-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
What "modern" engine to use?
- Thread starter Jeff 98XJ WI
- Start date
Lawn Cher'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Westampton, NJ
Mikel said:
Precisely why I've been tossing around the idea of a GM 6.2 & 700R4 setup in my '87 MJ longbed. I'm already familiar with the engine family from the 6.5 in my Suburban, and it would get great fuel economy. Add a Banks turbo, and voila. Keep in mind, I don't wheel this rig hardcore, it'll be more for trail maintenance days and yardwork, and maybe DD if I pass the Sub on to the wife and we sell her '01 XJ Limited.
Lawn Cher'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Westampton, NJ
XTrmXJ said:
Come on, Jon, don't be one of those dopes who puts the g on the end. Cummings is in Georgia, Cummins is in Dodge.
Root Moose
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- ON, Canada
I like this idea too...but I had "heard" that the 6.[2,5] was about the size and wieght of a Chev BB so kinda put it out of mind.Lawn Cher' said:
Have you done any measuring?
Citat3962
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Denver Colorado
CRASH said:
Tell me youre kidding..
Jeff 98XJ WI
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Butternut, WI
xjcrawlr said:
I was looking at the Novak site and didn't see any adapter from the 5.0L ford powerplant to the AW4 tranny. In fact, their writings kind of poo poo Ford powerplants AND say the AW4 can only be used with the 4.0L engine due to the electronic controls.
Advance Adapters does make an adapter to mate the Ford 5.0L engine to a Chevy 700R4 tranny though. Jeff
you need a 60 degree ford v-6.
they are very compact because of the narrow bank angle. the older cam-in-block models are even smaller (but much less powerful at 160 hp, 225 ft lbs). they should be lighter than the I-6 (which is about as heavy as this displacement gets).
they come in rangers and expolorers and the 05+ mustangs (not likely to find that one though). they make 205-210 horsepower and 238-254 ft-lbs of torque, depending on what they are in. not a much more powerful motor than the jeep I6, but much smoother and better gas mileage.
my brother in his ranger gets around 20 and up almost all of the time and i struggle to break out of the 15 mpg zone.
also judging by ther performance of my old ranger, which had the older 160 hp version of this motor, the torque comes on at a more useful RPM. i am downshifting the jeep much more often than i did the ranger, which had 30 less hp, but equal torque.
i know its not as cool as all those sugesstions of v-8s and diesels, but it is practical and more than adequatly powerful. if you want to stay with your kind you could go with the 3.7, but i believe it is a 90 degree block and much bigger.
personally if i was going to stuff a 90 degree engine in the jeep i would go with a 5.0 ford. smaller than a 350 or 360 or even a 351. not as short as a v6 but still shorter than the I6. 215-225 hp for a lot of the fuel injected ones, and 300 ft-lbs of torque.
tafn...
mike
they are very compact because of the narrow bank angle. the older cam-in-block models are even smaller (but much less powerful at 160 hp, 225 ft lbs). they should be lighter than the I-6 (which is about as heavy as this displacement gets).
they come in rangers and expolorers and the 05+ mustangs (not likely to find that one though). they make 205-210 horsepower and 238-254 ft-lbs of torque, depending on what they are in. not a much more powerful motor than the jeep I6, but much smoother and better gas mileage.
my brother in his ranger gets around 20 and up almost all of the time and i struggle to break out of the 15 mpg zone.
also judging by ther performance of my old ranger, which had the older 160 hp version of this motor, the torque comes on at a more useful RPM. i am downshifting the jeep much more often than i did the ranger, which had 30 less hp, but equal torque.
i know its not as cool as all those sugesstions of v-8s and diesels, but it is practical and more than adequatly powerful. if you want to stay with your kind you could go with the 3.7, but i believe it is a 90 degree block and much bigger.
personally if i was going to stuff a 90 degree engine in the jeep i would go with a 5.0 ford. smaller than a 350 or 360 or even a 351. not as short as a v6 but still shorter than the I6. 215-225 hp for a lot of the fuel injected ones, and 300 ft-lbs of torque.
tafn...
mike
Root Moose
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- ON, Canada
What is the net gain of this engine again?
I'm getting 22 mpg with my stock 4.0 daily driver.
Not meant to be a criticism but I really don't see the advantage of doing something like this if it is "no better" than what is in there to begin with.
FWIW, an engine is a black box. Who cares whether it is cam in block, SOHC, DOHC, diesel, veggie or whatever. Your flywheel sees X lb-ft @ Y RPM, your butt feels the shape of the torque curve, your wallet sees $A/mile. That is all that matters.
Just my spin. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
I'm getting 22 mpg with my stock 4.0 daily driver.
Not meant to be a criticism but I really don't see the advantage of doing something like this if it is "no better" than what is in there to begin with.
FWIW, an engine is a black box. Who cares whether it is cam in block, SOHC, DOHC, diesel, veggie or whatever. Your flywheel sees X lb-ft @ Y RPM, your butt feels the shape of the torque curve, your wallet sees $A/mile. That is all that matters.
Just my spin. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
the net gains are clearly spelled out in my post. i admitted they were small, but he was looking for a modern engine. ymmv is all i have to say, my ranger vs my jeep, me driving, the ranger was just as fast if not faster, had better low end torque and got better mileage, all this and the ranger outweight the jeep by around 600 lbs. that was the older cam-in-block motor, with only 160 horse. the new motor gets better mileage, better emissions and has and additional 50 horse and 25 ft-lbs. the only disadvantage would be cost and larger external dimensions.
you have the numbers: just a pinch more power (20 hp, 25 ft-lbs), better mileage (my experience has been around 25%+) and a much lighter, smoother, cleaner engine.
i mentioned it not because it was a powerhouse but because it was a modern engine that should fit in the bay no problem. he has no budget, no sense telling him to put an ls2 in there. 5.0 maybe, sbc or mopar maybe, but not likely a 502 ram-jet.
and the whole thing about the engine being a black box...what? that black box can very easily be too big or too heavy for a cherokee. just like the cummins example above. it would be nice, but nearly impossible. 60 degree motors are small externally, that was the main reason behind my madness.
you have the numbers: just a pinch more power (20 hp, 25 ft-lbs), better mileage (my experience has been around 25%+) and a much lighter, smoother, cleaner engine.
i mentioned it not because it was a powerhouse but because it was a modern engine that should fit in the bay no problem. he has no budget, no sense telling him to put an ls2 in there. 5.0 maybe, sbc or mopar maybe, but not likely a 502 ram-jet.
and the whole thing about the engine being a black box...what? that black box can very easily be too big or too heavy for a cherokee. just like the cummins example above. it would be nice, but nearly impossible. 60 degree motors are small externally, that was the main reason behind my madness.
