Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ General Discussion Forum > is the 4 cylinder platform worth the build?

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: is the 4 cylinder platform worth the build? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
09-26-2012 08:47 PM
Ditchdoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by richp
Yea, I hate this global warming, it cost me an extra $500 to heat the house this year, electric house, my KW use was way up...not to mention the extra 40 gallons of kerosene for my shop heater.Not to mention all the good snow storm missed us this year, either passed north or south of us, dam...

I like the 4, easy to handle, easy to move around and won't give an engine stand a hernia like the 6 does or moving the head from the engine to the work bench. I wish there was more information on really building them with some good bullet proof models. I know a guy in either norway or sweden that put a supercharger on his 4 banger YJ with good results, no insane boost either, I seem to remember he went with 5 or 6 lbs of boost and got outstanding performance from it.
Sorry I have to quote someone to post.
Jeepers are the only ones I seen complain about small engine size. I had Toyotas before they did very well. A Sami has a 1.3 liter and gets around very well. Here is what I have noticed with mainstream Jeepers they want to take everything and the kitchen sink. I weighted my tj full tank and it was 2980# I meet a guy same model his 5250# that's a big weight difference. Yes he did have a pull out table to cook on and yes he had enough water to shower too. He did complain about fuel use and being sluggish while mine was packed also with drinks and food just hopped around like a happy little bunny his growls and moaned. So it's really how you use it. Keep it at 60% to 80% of the gross vehicle weight rating and it drive better and u be less comfortable. In the marine corp we had a saying breeze during the day and freeze during the night. Breeze and freeze for short. Well that my two cents anyway.
04-24-2008 05:52 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
thats one of the main debates, because its such a small number, its easy to change and actually its .03%. one hundred years ago it was .015
So you went back a hundred years ago to check? also volcanos produce more co2 than all cars on earth. So, lets plug them up!
04-24-2008 09:25 AM
Triple88a
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Still no proven, definitive causative action between CO2 (which still comprises less than 1% of the gasses which make up our atmosphere) and global warming.

thats one of the main debates, because its such a small number, its easy to change and actually its .03%. one hundred years ago it was .015
04-24-2008 06:29 AM
richp Yea, I hate this global warming, it cost me an extra $500 to heat the house this year, electric house, my KW use was way up...not to mention the extra 40 gallons of kerosene for my shop heater.Not to mention all the good snow storm missed us this year, either passed north or south of us, dam...


I like the 4, easy to handle, easy to move around and won't give an engine stand a hernia like the 6 does or moving the head from the engine to the work bench. I wish there was more information on really building them with some good bullet proof models. I know a guy in either norway or sweden that put a supercharger on his 4 banger YJ with good results, no insane boost either, I seem to remember he went with 5 or 6 lbs of boost and got outstanding performance from it.
04-24-2008 04:46 AM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
You're right Gilez. Trees need CO2 to live however, we are cutting many of those down too Its the basic circle of life..Well what happens to the circle when we're cutting all the trees that convert the CO2 to oxygen down? Also what happens to the CO2 level?
Still no proven, definitive causative action between CO2 (which still comprises less than 1% of the gasses which make up our atmosphere) and global warming.

Quote:
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...013480,00.html


Oh, and I think the 4 banger is fine for an off road engine but rather anemic for anything other than around town driving.
04-23-2008 11:42 PM
Gilez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
You're right Gilez. Trees need CO2 to live however, we are cutting many of those down too Its the basic circle of life..Well what happens to the circle when we're cutting all the trees that convert the CO2 to oxygen down? Also what happens to the CO2 level?
I do not agree with the premise that we are "cutting all the trees that convert the CO2 to Oxygen down" Therefore, I cannot answer your question.
04-23-2008 11:39 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
You're right Gilez. Trees need CO2 to live however, we are cutting many of those down too Its the basic circle of life..animal life produces co2, plants need co2 to breathe and produce oxygen.. it just keeps turning. One needs the other to live. Well what happens to the circle when we're cutting all the trees that convert the CO2 to oxygen down? Also what happens to the CO2 level?
We legally have to plant more trees than we cut down, and we do. Damn liberals and their brainwashing propaganda. The trees are fine, theres plenty of them. Even my woodshop teacher/boss is an environmentalist! as he says "I bless the tree before I chop it down. HEYAHHH!"
04-23-2008 11:36 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
Hey looky at that....

That's why I laughed so hard at Gore's little propaganda machine "An inconvienent Truth".

Haha that guy always makes me laugh
04-23-2008 11:36 PM
Triple88a You're right Gilez. Trees need CO2 to live however, we are cutting many of those down too Its the basic circle of life..Well what happens to the circle when we're cutting all the trees that convert the CO2 to oxygen down? Also what happens to the CO2 level?
04-23-2008 11:35 PM
Gilez
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobycat1 View Post
Plus, who went back in time and checked these levels?
Hey looky at that....

That's why I laughed so hard at Gore's little propaganda machine "An inconvienent Truth".

