Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1

    New crate engine from Mopar Performance...and it's a jeep engine!

    Yep, the 4.0 finally get's the crate engine treatment

    Quote Originally Posted by mopar performance
    Mopar also will introduce a new 4.7-liter I-6 Stroker long block, a powerful upgrade for the 4.0-liter I-6 made famous in Jeep vehicles built from 1991-2006. Because off-road enthusiasts appreciated the dependability and performance of the previous 4.0-liter engine, Mopar developed a more powerful engine that delivers an expected 265 hp and 290 lb.-ft of torque. The engine will fit in any Jeep vehicle previously equipped with the 4.0-liter I-6 engine.
    Basically the 4.0 with with the 4.2 crank....and a couple other goodies as well

    Yoo, you need to sell me back my GC so I can put this in there
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  2. #2
    bored at work 07ROUSHSTG3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    St. Cloud, WI
    Posts
    2,931
    isn't the 4.0 an AMC motor from back in the day?

  3. #3
    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.
    96 Viper GTS Underground Racing Twin 78mm Precision turbos, Proline 510 stroker-1483RWHP
    73 Challenger Bickel Chassis, Indy 572 HEMI-860HP
    67 Plymouth Fury Police Pursuit, Indy 505-600HP
    94 Stealth RT/TT built 6G72, 13G, FMIC
    75 Trailduster 440 Convertible
    92 Galant VR4 #848
    04 Neon SRT4 Mods!

  4. #4
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by 07ROUSHSTG3 View Post
    isn't the 4.0 an AMC motor from back in the day?
    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.

    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.
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  5. #5
    bored at work 07ROUSHSTG3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    St. Cloud, WI
    Posts
    2,931
    ^^
    that is what i thought.

  6. #6
    this Jeep?


    hahahaha thanks for the info Chris but get in line!

  7. #7
    Formerly known as Yellow Wagon jbiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mount Pleasant
    Posts
    10,115
    That fugger is clean! haha
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    2012 Subaru WRX STi 5-door
    1964 Biscayne 2dr - 4-speed

  8. #8
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1
    lol...it's cleaner than when I sold it! God I miss that thing...
    Last edited by Prince Valiant; 01-08-2010 at 05:35 PM.
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  9. #9
    R.I.P. BCM Jawashoot Champion Toby and Kiki Champion GTSLOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fort Knox, Kentucky
    Posts
    13,175
    I woulda loved something like this for my Rubicon. Although with the 4.0:1 tcase she'd go thru anything anyways
    All posts from the above author are expected to be 100% BS. Thank you and have a nice day.

  10. #10
    Grandpa Grocery Getter 2.0 wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    2,048
    Sweet, another Chrysler engine that still can barely compete with a 4.3L V6 or a 302, except in weight.
    Buy made in the United States. Otherwise your job might be next. Unless you already wear black shoes and a visor with golden arches on it to work in which case your fellow american has already failed you.

  11. #11
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    Sweet, another Chrysler engine that still can barely compete with a 4.3L V6 or a 302, except in weight.
    By 302, do you mean the 302 ford v8? Perhaps you meant the 300 I6?

    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...
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  12. #12
    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...
    96 Viper GTS Underground Racing Twin 78mm Precision turbos, Proline 510 stroker-1483RWHP
    73 Challenger Bickel Chassis, Indy 572 HEMI-860HP
    67 Plymouth Fury Police Pursuit, Indy 505-600HP
    94 Stealth RT/TT built 6G72, 13G, FMIC
    75 Trailduster 440 Convertible
    92 Galant VR4 #848
    04 Neon SRT4 Mods!

  13. #13
    Grandpa Grocery Getter 2.0 wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    By 302, do you mean the 302 ford v8? Perhaps you meant the 300 I6?

    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...
    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.

    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.
    Buy made in the United States. Otherwise your job might be next. Unless you already wear black shoes and a visor with golden arches on it to work in which case your fellow american has already failed you.

  14. #14
    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.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    lol...it's cleaner than when I sold it! God I miss that thing...
    no shit. I also took a green pad to the interior its fugging clean as hell!

  16. #16
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    There's a reason damn near any 258 you find on the road today has either Ford or GM ignition among other things.
    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 View Post
    You'd think that all 258s were California-born by the amount of vacuum line under the hood.
    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.

    So really, I don't see your point there


    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    The 258s were sweet motors in the respect that they were impossible to blow up because they wouldn't rev past 4300rpm.
    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.

    Again, the 258 is not quite the 4.0 though.



    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by wrath View Post
    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.
    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.



    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?
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  17. #17
    R.I.P. BCM Jawashoot Champion Toby and Kiki Champion GTSLOW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fort Knox, Kentucky
    Posts
    13,175
    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.
    All posts from the above author are expected to be 100% BS. Thank you and have a nice day.

  18. #18
    A regular know-it-all Tetris Champion Snake Champion Lasagna From Heaven Champion Mac Man Champion Mahjong. Champion Mini Putt 3 Champion Plastic Saucer Champion Ratman Ralph Champion Prince Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    NW Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,173
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by GTSLOW View Post
    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.
    But he doesn't even know much about that
    1979 Lil' Red Express -Officially the quickest "bolt-on" LRT in the country.
    1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
    The most powerful production Minivan, ever...

    Be sure to check out my weekly adventures on the second page of your Sunday Comics!

  19. #19
    Ol' School Russ Jerome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Upper West Allis Bungalow woods.
    Posts
    3,826
    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.
    http://sites.google.com/site/russjerome/
    Watching the country collapse in front of me while nobody else notices...

  20. #20
    Grandpa Grocery Getter 2.0 wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    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.
    Meh, what were the shortcomings? The 250-I6 never even got fuel injection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    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.
    It's the predecessor upon which the 4.0, and this crate engine, was built upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    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!
    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 View Post
    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.
    Yeah, but those engines didn't have mystery sensors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    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.

    Again, the 258 is not quite the 4.0 though.
    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 View Post
    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.
    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.

    The early 90s XJs weighed 3300lbs, the 2 door S10s Blazers weighed 3500lbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Valiant View Post
    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.
    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 View Post
    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.
    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 View Post
    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?
    Nah, they should not have ever bought that POS from GM. That engine wasn't even worth being used as a boat anchor.
    Buy made in the United States. Otherwise your job might be next. Unless you already wear black shoes and a visor with golden arches on it to work in which case your fellow american has already failed you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •