test drove an '11 yesterday, power sticks - 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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 01-03-2011, 10:17 PM   #61
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by captgentry
Oh yea.... The dyno results I quoted were also far below what crysler says the jk has.

So, there's that.
As I understand it (which ain't much), Dyno results measure power at the wheels, whereas "what Chrysler said" is power at the engine. These numbers will always be less at the wheels, and this is true for all vehicles.

I lack your personal experience with the TJ. I've never driven one, so I really don't know. I can say that my dad drove a 2001 Sahara TJ (manual trans) until this summer when he picked up a 2010 2 door Sahara JK (manual trans) and gave the TJ to my younger brother. According to both of them, the JK is plainly and obviously quicker and more powerful.

I wonder if you may be experiencing something else. Was your TJ perhaps a manual whereas the JK is a auto? Maybe a 2 door to 4 door? Or maybe did your TJ have enhanced aftermarket gearing whereas your JK does not? Did the dealer maybe install a lift with bigger tires on your JK? Rumor has it there's also a computer controlled engine break in period on the JK. There are variables beyond "butt dyno" that could be at play.

In any event, I've never heard of any test in which a stock TJ is faster or "peppier" than a stock JK. However, that's not a knock on the venerable straight six, which is basically legendary. I'd love to have a TJ and I wave to everyone that I see. I don't race them, so I don't really care which is "faster".

__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-03-2011, 10:20 PM   #62
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: conway arkansas
Posts: 254
Images: 1
like I said....hand-in-hand....search the jeep forums and you'll find 4.0's in working order, but you won't find 3.8's. exact opposite goes for the scrapyards. my mom drove a grand caravan for 15 years and put 290,000 miles on the 3.8 with no major problems....I'm more than confident the 3.8 in my jeep will last just as long. there's plenty of minivans sitting in scrapyards with well over 200,000 miles that still have an operational 3.8, and the reason they're sitting in the scrapyards is because they were either wrecked or van fell apart around them(3.8)

swingtail82 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-03-2011, 11:16 PM   #63
PHX
Jeeper
 
PHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 46
I drive about an hour @ 65-70 mph, then about 4 hours at a top speed of 5 mph, then another hour @ 65-70 back home, so yea, mine's pretty slow, too.
PHX is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-03-2011, 11:55 PM   #64
Jeeper
 
joe002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,185
What are "power sticks"?
joe002 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 05:54 AM   #65
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Elmendorf Tx
Posts: 19
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinm2467 View Post
Try test driving a variety of jeeps. Maybe something just wasn't right on that one... Drive some tj's and some 2 and 4 door jks.
Test drove 2011 4 Dr Rubicon ***auto***, only Rubi on the lot, thinking well not going to win any race but again if racing was on my agenda would not be looking at a Jeep. I figured it had all the power I needed and knew I would be happy, again you buy a Jeep for other reasons.

Dealer found what I wanted with all the goodies I wanted, 2011 2Dr Silver Rubi *** 6 Speed***, what a difference between the 4 Dr auto to the 2 Dr manual, as someone stated now with 1500 Mi under her belt even seems a little more peppy since the day I drove her off the dealers lot, but again if your going too fast you never get the chance to smell the flowers growing between the rocks!

Myself, I am more then happy with the power I have, and that's coming from a 2010 F150 with the 5.4, Ford will out run the Jeep all day long,,,but the Ford will be parked at the entrance, while still going deep in the woods with the Jeep!
txron is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 06:45 AM   #66
Jeeper
 
JK Dubai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 68
Images: 1
As a conclusion for the posts which i've read so far in this thread, most people here are trying to show and pretend that they dont really care about how underpowered the jk is but its obvious that deep in their hearts they wished if JK had at least 30hp extra out of the box !!

Come on guys !! we all love wranglers, and im a person who is really crazy about how it looks like and i will never leave it for another 4wheeler specially when it comes to off-roading, but sometimes i do complain about lack of power this engine has and im sure all jk owners who are treating their baby as a daily driving vehicle feel the same way.

Lets say you wanna go for a long trip you cant just re-gear it to make it quicker as some have said and let the consumption goes high, As an example instead of making 230 Miles for the whole trip in one tank you will make 180 miles !!! and our friends who are driving FJs or XTerras are consuming less than us. of course things like these are not making sense !!! what we want is just a normal car, a normal engine that suits the time we live in, what i mean is an engine that carries more than 270hp not an old engine that is only made to take you everywhere off the road !!! if that is the only reason they made the jk this way, then they should've removed the A/C, Stereo, Speakers, cruise control, cup holders... etc. At the end of the day it is a car, so a car should look and perform like a car. NEVER TRY TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL !!!

