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

[Prince Valiant]

Your attempt to save face was even lamer than your initial jab.

[Prince Valiant]

BTW, when I asked for evidence of your statement "There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light", I really was looking for evidence from you. Not recounting how you thought your Mom's Blazer went

Try these MT articles:
The 190hp 1997 Blazer 4WD does 0-60 in 9.3 seconds vs. the redesigned 97 Jeep Cherokee doing the same feat in 8.2 (and backed up by C&D by doing it in 8.4, which featured a curb wt. of 3600+lbs, unlike the erroneous M/T article listing it at an improbably light 3100lbs...couldn't find C&D results for the blazer). Mag racing at it's finest....but at least it's evidence. I know there are faster blazers out there and slower cherokee's (even a glance at dragtimes.com bares this out for both the blazer and the jeep), but it seems to suggest your statement was just uninfounded bluster from the get go.

Likewise, your complaints of the bendix fuel injection system is similarly silly since that was what AMC used when they developed the 4.0...when chrysler incorporated the 4.0 under it's banner, they switched to the chrysler MPFI system, at which point it followed the typical advancements/used same sensors as rest of chrysler line through OBDI, OBII, and beyond. Likewise, Bendix being a poor system or not doesn't really reflect on the 4.0...just bendix. Like blaming the 258 for having too many vacuum hoses in the 70's and 80's

[Plum Crazy]

those 4.0s are tough SOB's! they were always the longest runners under Cash for Clunkers, record time was 14 miniutes, where as the longest Blazer we had was 4 miniutes and it lauched a rod. Chrysler had a slight issue with the 4.0 in the 2004 Grand Cherokees, the cams would eat into the #3 or #4 lifter and would cause a tick at idle, but other than that, basicly no major issues.

[wrath]

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

BTW, when I asked for evidence of your statement "There is a reason why the more portly S10 Blazer always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light", I really was looking for evidence from you. Not recounting how you thought your Mom's Blazer went

I'll be honest, I don't care that much. You're the one that has a rough day massaging old lady's feet at Bally's and then comes home to be an eThug. I really don't care that much other than to point out that "whoop-dee-friggin-doo". Honestly, this shit was played out before Halloween when the news release came out. I was slightly more excited then... but then they released that the long block would be $4k for the pre-99 and $4800 for the post-99.

Might as well spend a couple grand more and get a 5.7L hemi.

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

Try these MT articles:
The 190hp 1997 Blazer 4WD does 0-60 in 9.3 seconds vs. the redesigned 97 Jeep Cherokee doing the same feat in 8.2 (and backed up by C&D by doing it in 8.4, which featured a curb wt. of 3600+lbs, unlike the erroneous M/T article listing it at an improbably light 3100lbs...couldn't find C&D results for the blazer). Mag racing at it's finest....but at least it's evidence. I know there are faster blazers out there and slower cherokee's (even a glance at dragtimes.com bares this out for both the blazer and the jeep), but it seems to suggest your statement was just uninfounded bluster from the get go.

Sweet, MotorTrend is like the Consumer Reports of automobiles.

The second generation S10 Blazer put on 400lbs. Most of the 4 door 4wd second generation ones were in excess of 4000lbs.

FailureTrend also had a report on a blinged-out 4 door LT trim (according to the article) vs a generic XJ Sport.

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

Likewise, your complaints of the bendix fuel injection system is similarly silly since that was what AMC used when they developed the 4.0...when chrysler incorporated the 4.0 under it's banner, they switched to the chrysler MPFI system, at which point it followed the typical advancements/used same sensors as rest of chrysler line through OBDI, OBII, and beyond. Likewise, Bendix being a poor system or not doesn't really reflect on the 4.0...just bendix. Like blaming the 258 for having too many vacuum hoses in the 70's and 80's

RENIX was a POS from day one and when Chrysler junked it everything got better. The reason GM's 305 was such a POS was because some tard put a flakey ESC and a carburetor with APT Quadrajet and later the E4M Quadrajet. But that's no excuse, much like a crap engine management system made by renault/bendix slapped on an AMC/Chrysler engine has no excuse.

The 258 had so much emissions crap on it that clearly no one ever thought it through because I've cut 10+ feet out of 80s CJ7s with no ill-effect--leaving all the sensors plugged in.

And at the end of the day you can pick up a brand new 265hp and 290ftlbs 4.7L or pick up a 332hp/352ftlbs GM 5.3L (#19165628), or even a Ford 302 crate engine for the same price. Maybe the cult Jeep enthusiasts will buy the 4.7L but that's probably about it.

[Prince Valiant]

Originally Posted by wrath

I'll be honest, I don't care that much. You're the one that has a rough day massaging old lady's feet at Bally's and then comes home to be an eThug.

E-thugs threaten violence. Do I?

Do I even work at Bally's? Granted, if I did, it'd probably beat sitting at some desk all day thinking I'm getting screwed by everyone, driving to my rented home, unable to find a house despite crap-ton of houses on the market, hoping to pay off a G6, and utterly miserable with life.

Bet you want to work at Bally's now, eh?

Originally Posted by wrath

I really don't care that much other than to point out that "whoop-dee-friggin-doo".

No, you cared enough to make a flippant and ignorant statement about the 4.0. You then proceeded to care enough to try to defend it to save face, only coming off less informed and dishonest in the process.

Originally Posted by wrath

Might as well spend a couple grand more and get a 5.7L hemi.

If the hemi was a suitable drop in for a wrangler, cherokee, or older grand cherokee, then sure.

Originally Posted by wrath

Sweet, MotorTrend is like the Consumer Reports of automobiles.

No, Consumer Reports is the consumer reports of automobiles. Man, your ignorance knows no bounds.

Originally Posted by wrath

The second generation S10 Blazer put on 400lbs. Most of the 4 door 4wd second generation ones were in excess of 4000lbs.

Hmph. Sounds like y'all got a weight problem. Maybe I can help you at Bally's. Provided they hire me. And I get my personal trainer certificate.

But then, perhaps they didn't exactly "...always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light." At least, the evidence doesn't suggest this. For the record, my Jeep Classic (not some stripped down sport) ran a 16.5 @ 83 mph at GLD. And I'm still willing to bet Yoo's fairly well optioned grand cherokee would crack into the 16's, something the cited Blazer could not do.

Originally Posted by wrath

Maybe the cult Jeep enthusiasts will buy the 4.7L but that's probably about it.

Yeah, I'm not expecting the camaro or mustang guys to come running to buy it.

[wrath]

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

E-thugs threaten violence. Do I?

Do I even work at Bally's? Granted, if I did, it'd probably beat sitting at some desk all day thinking I'm getting screwed by everyone, driving home to my rented home, unable to find a house despite crap-ton of houses on the market, hoping to pay off a G6, and utterly miserable with life.

You're always looking for someone to banter with, hoping to prove them wrong and make yourself feel better. I like to banter, plain and simple.

I didn't know you worked at Ballys or owned a G6. I just guessed, appears that I'm correct.

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

No, you cared enough to make a flippant and ignorant statement about the 4.0. You then proceeded to care enough to try to defend it to save face, only coming off less informed and dishonest in the process.
If the hemi was a suitable drop in for a wrangler, cherokee, or older grand cherokee, then sure.
No, Consumer Reports is the consumer reports of automobiles. Man, your ignorance knows no bounds.

Neither flippant, ignorant nor dishonest, you clearly haven't spent enough time around this famed 4.0L or the "new stroker" Chrysler released. If you had, you'd be disappointed with it. And you'd think a $4k 4.7L stroker was stupid also.

I've probably replaced the crappy Dana 35c in more XJs and ZJs with a D44 or 8.25 than you've ever even sat in. I've probably replaced more 242-I6s with 4.3LV6 or 302 than you can imagine. When it comes to CJ5s, CJ7s, YJs, and even one CJ8... blah, why even bother. Only two people I know ever even tried going to a stroker 4.0L, and neither people have those engines in their YJs today.

