tires with the stock gearing options. Damn the flames, full speed ahead.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 09:25 AM   #65
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsrtwo View Post
True, I think the 2012 Wrangler engine is used in the new GC...But, something always changes when they put it in a new body...been there...done that..
This was true a few engine generations ago, but now the common practice is to use engines in a modular form. The exact same thing goes into several bodies with a few exceptions for special cars that get a higher power rating. The small differences in power output are typically due to the different installation. It has almost become nothing more than bolting it in and finding a place to hide the computer.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 09:30 AM   #66
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,916
I think we're starting in a new off-road power curve with this 2012-


Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMBOX View Post
Heh Heh, yea, I'm afraid that we--in the lowend torque crowd, aren't very high in the population list !!




They need freeway ops to appeal to the crowds !!

JIMBO
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
With stock tires it needs regeared. I got the 3.73s and took it out to do some real mild wheeling within 48 hours of having it and had to put it in 4L just to putt around some of the terrain in the pasture. It does absolutely NOTHING below 2000 rpm where you need it, which may be helped with a better tune at the expense of being smooth. I have the 6 speed, so the lack of low end is more apparent that with the new automatic, but it needs help.



The exhaust loop is an eyesore, but I really don't think it's going to be an issue. The photos I've seen posted on the web do not accurately depict the position and dangle of the loop. It is right next to the control arm bracket and doesn't hang down lower than the bracket. The trans cooler line is a real head scratcher. Who the hell thought that one up? I can hear the conversation in my head. "Hey guys, do you see any problem running the line right here?" "No, it should be fine. Nobody will drag the trans pan across a log or drive anywhere that a loose branch or root could grab it and rip it out of the vehicle leaving them stranded in BFE forever. Let's go with that."



There isn't much there for the engine. At least not in the rpm range we need it. The best engine builders in the world can squeak out about 1.4-1.5 ft-lbs of torque for every cubic inch of displacement doing a straight dyno test with every thing optimized and they're doing this around 5000 rpm. The 3.6 is subject to the restrictions of the SAE J1349 test to get it's 260 ft-lb rating on 216 cubic inches. That's about 1.2 ft-lbs per cubic inch. If you get rid of the SAE restrictions you'll probably see about 1.4 ft-lbs per cubic inch, so it's pretty good as it is. There just aren't enough cubic inches there to do much more. With variable valve timing a cam isn't going to help and the compression ratio is up there near the limits of realistic pump gas usage already. Adding compression isn't a very good way to add power anyway, but upping it could help the mileage a little more.

There are definitely not many of us that would rather have low end torque than high rpm power. Torque is what ultimately moves the vehicle, not power. That's why we regear: more torque turning the wheels. It makes so much more sense to start with torque in the first place, but power sells. I think it's quite funny that my 150 hp truck that weighs more than a 285 hp JK can out accelerate it gear for gear at about any legal speed. My truck is all done by about 75 mph, but it's also old and worn out and was built with 30 year old technolocy. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. EVERY Jeep owner would be happier if they had an engine that is what they REALLY want instead of one that they THINK they want. The average consumer makes no distinction between torque and horsepower and only complains about the latter. If we had a 4.5-5L V6 optimized for life at or below 4500 rpm we could have 330-350 ft-lbs of torque available right off idle, about 240-250 hp, excellent mileage, and the ability to turn big tires with the stock gearing options. Damn the flames, full speed ahead.
Thanx for the updates oilwell, I just wonder how much of that exhaust loop is exposed when the drivers side of the axle/tire are stuffed into the fenderwell ??

timesaretough

JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 10:52 AM   #67
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMBOX View Post
I think we're starting in a new off-road power curve with this 2012-
I'm afraid you're right. Let's build a 6000+ rpm engine and gear it to the moon to make it work instead of building the right engine to start with. I just don't get it.

