Yep, the 4.0 finally get's the crate engine treatment :thumbsup
Basically the 4.0 with with the 4.2 crank....and a couple other goodies as well :thumbsupQuote:
Originally Posted by mopar performance
Yoo, you need to sell me back my GC so I can put this in there :goof
isn't the 4.0 an AMC motor from back in the day?
Yes, same basic motor as the old 258, etc. Made in Kenosha in various displacements and versions for like 50 years until it was cancelled a few years ago.
Yep, derived from the 4.2 that's been around since the mid 60's. When chrysler acquired Jeep, mopar performance integrated Jeep performance under the mopar banner. Mopar has supplied performance parts for the jeep 2.5/4.0/4.2 and even the AMC v8's (290/304/343/360/390/401) for years...but this is the first instance that they've extended the crate engine treatment to the I6.Quote:
Originally Posted by 07ROUSHSTG3
The 4.0 and 4.2 are (of course) basically the same engine. One is a big bore/shorter stroke (4.0) version, and the other a smaller bore/long stroke version (4.2).
The 4.0 was originally developed by AMC to replace/modernize the aging 4.2, with more modern head, fuel injection, etc. In AMC guise, it was to produce something around upper 170hp. When Chrysler acquired jeep, they added a different fuel injection and small revisions to the intake and exhaust manifolds, and power went to 190hp and was referred to as the 4.0 H.O.
It's long been an old trick to use 4.2 crank and rods, w/ 4.0 pistons to get a 4.7 liter (w/ 0.030 overbore) I6.
^^
that is what i thought.
this Jeep? http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/albums...0011.sized.jpg
http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/albums...0006.sized.jpg
hahahaha thanks for the info Chris but get in line!
That fugger is clean! haha
lol...it's cleaner than when I sold it! God I miss that thing...
I woulda loved something like this for my Rubicon. Although with the 4.0:1 tcase she'd go thru anything anyways :D
Sweet, another Chrysler engine that still can barely compete with a 4.3L V6 or a 302, except in weight. :thumbsup
By 302, do you mean the 302 ford v8? Perhaps you meant the 300 I6?Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
Actually, when the 190hp 4.0 HO hit the streets in 91, it made more power than either the 4.3 (150-160ish?), ford 300 I6 (145?) or 2.9 (140hp?) or later 4.0 ford? Hell, do you even mean the Ford 302 v8 (170) Chevy 305 (170ish again?) or mopar 318 (175hp)?
Compete? When it came out, it was heads and shoulders above everything else in it's class, outclassing many of the small v8's at it's time.
Not that the 4.3's a bad engine, but it's beyond stupid to say the 4.0 barely competes...
...but considering the source of the statement...:rolleyes:
Power aside, it is also one of the most bulletproof/indestructible engines EVER by any manufacturer in my opinion. It is not uncommon for them to 300,000 miles on them without a rebuild. Seven huge main bearings, a very simple and stout design being an I6 and all cast iron.
Mine had 315K on it when I cash for clunkered it. It had never had anything done to it besides a water pump and a valve cover gasket. Didn't burn oil, smoke, or anything even. Ran like a top still...
I've literally worked on fifty 258 I6s. They're a neat engine, for being complete POSs. The early ones with the giant crankshaft counterweights ran pretty smooth. Ford 300-I6 was a fine specimen. Hell, the GM 250-I6 was even better than the 258. The 258 is a POS on a good day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
There's a reason damn near any 258 you find on the road today has either Ford or GM ignition among other things. You'd think that all 258s were California-born by the amount of vacuum line under the hood. The 258s were sweet motors in the respect that they were impossible to blow up because they wouldn't rev past 4300rpm. No one ever swaps a 258 into anything, they just scavenge them for parts for their 4.7L build.
The 4.0HO was a gimmick. It was the original horsepower overstatement engine that Ford perfected by the end of the 90s. Its peak horsepower was on top of its redline. The GM TBI 4.3L made more torque at 2,000rpm than the 4.0HO ever did. There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light. When Chrysler redesigned for the 4.0 in 91 they should have abandoned the crappy valvetrain and the crappy fool-injection at the same time. To this day I haven't seen a more jank rocker/lifter setup. Don't bother ever trying to save the rockers if you have the top of the engine apart, just go buy new ones. The 4.0s leak like Harleys, and once they get below ~30psi at idle they go terminal.
By the end of the 90s the 4.0L was getting more refined but it was still outdated and inefficient--just like the 360V8. Heck, they were trying so much different crap on the 4.0L every year the wiring harness was different and a sensor appeared/disappeared/changed. Made fun for engine swaps.