I don't know many people that look for a drop-in that costs $4k. Anywhere an I6 was a hemi can fit.

Consumer Reports is a failed attempt at convincing consumers what's great and what's not. MotorTrend does for cars what Consumer Reports does for blenders.

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

Hmph. Sounds like y'all got a weight problem. Maybe I can help you at Bally's. Provided they hire me. And I get my personal trainer certificate.

Yeap, I'm a fatass. All I see you do is comment on health-related things and you're confrontational while seeming you're part of a cult. Like someone that works at Bally's.

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

But then, perhaps they didn't exactly "...always beat the Cherokee from traffic light to traffic light." At least, the evidence doesn't suggest this. For the record, my Jeep Classic (not some stripped down sport) ran a 16.5 @ 83 mph at GLD. And I'm still willing to bet Yoo's fairly well optioned grand cherokee would crack into the 16's, something the cited Blazer could not do.
Yeah, I'm not expecting the camaro or mustang guys to come running to buy it.

Comparatively speaking, they always did beat a Cherokee (XJ).

A "Jeep Classic" is a Cherokee, AKA XJ. It's like calling a Malibu a Chevrolet Classic. It's a farkin' Malibu, regardless of the fancy vinyl letters on the trunk/hatch.

And while a V8 ZJ (especially the FiveNine) hauls some buttocks, the 4.0Ls didn't fare any better than the XJs.

[Prince Valiant]

Originally Posted by wrath

I didn't know you worked at Ballys or owned a G6. I just guessed, appears that I'm correct.

Or that reading comprehension wasn't your strongest trait in school. And that you sucked at good comebacks.

Originally Posted by wrath

You're always looking for someone to banter with, hoping to prove them wrong and make yourself feel better. I like to banter, plain and simple.

says the person accusing me of "e-thugging"

Of course, I like how you think that other people do things to "make themselves feel better" as if that's what other people do to be happy. It's quite revealing about you more than anything.

Originally Posted by wrath

Neither flippant, ignorant nor dishonest, you clearly haven't spent enough time around this famed 4.0L

No...I've just put darn close to 300,000 miles on them. True, aside from replacing a valve cover gasket, EGR valve, radiator, water pump, and 90 degree oil filter adapter, spark plugs, cap and wires...I've never really had to do much to them.

Obviously most in the thread haven't "spent enough time around this famed 4.0" either....we're trying to let YOU enlighten us....if you could just come up with some facts to support your claim. Because we don't want to follow the great-all-knowing Wrath blindly like we're in a "cult" or anything. PLEASE dear Wrath, teach us blind fools why the 4.0 isn't even comparable to the 4.3 or 302! SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!!!

Originally Posted by wrath

I've probably replaced the crappy Dana 35c in more XJs and ZJs with a D44 or 8.25 than you've ever even sat in.

Hmmm...am I mistaken in the belief that a Dana 35 is not a 4.0 I6?

Originally Posted by wrath

I don't know many people that look for a drop-in that costs $4k. Anywhere an I6 was a hemi can fit.

While I'll agree that someone can make a hemi fit, that doesn't make it the best or easiest option. Swapping long blocks seems to be a much simpler approach.

Originally Posted by wrath

All I see you do is comment on health-related things and you're confrontational while seeming you're part of a cult. Like someone that works at Bally's.

Perhaps that's because I have more than a little training in sports medicine as an athletic trainer. My training provided me the opportunity to work as a physicians extender for 5 years, which added considerably to my general med/surgical knowledge. I answer the questions because I may have knowledge of, or an opinion on the subject about the question asked.

If that makes me seem to you as if I'm a cultish, confrontational employee of Bally's (which according to you, is the norm there), so be it.

Originally Posted by wrath

Comparatively speaking, they always did beat a Cherokee (XJ).

Yeah. There's just no evidence of it...unless, you want to change what you said after the fact to mean something else.

Still trying to save face.

Originally Posted by wrath

A "Jeep Classic" is a Cherokee, AKA XJ. It's like calling a Malibu a Chevrolet Classic. It's a farkin' Malibu, regardless of the fancy vinyl letters on the trunk/hatch.

Well, the reason I pointed out "classic" is because my cherokee wasn't a stripper "sport" package that you seemed to use to explain the why the jeep was so much quicker than the same year 4x4 equipped blazer, as tested by the same guys.

So if you need to feel better about getting a zinger on me because I inadvertently didn't type the word cherokee, fine....touche. But know it's rather like when a grown-up lets some kid score in basketball because they're trying and obviously can't...and you kind of feel sorry for them. You hope to get a point on me due to thoughtlessness...whereas you lose when you try to put thought into it.

Not that you could care less, right?

Originally Posted by wrath

And while a V8 ZJ (especially the FiveNine) hauls some buttocks, the 4.0Ls didn't fare any better than the XJs.

Of which by the evidence, didn't appear to be too shabby.

[Yooformula]

damm and here I thought my naps for the day were done.

[Moparjim]

I don't have time to qoute and dig up specifics, but it is abuntantly clear to almost every objective observer that you are truly a moron if you can't agree that the 4.0L was one of the most successful engines Chrysler/AMC or any other manufacturer ever made. By successful I mean all around - from a reliability, performance, and financial perspective the engine would easily make most informed people's top ten list. There are obvious reasons why it was made for around 50 years in it's various forms...

Apparently you just like to start an argument for argument's sake.

[GTO RLY?]

Originally Posted by wrath

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.

And now GM makes a 4 banger with more power than any of their sixes, yet they refuse to use the LNF in anything but a Solstice, HHR, or Cobalt.

[hrsp]

we know the 4.0 is a bullet proof motor...what about the 4.7's?

[WickedSix]

I can't remember if these had a crossflow head on them or not?.... I know it was a major pain with my ford 300 when i rebuild it...elegante isn't quite the word for having intake and exhaust ports in such close proximity.....heat soak sucked on my f150 and the 300 had a hard time getting past 3500 lol it was more like driving a diesel truck than a gasser imho. The only gripe i'd seen with the 4.0 in jeeps was cracked exhaust manifolds and that weird long start.... like 3-4 rotations of the engine to fire...but they all seems that way. I'd take an engine with more main bearings than cylinders for a reliable vehicle anyday...just watch the video of cash for clunkers of the jeep for proof of how bulletproof the mechanical design was in an inline 6....and the vacuum hoses...well i never saw a jeep half as bad as say the california model of a honda with that 3 barrel carb...pretty sure thats what it was anyway...it looked like field mice made nest with vacuum hose in those...

[eyeball]

You know what this thread needs? 4.0L pics:



The 4.0 was a reliable, good performing engine with great longevity. That said, I wouldn't buy a MP high perf long block. A supercharger maybe, but definitely not a longblock at those prices.

Wasn't there someone running at the Grove in one of those old pick-up things with a 4.0l and a bunch of bolt-ons from the MP catalog? I think this was maybe eight years ago. The guy used to make laps during the week and was switching off driving duties with his wife. I remember it being slow but consistent...

[Prince Valiant]

Originally Posted by eyeball

Wasn't there someone running at the Grove in one of those old pick-up things with a 4.0l and a bunch of bolt-ons from the MP catalog? I think this was maybe eight years ago. The guy used to make laps during the week and was switching off driving duties with his wife. I remember it being slow but consistent...

Actually, there was a commanche (the pick-up) running mid/high 13's for some time...not sure if it was the same one you're speaking of.

It was the "eliminator" package as I recall.

[eyeball]

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

Actually, there was a commanche (the pick-up) running mid/high 13's for some time...not sure if it was the same one you're speaking of.

It was the "eliminator" package as I recall.

Perhaps it was the same one. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I thought the one I saw was in the high 14s or possibly slower. Who knows if they were ironing out a tune or ? I seem to remember that the engine had bumped up compression and an MP head. It also had a straight exhaust. It seemed horrendously slow for the amount of money that was put into it. That's probably the only reason I remember it.