04-23-2008 11:30 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
I have built my 4 cylinder. So I would vote to go for it. My 4 does great.

Did anyone ever considered that the very greenhouse gasses that the global warming hoax is complaining about (Co2) is what the trees need to live. Global warming is an attempt (maybe sucessful) for liberals to take control of governement and big business and regulate the crap out of it.

Bad Liberals ... get an education. Read Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations.
x2

End of my rant. um.... Thread un-hijacked
04-23-2008 11:28 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
you're right, it is a small time frame
yep, 1000 years out of billions if not trillions. In statistics 1000/1000000 is not enough for a test to be even remotely accurate, plus it isn't a random sample of years(so a baseline average amount cannot be determined). Plus, who went back in time and checked these levels?
04-23-2008 11:17 PM
Gilez I have built my 4 cylinder. So I would vote to go for it. My 4 does great.

Did anyone ever considered that the very greenhouse gasses that the global warming hoax is complaining about (Co2) is what the trees need to live. Global warming is an attempt (maybe sucessful) for liberals to take control of governement and big business and regulate the crap out of it.

Bad Liberals ... get an education. Read Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations.

End of Rant...
04-23-2008 10:51 PM
Triple88a
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobycat1 View Post
and a incredibly small time frame that this data came from.
you're right, it is a small time frame
04-23-2008 10:09 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple88a View Post
Thank you.

so we were talking about global warming or something?
ya, something about it being only a theory with little significant data to support the claim, and a incredibly small time frame that this data came from.
04-23-2008 08:38 PM
Triple88a
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobycat1 View Post
NEVER!
Thank you.

so we were talking about global warming or something?
04-23-2008 08:32 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsurf7713 View Post
Wow this thread has gotten off track.


Sorry, needed to get closer to the original path haha.
NEVER!
04-23-2008 08:31 PM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsurf7713 View Post
No problem. What's the consensus?...To build or not to build?
I suggest making a new thread that is a poll. I vote for build.
04-23-2008 01:52 PM
sailsurf7713
Quote:
Originally Posted by 603TJ View Post
thanks for bringing it back.
No problem. What's the consensus?...To build or not to build?
04-23-2008 08:29 AM
dweebster I have a 4cyl and i dont have an problems.... yet?!?!?!? lol woot woot
04-23-2008 06:28 AM
603TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailsurf7713 View Post
Wow this thread has gotten off track.
thanks for bringing it back.
04-23-2008 06:16 AM
richp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
I know nothing about octane other than what the average joe knows. Higher octane .... higher performance. It seems that I get better performance with the 89. Don't really care about gas milage... (global warming is a hoax).

I will certainly check out the inside of the tube, but maybe I should have clarified. I do not have a CAI. I just have the drop in K&N brand filter. Does that make a difference to the theory???

Thanks for the education. Again this forum has been very helpful.
Some engines it can make a difference between 87 and 89 octane, usually the 87 gives some knock while the 89 wont. I think regional issues have to do with this, calif in particular and their emission laws. Gas brands usually make no difference, no matter the brand they all come from the same pipeline unless you happen to live within the delivery range of a refinery. He in my area the only true brand you get is Hess out of the NJ refinery on the jersey shore near staten island and thats only if your station is within the truck delivery range of about 50 miles max. Once the trucks pickup the generic gas they dump their brands particular 'mojo juice' in the tank, here in the pokes of Pa most of the gas comes from a central depot in whitehall where you see the occasional Sunoco and Exxon truck pull up and get a delivery but mostly it's generic delivery trucks, I've been behind them when they make one stop at a Sunoco and the next stop at a generic station, same gas.
As for the dirt in the tube, yes, it was a plain old K&N flat panel. If you want mine for my 98XJ you can have it for shipping costs, it's all cleaned and oiled up in a plastic bag with the K&N box even
04-23-2008 03:37 AM
sailsurf7713
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobycat1 View Post
it sure is
Wow this thread has gotten off track.

My conclusion. The 2.5 is a well made longevity motor that makes a decent amount of power and achieves decent mpg, especially with e-fan, 4.0 T.B., C.A.I., Exhaust, etc. etc. Also its very hard to give up your wrangler.

I think the 2.5 is worth building, its definitely not your weak link. The AX-5 and Dana 35 however, well they're replaceable.

Take care of your motor. Take care of your truck. Blow up the AX-5 and D35 doing what Wranglers are meant for and replace them with something better.

Sorry, needed to get closer to the original path haha.
04-23-2008 01:46 AM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
(global warming is a hoax).
it sure is
04-23-2008 01:44 AM
tobycat1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
The only draw back to the 4 that I have noticed is it makes more noise on the freeway getting to the trail. It runs at 70 at 3000 rpm with 32" tires
Finally! i've been waiting for someone to give me an idea about what my rpm will be after gears. I'm guessing around 2875 with 33" tires for me then. Not bad considering I can only get to 3k rpm with the stock gears.
04-22-2008 10:48 PM
Gilez
04-22-2008 10:47 PM
Gilez I know nothing about octane other than what the average joe knows. Higher octane .... higher performance. It seems that I get better performance with the 89. Don't really care about gas milage... (global warming is a hoax).

I will certainly check out the inside of the tube, but maybe I should have clarified. I do not have a CAI. I just have the drop in K&N brand filter. Does that make a difference to the theory???

Thanks for the education. Again this forum has been very helpful.
04-22-2008 06:41 PM
sailsurf7713
Quote:
Originally Posted by richp View Post
Me, I drive my stuff at least 500,000mi or until it rusts out but I take care of it. It ticked me off that the #3 injector stuck open on my 98XJ and took out #3 cylinder, that engine ran flawlessly till that happened at 330,000mi. Now I do injectors at 150,000 whether they need it or not.
I don't know if you've heard of it, but I run Startron consistently in my present and past motor. Its a fuel additive which was developed to decrease the harmful affects of ethanol in marine tanks and motors.

I was skeptical, however I work at a West Marine and get a decent discount on the stuff. In my old 3.9 magnum I was getting about 300 miles per 18 gallon tank of 87 octane. I started using 89 octane and picked up about 20 extra miles per tank. Then I started using startron consistently with the 89 octane and went up to 360 miles per tank. That's 20 mpg average in a 4000 lb underpowered pickup truck.

I've been using it in the Jeep since I bought it, with 100,000 miles. 2 oz. per tank. I've notice a small gain in mpg, but the best thing is I can now do almost my entire commute in 5th and thats over 2 - 2 mile long bridges.

www.startron.com

As for K&N...over the long haul, they're simply not worth it. I'll be running a True Flow Foam Filter and Rusty's Air Tube soon enough for road use and a simple paper filter and the stock air cleaner assembly offroad.

04-22-2008 04:57 PM
richp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
Well if that is the case maybe I will save myself some money. How do you know this is true? Any objective evidence.
I still have the stock trans setup. I am waiting for it to break before upgrading, so I have the same questions you do.
I have to ask, do you know what octane is used for ? Short version, low octane fuel in a high compression engine ignites early under that increased compression and before the spark plug fires, octane is added to prevent this premature detonation known as knock. High octane fuel gives an incomplete burn in a low compression, the octane actually prevents the fuel from burning. Alcohol on the other hand works really well in a high compression engine, as for proof, hit your local dragstrip on a weekend and check out the AA fuel dragsters, thats what they burn and in the other classes with superchargers added they put out a bit more horsepower

As for K&N, I ran one for a few years in my 98XJ, about the same time I switched from regular oil to Mobil-1, I noticed the oil got dirtier faster but in my ignorance figured the oil was cleaning the motor so I never bothered further. Then one weekend I decided to pull the TB and give it a good cleaning, that was around 180,000mi, decided to clean and relube the filter too so I stuck a new stock OEM I had in the air box, I also pulled that big air pipe going from the box to the TB and while I had my hand in there carrying it thought it felt really grainy in side, my hands were coated with this real fine black almost sand like stuff, I cleaned it out, cleaned the TB and put everything back together, changed the oil and cleaned the K&N, put it out to dry before I oiled it, figured I would change it next oil change which was for me about a month and a half. Next oil change my oil was still clean, much cleaner than I was used to, made me go hmmmm. Felt around inside that tube and it was clean, did the oil change, swapped filters and kept commuting, next change the oil was much dirtier and that stuff was back in the tube. I went back to paper filters and have not gone back to K&N air filters since. Now this was with the K&N flat panel, maybe the bigger cone styles work better but I'm not going to bother testing that. If you are running a K&N feel inside that big hose from the airbox to the throttle body and see if it is clean then make your own choice. Me, I never noticed any difference in performance or mileage, the only thing noticed was the K&N was louder.
Me, I drive my stuff at least 500,000mi or until it rusts out but I take care of it. It ticked me off that the #3 injector stuck open on my 98XJ and took out #3 cylinder, that engine ran flawlessly till that happened at 330,000mi. Now I do injectors at 150,000 whether they need it or not.
04-22-2008 04:55 PM
sailsurf7713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilez View Post
I still have the stock trans setup. I am waiting for it to break before upgrading, so I have the same questions you do.
Haha. Well I guess I'll throw some good tranny fluid and a cooler on her and hope for the best [knocking on wood] (I just bought it). When it does break, and I know it will, its either another AX-5 or a NV3550.

Hmmmm...

NV3550 = Really F***ing Expensive! : Really F***ing Bulletproof

AX-5 = 1000 and a little change for new clutch : Not so Bulletproof

Oh the choices. I guess they'll have to be made when the time comes. What are you running Mr.Clifford?

Cool Links on the Subject
Ax-5 to NV3550: http://www.high-impact.net/transmiss..._AX5replmt.htm

Ax -5 to Ax-15: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181361
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.



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