Quote:
Thanx for the updates oilwell, I just wonder how much of that exhaust loop is exposed when the drivers side of the axle/tire are stuffed into the fenderwell ??
It really shouldn't be any more exposed than a normal exhaust pipe. There is a solid piece of structure right next to it that doesn't move in relation to it. Just as with any exhaust pipe, a well placed rock will take it out. The real issues I see are that when that happens the expense will be much greater to fix it, especially since there is no longer a manifold there to cushion the blow to the cylinder head. How bad would it suck to hit a rock with your exhaust and need a new engine to fix the problem?
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 11:05 AM   #68
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,916
Heh Heh, yup-

Hitemp duct tape and u-bolts in the recovery box !

Thats all manageable, but that auto tranny fluid line-BAM-

Katebarthedoor

JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-14-2011, 11:07 AM   #69
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 33,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415

With stock tires it needs regeared. I got the 3.73s and took it out to do some real mild wheeling within 48 hours of having it and had to put it in 4L just to putt around some of the terrain in the pasture. It does absolutely NOTHING below 2000 rpm where you need it, which may be helped with a better tune at the expense of being smooth. I have the 6 speed, so the lack of low end is more apparent that with the new automatic, but it needs help.

The exhaust loop is an eyesore, but I really don't think it's going to be an issue. The photos I've seen posted on the web do not accurately depict the position and dangle of the loop. It is right next to the control arm bracket and doesn't hang down lower than the bracket. The trans cooler line is a real head scratcher. Who the hell thought that one up? I can hear the conversation in my head. "Hey guys, do you see any problem running the line right here?" "No, it should be fine. Nobody will drag the trans pan across a log or drive anywhere that a loose branch or root could grab it and rip it out of the vehicle leaving them stranded in BFE forever. Let's go with that."

There isn't much there for the engine. At least not in the rpm range we need it. The best engine builders in the world can squeak out about 1.4-1.5 ft-lbs of torque for every cubic inch of displacement doing a straight dyno test with every thing optimized and they're doing this around 5000 rpm. The 3.6 is subject to the restrictions of the SAE J1349 test to get it's 260 ft-lb rating on 216 cubic inches. That's about 1.2 ft-lbs per cubic inch. If you get rid of the SAE restrictions you'll probably see about 1.4 ft-lbs per cubic inch, so it's pretty good as it is. There just aren't enough cubic inches there to do much more. With variable valve timing a cam isn't going to help and the compression ratio is up there near the limits of realistic pump gas usage already. Adding compression isn't a very good way to add power anyway, but upping it could help the mileage a little more.

There are definitely not many of us that would rather have low end torque than high rpm power. Torque is what ultimately moves the vehicle, not power. That's why we regear: more torque turning the wheels. It makes so much more sense to start with torque in the first place, but power sells. I think it's quite funny that my 150 hp truck that weighs more than a 285 hp JK can out accelerate it gear for gear at about any legal speed. My truck is all done by about 75 mph, but it's also old and worn out and was built with 30 year old technolocy. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. EVERY Jeep owner would be happier if they had an engine that is what they REALLY want instead of one that they THINK they want. The average consumer makes no distinction between torque and horsepower and only complains about the latter. If we had a 4.5-5L V6 optimized for life at or below 4500 rpm we could have 330-350 ft-lbs of torque available right off idle, about 240-250 hp, excellent mileage, and the ability to turn big tires with the stock gearing options. Damn the flames, full speed ahead.
I enjoy reading this guys posts ^^

__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 06:15 AM   #70
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post


There isn't much there for the engine. At least not in the rpm range we need it. The best engine builders in the world can squeak out about 1.4-1.5 ft-lbs of torque for every cubic inch of displacement doing a straight dyno test with every thing optimized and they're doing this around 5000 rpm. The 3.6 is subject to the restrictions of the SAE J1349 test to get it's 260 ft-lb rating on 216 cubic inches. That's about 1.2 ft-lbs per cubic inch. If you get rid of the SAE restrictions you'll probably see about 1.4 ft-lbs per cubic inch, so it's pretty good as it is. There just aren't enough cubic inches there to do much more. With variable valve timing a cam isn't going to help and the compression ratio is up there near the limits of realistic pump gas usage already. Adding compression isn't a very good way to add power anyway, but upping it could help the mileage a little more.