When the engine finally was killed, it was getting to the point to being on par with where it should be. The problem was that there were now four cylinder engines out there approaching its numbers. The 2000-2001 Cherokees with a 4.0L were fine automobiles and will likely serve their owners well. But still, by this time the GM 4.3L (LU3) was beating the 4.0L-I6 in both horsepower and torque.
338k miles and counting.not burning or blowing oil and fires the first time everytime regardless of how cold either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the best of my knowledge this truck has only ever had a water pump, thermostat, plugs, wires, oil, air filter and distributor cap ever changed under the hood. I'd say thats pretty reliable. sure other stuff has broken but no more than any other car imo.
no shit. I also took a green pad to the interior its fugging clean as hell!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
Well, you know, I'm not saying either the 300 or 250 were bad engines. On par with a 4.0, reliability wise, sure...tough engines. On par otherwise? Not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
I don't know why you're talking about the 258, since that's not what this engine is....but, well, we are dealing with you.
Perhaps because during the AMC days much of AMC parts were supplied by other manufacturers? Like ford starters, Chrysler transmissions (later GM supplied), etc? Is it because AMC was an undercapitalized company that found it easier to outsource many of their parts? Why yep! it was!Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
Yeah...pretty common for all engines built b/w 75 and into the 87 or so...and for some engines, into the 90's. I still haven't seen as many vacuum lines as I have from a '80 267 malibu wagon. I don't hold the chevy small block responsible for that at all...just a fact of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
So really, I don't see your point there :confused
Well, again...what's your point? This was true for most inline sixs of this size from this era...there were some other small I6 that'd rev...the OHC pontiacs, the smaller 170ci mopar hyper-pack /6's and what not, but most larger 6's were designed to power rather large trucks and cars...torque was the necessary ingredient, of which most these six's did a respectable job of delivering.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
Again, the 258 is not quite the 4.0 though.
Evidence of this? I mean, most stock blazers with the HO 4.3 ran higher 16's (yes, lighter 2wd extreme pick-ups ran quicker...but not blazers). Many cherokee's of the early 90's were lower 16's, slowing to higher 16's toward the end of their production as they gained a bit of weight w/ the 97 redesign.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
I'd be willing to bet that Yoo (previously my) old grand cherokee with the 345,000 mile 4.0 in it will still break into the 16's. And that's the larger grand cherokee.
Again, with my experience, and that of everyone I've ever known w/ 4.0 (or 258's for that matter) have never known anyone to have an issue with the valvetrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrath
Overall, you read as if your just throwing around a bunch of mud, hoping a little of it would stick. Pretty lame attempt.
Maybe by your reckoning, AMC should have just stuck with the GM supplied 2.8 v6 instead of going to the 4.0? You know, the same 2.8 that had the same horsepower than the standard 2.5 i4?
If you think the 4.0 offered in Jeeps is a POS then you certainly don't know much about anything. Probably should just stick to the housing market talk. :stare
But he doesn't even know much about that :rolfQuote:
Originally Posted by GTSLOW
4.2 will run without cam bushing, probably run without main bearings long enough to get you home from up north.I've had a few high milage CJ's, hard to beat a 4.2.
There is a certain very clean AMC Eagle station wagon here in town that was converted from 4.2 NA to 4.0mpfi, have to see the swap to apreciate the bolt in apearance.
Meh, what were the shortcomings? The 250-I6 never even got fuel injection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
It's the predecessor upon which the 4.0, and this crate engine, was built upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
Nah, it's because they were smart, lazy, and poor. Smart to use other people's already designed parts, lazy enough to not bother making innovative products, and poor from so much mismanagement that it regularly went into bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
Yeah, but those engines didn't have mystery sensors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
The 258 did so well because of its low-end torque for its day. But it was fat, didn't like to spin, was slow to respond, and had difficulty meeting emmisions. Just like the 242. Anyone that ever had to deal with the RENIX 4.0s missed the 258.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
The most common LB4 TBI 4.3L Chevy (the one with roller rockers and no counterbalancer) was 160hp@4000 rpm and 235ftlb@2400 rpm. The CPI ones were around 200hp@4800 and 260ftlbs@3600, IIRC. My Mom has one, it goes pretty good. In fact, my Mom has a fleet of firstgen S10 Blazers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
The early 90s XJs weighed 3300lbs, the 2 door S10s Blazers weighed 3500lbs.
I'd hope a ZJ not in disrepair would continue to perform the same. We're not talking about a carbureted engine with 100k on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
I've had a bunch of them apart, and a stack of 150-I4. My Dad's 94YJ with a gentle 95k on it was shot when we tore it apart to figure out why it was so gutless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant
Nah, they should not have ever bought that POS from GM. That engine wasn't even worth being used as a boat anchor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Valiant