Honestly guys, the way the jk looks, specifically the modified ones they look like beasts and they sound like beasts as if they had 500hp in their heart. but the fact is dissapointing...
JK Dubai is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 07:25 AM   #67
Trying to Get Lost

WF Supporting Member
 
jeffk42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,035
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK Dubai View Post
As a conclusion for the posts which i've read so far in this thread, most people here are trying to show and pretend that they dont really care about how underpowered the jk is but its obvious that deep in their hearts they wished if JK had at least 30hp extra out of the box !!
What makes you think anyone is trying to "pretend" anything? And what makes you think you know what's "deep in their hearts" based off of a discussion board post?

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're deluding themselves or being dishonest. Don't claim to know more about a person than they do, especially when you don't know them at all.

For the record: Zero regret, zero "wishing deep in my heart" that I had anything extra on my 2011 Sport/6-spd. Well, lockers would be nice.
__________________
2011 Jeep Wrangler Sport S [Photos]


jeffk42 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 07:54 AM   #68
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
They think it's true because it is, in fact, true. Don't get me wrong, I love the TJ. I'm a big fan of almost every Jeep I see on the road. And I know full well that the present JK is no rocket ship. However . . . .







I don't want to steal Sinister's thunder here, but the guy's fingers have got to be getting sore from having to post on this issue so often.

But, by the way, congrats on the new Jeep!

thanks for noticing.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 07:57 AM   #69
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,708
would i like more power? yes.
do i need more power? no.

i've got my hotrod when i want to go fast.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 09:22 AM   #70
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 93
I wanna break my axles doing wheelies like I did in my tj.
captgentry is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 10:00 AM   #71
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,914
Man you need some "home country" time


Quote:
Originally Posted by JK Dubai View Post
As a conclusion for the posts which i've read so far in this thread, most people here are trying to show and pretend that they dont really care about how underpowered the jk is but its obvious that deep in their hearts they wished if JK had at least 30hp extra out of the box !!

Come on guys !! we all love wranglers, and im a person who is really crazy about how it looks like and i will never leave it for another 4wheeler specially when it comes to off-roading, but sometimes i do complain about lack of power this engine has and im sure all jk owners who are treating their baby as a daily driving vehicle feel the same way.

Lets say you wanna go for a long trip you cant just re-gear it to make it quicker as some have said and let the consumption goes high, As an example instead of making 230 Miles for the whole trip in one tank you will make 180 miles !!! and our friends who are driving FJs or XTerras are consuming less than us. of course things like these are not making sense !!! what we want is just a normal car, a normal engine that suits the time we live in, what i mean is an engine that carries more than 270hp not an old engine that is only made to take you everywhere off the road !!! if that is the only reason they made the jk this way, then they should've removed the A/C, Stereo, Speakers, cruise control, cup holders... etc. At the end of the day it is a car, so a car should look and perform like a car. NEVER TRY TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL !!!

Honestly guys, the way the jk looks, specifically the modified ones they look like beasts and they sound like beasts as if they had 500hp in their heart. but the fact is dissapointing...
I drive from Ca. Bay Area up to Donner down to Reno and back-WITH LOAD-

I use my cruise control (level freeway" cruise cont (70mph) and I get to my destination (223 miles) with 1/4 tank left-I get about 300 miles per tank-WITH LOAD !!

Like Mr. S, I'd like a little more power, but I knew when I boughtit, I knoiw when I drive it and I useit for what it's intended-off-road-camping-wheeling-exploring !!

The 3.8L V6 is great for my JKU and I don't NEED more !

JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 02:47 PM   #72
Jeeper
 
FlyinJeeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK Dubai View Post
As a conclusion for the posts which i've read so far in this thread, most people here are trying to show and pretend that they dont really care about how underpowered the jk is but its obvious that deep in their hearts they wished if JK had at least 30hp extra out of the box !!

Come on guys !! we all love wranglers, and im a person who is really crazy about how it looks like and i will never leave it for another 4wheeler specially when it comes to off-roading, but sometimes i do complain about lack of power this engine has and im sure all jk owners who are treating their baby as a daily driving vehicle feel the same way.

Lets say you wanna go for a long trip you cant just re-gear it to make it quicker as some have said and let the consumption goes high, As an example instead of making 230 Miles for the whole trip in one tank you will make 180 miles !!! and our friends who are driving FJs or XTerras are consuming less than us. of course things like these are not making sense !!! what we want is just a normal car, a normal engine that suits the time we live in, what i mean is an engine that carries more than 270hp not an old engine that is only made to take you everywhere off the road !!! if that is the only reason they made the jk this way, then they should've removed the A/C, Stereo, Speakers, cruise control, cup holders... etc. At the end of the day it is a car, so a car should look and perform like a car. NEVER TRY TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL !!!

Honestly guys, the way the jk looks, specifically the modified ones they look like beasts and they sound like beasts as if they had 500hp in their heart. but the fact is dissapointing...

So go buy a normal car. The rest of us want our Jeeps. If you really want power that much get a supercharger and be done with it.....
FlyinJeeps is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 03:38 PM   #73
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 93
I'm not saying anyone should not buy a jk. I did and I love mine.
I just wish I had a 4.0 instead if the 3.8.
captgentry is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 03:58 PM   #74
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Deptford, NJ
Posts: 117
Respectfully, some of you really have blind obedience. I am on my second Jeep Wrangler in my life and loved them both. However, I would not give credit where credit is not due. I do not need, or want, a sports car, a race car, or a normal car. I wanted a Jeep. What I was not expecting was it exceptionally poor acceleration, especially in the lower gears when needed to get into traffic. I could care less if it was governed to go no more than 75mph for petes sake, but give me some pickem up!
spm488 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 04:25 PM   #75
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,914
I don't know whether you have a stick/auto-but Mine, with big tires is a shoo in for traffic/cruising/comfort/quiet-300 miles to a tank, the best 4lo I've ever had-


Quote:
Originally Posted by spm488 View Post
Respectfully, some of you really have blind obedience. I am on my second Jeep Wrangler in my life and loved them both. However, I would not give credit where credit is not due. I do not need, or want, a sports car, a race car, or a normal car. I wanted a Jeep. What I was not expecting was it exceptionally poor acceleration, especially in the lower gears when needed to get into traffic. I could care less if it was governed to go no more than 75mph for petes sake, but give me some pickem up!
If I was you I'd sell yours and buy a TJ, then you can "respectfully" b!tch to them !!

JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 04:40 PM   #76
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 523
look i came from a g37s, a car which i didn't have to shift to 4th gear until i hit 100 MPH and the jeep is obviously a HUGE step down in acceleration, however with stock gears and a manual transmission you can get good enough acceleration out of it as long as you are shifting in its power band.
BlackMountain is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 04:46 PM   #77
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,708
how old are some of you guys? i mean i'm only 33, but i owned several cars from the 80's. you want to talk about SLOW..........
auto 2 door jk does 0-60 in 9.5.
most middling full size v8 trucks do it in around 10 seconds (with ~300hp v8 engines)

i mean are you guys downshifting or hitting passing gear? i took a 350 mile round trip recently, all highway, and had no trouble merging or passing when i needed to.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 04:58 PM   #78
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMountain View Post
with stock gears and a manual transmission you can get good enough acceleration out of it as long as you are shifting in its power band.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
how old are some of you guys? i mean i'm only 33, but i owned several cars from the 80's. you want to talk about SLOW.......... auto 2 door jk does 0-60 in 9.5. most middling full size v8 trucks do it in around 10 seconds (with ~300hp v8 engines) i mean are you guys downshifting or hitting passing gear? i took a 350 mile round trip recently, all highway, and had no trouble merging or passing when i needed to.
For real. I just don't get it. With a manual trans I have no problem on any highway. None. Never have. Merging, passing, keeping speed, whatever. No problem. And I've got a 4 door with 3.21 gears and 32" BFG tires.

31 years old, by the way.

I'm officially checking out of this thread now. There ain't nowhere to go with this "debate"!
MTH is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 06:41 PM   #79
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,708
It's just the same old 3.8 V6 argument.

"I reject your science and logic and insert opinion and insanity!!"
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 07:53 PM   #80
Jeeper
 
thewasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Grand Haven, MI
Posts: 114
I reject your science and embrace MY MAD SCIENCE.

...seriously though, I fall into the crowd that thinks the 3.8 is fine as is. I just got done with about a 1200+ mile road trip and was perfectly happy with it. Granted I wasn't merging on the Jersey turnpike. There's always ways to increase power if that's the most important change you want to make though. Chip, exhaust, cams, intake, force air induction, etc... My first upgrades will be off-road centric but (it would be) your Jeep, so make it your own and mod what you like. Half the fun of owning a Jeep is the massive aftermarket, go play!
thewasel is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 09:12 PM   #81
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern Nevada
Posts: 1,259
I had a 95 grand Cherokee larado 6 banger.... that thing was underpowered. If I floored it, she would bog down and lose power. Passing people on the highway was something that almost never happened.

The 3.8L can handle its own pretty well. Ive driven it on some crazy highways too. I'm content with the JK engine.
popstop785 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-04-2011, 10:20 PM   #82
Jeeper
 
joe002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,185
It looks to me that some of the posters here donít actually own/drive a JK.

I have a 2 door automatic with 35s and I installed 5.38s specifically for the trials. Itís got plenty of power. Iím sure I can break my axles, my drive shafts, maybe rip off some mounts on my axles, etc. any day - if I wanted to. Iíve seen others do it with less gears. Iíve never come close to feeling like I need more power when Iím in 4 Low and 1st gear. When youíre in 4 Low and you put it in 1st, canít you feel the torque, even with your foot off the gas and keeping it stopped with you foot on the brake? With little to no extra gas I can crawl over most any obstacle. Iíve never run out of power climbing a hill, crawling up a ledge, or anywhere off-road. I donít see any issue with the power off-road. The only thing more power would do is help me break something easier.

I got the Jeep for wheeling, but I do have to drive it on the streets and freeways to get to the trails. On the street, with cars, itís fine. Maybe itís the 2 door automatic with 5.38s, but even with the stock tires and 4.10s I never felt like it was a slug on the road. Itís much better than my daily driver econo-box (which is a slug, especially when I turn on the A/C). Does you JK slow down and die when you turn on the A/C? Mine doesnít. Can I keep up/pass cars on the road and freeway? Yes. Can I merge on the Freeway? Yes. What more do you want? So maybe the ďextra powerĒ I get from the gears makes my Jeep good on the road, but what price in gas mileage do I have to pay for them, something like what, 10 MPG or something? This summer I went with a mixed group of TJs and my JK from Arizona to Colorado. My trail geared Jeep got about the same gas mileage on the freeways as the TJs (a little better that some a little worse than others), and my range was as good or better than the TJs (I always got well over 200 miles per tank). When we all stopped to fill up I always had plenty of gas in the tank - same as when we were on the trail all day. I think my best MPG on the trip was 20, better than my crappy mini-van, but not as good as my Accent.

...
joe002 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 04:50 AM   #83
Jeeper
 
Hilldweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,130
This is what it looks like when you're going up a hill in a JK (could only get it to about 50 mph) and your autotrans "hot oil" light and warning ding come on.
Pull over, let it cool.

There are certainly times when a JK could use more torque. And times when a larger trans cooler would help.

__________________
Gone camping,
Bill

Hilldweller is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 06:59 AM   #84
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 93
"If I was you I'd sell yours and buy a TJ, then you can "respectfully" b!tch to them !!"

First.. If you don't like people b!tching I might suggest you turn off the internet.

Second.. It seems that some people are taking the suggestion that the 3.8 is less of an engine than the 4.0 personally. Try pretending that anyone complaining about the 3.8 is only speaking about thier personal engine and not yours or you.

Third.. I don't think anyone here is boasting about how awsome the TJ is verses the JK. I like the JK better overall but the JK, in my view, looses points because of the engine. but.. gains some because of fuel economy.

Mr. Sinister, I don't see what science you keep refering to. The dyno examples I've found all seem to indicate that the HP and Torque from the 3.8 are less than the AMC 242 straight-6. (maybe we're not talking about the same engines?)
Common sense would indicate a larger engine and lighter car would make it accellerate faster.
12 years of experience in a TJ(stock AMC 242 straight-6) tell me that the accelleration and power of the 4.0 is better than my new JK.

Before I bought my 2011, I was debating if I should try and wait it out to see if Jeep would switch to the Pentastar 4.0. I figured the 3.8, while a weaker engine, has been tested more than the new one so I pulled the trigger on my 2011.
Maybe with the penstastar 4.0 the JK will be on par with or better than the AMC straight-6. It'll certainly be better than the 3.8.
captgentry is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 07:11 AM   #85
Kansas Coyote

WF Supporting Member
 
J.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 575
Images: 2
Everything that I've read is the Pentastar will be a 3.6L
__________________
J.B.
2010 JK Sport S Pkg.
Black, Hardtop
6 Speed Manual
J.B. is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 07:33 AM   #86
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,251
Bigger does not automatically mean more powerful. The 3.8 has more HP than the 4.0 and the new 3.6 will have more than the 3.8.
__________________
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 offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 08:06 AM   #87
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by captgentry View Post
Mr. Sinister, I don't see what science you keep refering to. The dyno examples I've found all seem to indicate that the HP and Torque from the 3.8 are less than the AMC 242 straight-6. (maybe we're not talking about the same engines?)
Common sense would indicate a larger engine and lighter car would make it accellerate faster.
12 years of experience in a TJ(stock AMC 242 straight-6) tell me that the accelleration and power of the 4.0 is better than my new JK.
I've already posted this a million times, so you're just going to have to click the link. see post #14:
http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/sho...tml#post848574
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 09:33 AM   #88
Jeeper
 
JIMBOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,914
Heh Heh, No, I don't mind b!tchin, but I hate Redundant b!tchers, so


Quote:
Originally Posted by captgentry View Post
"If I was you I'd sell yours and buy a TJ, then you can "respectfully" bitch to them !!"

First.. If you don't like people bitching I might suggest you turn off the internet.

Second.. It seems that some people are taking the suggestion that the 3.8 is less of an engine than the 4.0 personally. Try pretending that anyone complaining about the 3.8 is only speaking about thier personal engine and not yours or you.

Third.. I don't think anyone here is boasting about how awsome the TJ is verses the JK. I like the JK better overall but the JK, in my view, looses points because of the engine. but.. gains some because of fuel economy.

Mr. Sinister, I don't see what science you keep refering to. The dyno examples I've found all seem to indicate that the HP and Torque from the 3.8 are less than the AMC 242 straight-6. (maybe we're not talking about the same engines?)
Common sense would indicate a larger engine and lighter car would make it accellerate faster.
12 years of experience in a TJ(stock AMC 242 straight-6) tell me that the accelleration and power of the 4.0 is better than my new JK.

Before I bought my 2011, I was debating if I should try and wait it out to see if Jeep would switch to the Pentastar 4.0. I figured the 3.8, while a weaker engine, has been tested more than the new one so I pulled the trigger on my 2011.
Maybe with the penstastar 4.0 the JK will be on par with or better than the AMC straight-6. It'll certainly be better than the 3.8.
You seem to be a highschool grad, that has no idea what the JK jeep is capable of, without ever entering the NASCAR circuit !!

I won't turn off the internet, I'll just turn off -YOU !!

JIMBO
__________________
"ya gotta have class"
JIMBOX is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 09:56 AM   #89
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 93
Mr.Sinister, You're talking about the AMC 242 I6 (4.0 L) engine right?
Verses the JK with the 3.8 v6?

Cause the links you posted say the 1996-2006 TJ 4.0 has 181 hp and wieghs 3197 lbs.
It says the 2008-2010 JK has 202 hp and weighs 4078 lbs.

Just going by those numbers the TJ would accellerate faster.
Looking over to the zero to 60 chart on that automobile-catalog.com page it says the TJ does 0 to 60 in 9.2 seconds and the JK does it in 9.9 seconds.

Looking at the chart you posted it seems the TJ makes more power through the RPM range were the JK needs to get over 4.5k to beat it.

It seems silly to me to need to have the JK beating the TJ in this matter.
It just doesn't


Mr.Sinister, in the post you linked you closed with this...

"I can honor the Jeeps that came before mine, why can't you respect those that follow yours, especially when they are superior? Hope you don't call yourself a Jeep guy."

No one is "dishonoring" your jeep. It's just a little complaint about an engine. Don't take it personal.
captgentry is offline   Quick Reply
Old 01-05-2011, 10:24 AM   #90
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 61
I wonder if the OP with just 7 posts had any idea what a pandoras box he was opening up. I notice that he has disappeared from the discussion. I can't blame him. It probably reminded him of some kids in a sand box fighting over whose truck can haul more sand.

It's really quite simple. The Jeep is what it is. If it seems under powered to you, add a SS or don't buy it. If the power seems ok, enjoy the experience.

End of Problem and all is well!!

__________________
1997 ZJ...Atlas, LA's,35's, winch, bumpers
1997 TJ, Stretched, 1 tons, Atlas, 42" Pitbulls, 350,
Crasher is offline   Quick Reply
Closed Thread

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:
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
No engine power on a new JK unlimited vincan JK General Discussion Forum 43 01-24-2010 10:06 PM
2001 TJ - Auxiliary Power (Switched) - Problem jordan.cook TJ General Discussion Forum 10 12-22-2009 08:16 AM
Test Drove orange05tj Off-Topic 2 11-25-2008 02:45 AM
Test drove and inspected some 07 rubicons today wjfawb0 JK General Discussion Forum 5 07-22-2008 01:50 PM
I Test drove. JeepGuyLJ JK General Discussion Forum 1 11-09-2006 01:02 AM



Download our Mobile App

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 PM.



Jeepģ, 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