There are definitely not many of us that would rather have low end torque than high rpm power. Torque is what ultimately moves the vehicle, not power. That's why we regear: more torque turning the wheels. It makes so much more sense to start with torque in the first place, but power sells. I think it's quite funny that my 150 hp truck that weighs more than a 285 hp JK can out accelerate it gear for gear at about any legal speed. My truck is all done by about 75 mph, but it's also old and worn out and was built with 30 year old technolocy. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. EVERY Jeep owner would be happier if they had an engine that is what they REALLY want instead of one that they THINK they want. The average consumer makes no distinction between torque and horsepower and only complains about the latter. If we had a 4.5-5L V6 optimized for life at or below 4500 rpm we could have 330-350 ft-lbs of torque available right off idle, about 240-250 hp, excellent mileage, and the ability to turn big tires with the stock gearing options. Damn the flames, full speed ahead.
If its the Ford 4.9L engine you're referring to and all of its 150 ponies I'm with you. I've owned a total of 4 vans and a PU with those engines and IMO when it comes to torque they are amazing. I still have my 88 E-150 and will be sick the day I have to part with that van. I'd love to see what that engine could do behind the Wrangler 6 speed with a 4.10 rear!

It's been almost 4 decades since I worked in a machine shop. I thought they might be able to use a different piston rod combo to get a tiny bit more stroke from the engine w/o altering compression. More stroke would equal more torque, but its been a lot of years and I could be totally off base with that thinking. Thanks!
demarpaint is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 06:19 AM   #71
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMBOX View Post
but that auto tranny fluid line-BAM-

Katebarthedoor

JIMBO

That's only an issue for you old man auto drivers.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 06:20 AM   #72
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsrtwo View Post
True, I think the 2012 Wrangler engine is used in the new GC...But, something always changes when they put it in a new body...been there...done that..
Don't forget they used it in the Caravan first, it's a mini van engine!
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 08:21 AM   #73
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
If its the Ford 4.9L engine you're referring to and all of its 150 ponies I'm with you. I've owned a total of 4 vans and a PU with those engines and IMO when it comes to torque they are amazing. I still have my 88 E-150 and will be sick the day I have to part with that van. I'd love to see what that engine could do behind the Wrangler 6 speed with a 4.10 rear!
Yep, it's an EFI 300. The last great gasoline truck engine.

Quote:
It's been almost 4 decades since I worked in a machine shop. I thought they might be able to use a different piston rod combo to get a tiny bit more stroke from the engine w/o altering compression. More stroke would equal more torque, but its been a lot of years and I could be totally off base with that thinking. Thanks!
Gotcha. If you had added crank to the parts list I would have caught that. The architecture was originally designed for up to 4 liters, so adding cubes is doable although it will be pricey. Even if Jeep would just build a 4.0 version of the Pentastar and change nothing else it would gain about 30 ft-lbs. That isn't earth shattering, but it would be at least as noticable as the change to the Pentastar from the 3.8.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 06:09 AM   #74
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
Yep, it's an EFI 300. The last great gasoline truck engine.
IMO that was one of the best engines ever made. They don't die, and pull like a freight train. I wonder if anyone tried one in a Wrangler? I've never seen, heard, or read about it. I think it would be cool for a Jeep build. LOL
demarpaint is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:23 AM   #75
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
IMO that was one of the best engines ever made. They don't die, and pull like a freight train. I wonder if anyone tried one in a Wrangler? I've never seen, heard, or read about it. I think it would be cool for a Jeep build. LOL
Funny you should mention that....After seeing some of the projects in the Builders Forum I've been tempted to do a classic build. I have a garage full of EFI 300 parts, enough to build an engine or two. I'm pretty sure I can get it out to 351 cubic inches without too much effort. That should be able to make about 480 ft-lbs of torque with the right combination of intake, exhaust and cam. The only problem may be that it makes it at 3000 rpm instead of right off idle.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:28 AM   #76
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,916
Did you say 351 ??


Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
Funny you should mention that....After seeing some of the projects in the Builders Forum I've been tempted to do a classic build. I have a garage full of EFI 300 parts, enough to build an engine or two. I'm pretty sure I can get it out to 351 cubic inches without too much effort. That should be able to make about 480 ft-lbs of torque with the right combination of intake, exhaust and cam. The only problem may be that it makes it at 3000 rpm instead of right off idle.
Mr. Cleveland hadem-



JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:30 AM   #77
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
Funny you should mention that....After seeing some of the projects in the Builders Forum I've been tempted to do a classic build. I have a garage full of EFI 300 parts, enough to build an engine or two. I'm pretty sure I can get it out to 351 cubic inches without too much effort. That should be able to make about 480 ft-lbs of torque with the right combination of intake, exhaust and cam. The only problem may be that it makes it at 3000 rpm instead of right off idle.
That would be one hell of a build. I think you could easily build it were the torque is way down low in the rpm range, a slight trade off from what you have in mind. I wanted to use one in place of a Chevy 250 I6 in a boat. My problem is it is a low rpm motor by design and wasn't worth the effort.
demarpaint is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:37 AM   #78
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMBOX View Post
Did you say 351 ??
Yes, but not in that silly unbalanced firing V formation. I'm talking about one of these with 51 extra cubic inches:



Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
That would be one hell of a build. I think you could easily build it were the torque is way down low in the rpm range, a slight trade off from what you have in mind. I wanted to use one in place of a Chevy 250 I6 in a boat. My problem is it is a low rpm motor by design and wasn't worth the effort.
The problem isn't so much the rpm, it's the drive gearing that's available. You would almost have to go to a diesel stern drive and it would probably be too big and heavy for a 300 to spin with authority. If you could get one of the lightweight drives it may be OK, but power is much more important in a boat than it is in a car.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-17-2011, 04:43 AM   #79
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
Yes, but not in that silly unbalanced firing V formation. I'm talking about one of these with 51 extra cubic inches:





The problem isn't so much the rpm, it's the drive gearing that's available. You would almost have to go to a diesel stern drive and it would probably be too big and heavy for a 300 to spin with authority. If you could get one of the lightweight drives it may be OK, but power is much more important in a boat than it is in a car.
I was in a bidding war for a 300 I6 on Ebay a few years back it was a complete "new" crate motor from Ford. It ended up a little too rich for my blood so I stopped bidding. I was later contacted by someone pretending that the deal fell through and he'd take my offer. I laughed and forwarded the email to eBay.

My understanding was the 300 I6 made its power too low in the rpm range and didn't spin like the 250 which was why it was never a hit with the boating crowd. IIRC they didn't offer a drive that was geared properly for the 300, too bad. Its been a lot of years though since I fooled with it. We used a 250 for about 15 years. Now its a bigger boat, with a nice keel for offshore and a Ford 351 powering it.
demarpaint is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-18-2011, 09:11 PM   #80
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAVarminter View Post
Muddprincess we love you, but you bought a Jeep girl, not a "truck" . . . . .


@Pavarminter hahaha i was trying to hard not to say truck lol...im getting better at it lol i just keep saying jeep jeep jeep

muddprincess17 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TN: 1995 Jeep YJ Crawler volsjp Classifieds Archive 8 06-28-2012 10:14 PM
Biggest Jeep Freek Contest!!!! txoutdoorx4 Classifieds Archive 6 02-21-2011 10:48 AM
Parts Vanimal00000 TJ General Discussion Forum 6 01-28-2010 08:06 AM
2007 Hot Springs Jeep Jamboree USA review jeeptales On The Trail 0 11-16-2007 10:15 AM


logo carid shop wrangler parts carid fender flares custom wheels store avs deflectors at carid
» Rates
Get low rates on auto insurance in Canada!

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC