: What is it with bashing pushrods?



Night Wolf
11-22-05, 12:45 AM
In the last few threads.... everyone is saying GM needs to "catch up" and stop using pushrods and make more DOHC engines.

Why?

Here is an artical that spells the whole thing out to somone that dosn't know much about the difference and just jumps on the band wagon....

Pushrods will ALWAYS be superior then OHC in my eyes ANYDAY.

http://www.v6performance.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27941&page=1&pp=30

terrible one
11-22-05, 12:47 AM
I like pushrods :)

The ones going into the 500 are 3/8" diameter. Woohoo!


Seriously though,

I don't see any flaw in the pushrod design, therefore I don't understand what is so bad about it. However, I have no problem with OHC engines either. Both are great designs and thats why they are still around and used by many. I guess I'm kind of a neutral.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-22-05, 12:52 AM
I've got nothing against pushrods, I just wanna try something new :)

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 07:14 AM
What about folks that call OHV "old tech" and that GM needs to catch up with the times?

OHC predates OHV.... there is nothing old about it.

pimpin88
11-22-05, 09:57 AM
OHV all the way. prime example is the new LS7

FrankieSixxxgun
11-22-05, 09:59 AM
It just makes more sense to me to have 1 cam and not 2 or 4. It's cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to upgrade. Sure, the amount of moving parts in the valve train increases, not allowing for high RPM, but how many Cadillacs do you see up at 9,000 RPM anyway? Heck, even the new LS7 only hits in the range of 6500 RPM. Sometimes people forget that street motors are supposed to run on the street. That means low RPM, high torque, cheaper costs. OHV lends itself perfectly to all 3.

I own 4 cars and a motorcycle. All of them are single cam, pushrod, OHV engines. :D

Jesda
11-22-05, 12:15 PM
A lot of people these days want smooth highway passing power. OHV engines are a little rough and tend to run out of breath at high speeds. There's exceptions, but its not the rule.

I dont mind them myself. The 3800 is particularly nice for regional and local driving.

90Brougham350
11-22-05, 12:56 PM
Both have their ups and downs. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a judgement stating one is better than the other. Vehicle weight, intended use, normal driving RPM, rear-end gearing, tire-size, the list goes on and on about where an engine needs to make usable power.

FrankieSixxxgun
11-22-05, 12:57 PM
OHV engines are a little rough and tend to run out of breath at high speeds.

That has nothing to do with the valvetrain style; OHV, SOHC, DOHC, suction valves, side valve flatheads, solenoid electronic valves, it doesn't matter. The duration, overlap, and lift of the intake and exhaust valves controls the power band and smoothness of the engine. A modern MAF-controlled car can easily produce a smooth idle and plenty of power at the top of the band with a single cam, pushrods, and OHV

MAP and carbureted cars, well, it doesn't matter what style valvetrain you have. You're going to get a rough idle for power up top or a smooth idle for power down low. There is no computer to fix the fuel mix and ignition curve for your aggressive cam at idle :D An MSD 6-AL can help though.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 06:13 PM
A lot of people these days want smooth highway passing power. OHV engines are a little rough and tend to run out of breath at high speeds. There's exceptions, but its not the rule.

I dont mind them myself. The 3800 is particularly nice for regional and local driving.

the supercharged 3800 in my fathers '99 Grand Prix GTP would end any and all comments about a pushrod having smooth and lots of highway passing power.

Come to think of it, I don't know of any modern pushrod engine that struggles to pass on the highway... only things that come to mind are severly low-power, too big of a car.... cars... like the HT4100 and 307 in 80's Broughams.

my '79 DeVille, '89 Delta 88 and '93 DeVille all have alot of smooth highway passing power....

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 06:16 PM
That has nothing to do with the valvetrain style; OHV, SOHC, DOHC, suction valves, side valve flatheads, solenoid electronic valves, it doesn't matter. The duration, overlap, and lift of the intake and exhaust valves controls the power band and smoothness of the engine. A modern MAF-controlled car can easily produce a smooth idle and plenty of power at the top of the band with a single cam, pushrods, and OHV

MAP and carbureted cars, well, it doesn't matter what style valvetrain you have. You're going to get a rough idle for power up top or a smooth idle for power down low. There is no computer to fix the fuel mix and ignition curve for your aggressive cam at idle :D An MSD 6-AL can help though.

yeah... but I'll take the no computer and carburator over all the other crap any day....

Power for power.... a 1970 Chevelle SS 454 gurgling, thumpin and jumpin at idle is SO much more aggressive and flat out enjoyable then a new Nissan 350Z that is quiet at idle, its simple. :) Yeah, it woudln't be practical to drive around as a daily driver... then again... give me a 1970 Chevelle SS 454, and I am sure I could make do :)

FrankieSixxxgun
11-22-05, 10:41 PM
My daily until I got the Caddy was a 1967 Camaro SS with a totally aggressive 350 small block. I made due :D

And seriously, SCREW computers in cars. Soon as my wife sells her Trans-Am, the Caddy'll be the only car/bike in my garage with a computer.

Night Wolf
11-22-05, 11:48 PM
nice! :)

ya know... new cars go better, stop better and turn better then old cars...

but just something about all the electronic and computer stuff.... really kills the spirit of an engine.

I notice this so much between the '79 and '93 DeVille.

the 4.9, while in todays standards is old... but its a very refined engine, smooth, responsive... when starting, driving and anything else, its as if its just this thing in front of me that is in its own world.... hard to explain, its a great engine... but its like the soul of it is gone.

the 425... I like pumping the gas to start it, I like the carburator.... its like when I hit the gas pedal, its connected to something beefy and mechanical, not something full of electronics and wires....

but the same could be said comparing the 4.9 to new engines.... now there is throttle by wire and stuff.... I dunno... I like new refined cars alot.... but I think it would be more for a daily driver, it would take alot for me to get into tuning and moding one over, say a classic big block.

Although with the computer, you plug a lap top in and know EVERYTHING about the engine... also to a more simple degree is the on board diagnostics on the Caddy..... that is just cool too.

So I guess I can say.... I'm glad I have both :)

ben72227
11-23-05, 12:42 AM
Pushrods suck:devil:

OHC's are better; because HONDA says so:devil::devil::p:devil::devil:

Kev
11-23-05, 01:53 AM
Pushrods suck:devil:

OHC's are better; because HONDA says so:devil::devil::p:devil::devil:Nyah nyah-nyah nyah-nyah nyaaaaah! :nyanya:

Krashed989
11-23-05, 04:20 AM
Holy Crap! I read that whole thing, and.... I think I felt my brain get bigger... :bighead: :bonkers:

KOBO
11-23-05, 09:44 AM
The newest vehicle we own is a '90 0lds 98 regency (my caddy is a 89)- ancient by todays standards in technology. But we travel a bit and always rent a car and so we have sampled some of the newer cars Detroit and Asia have to offer.

There is no question about it, the cars they are making today are great; speed handling, technology; I love it. I read with fascination and awe the latest advances in the cars today and try to imagine what is in the future.

But, my two favorites to drive are my '88 Big Blue Kidney Buster 3/4 ton 4x4 Chevy Pick up and my '68 Pontiac Lemans.

The PU has a 350 with 190K. It has tons of power, the engine and drive train are tight, and it uses almost no oil. A Cheyenne, it has almost no options (the AC was put in later!), and is a brute to drive. The 3" exhuast growls when I stomp on the gas (which is great for scaring little old ladies doing 20mph in a 50mph zone when I pass them). There is absolutely nothing refined about that truck but I love it.

My pontiac is my toy. I love the older style of cars but lets face it, the damn things, compared to the handling of cars today, are almost death traps. The 4 drum brakes are horrible for slowing down quickly at highway speeds, heaven help you if the brakes get wet. The handing and response, compared to todays cars, is like a horse and buggy. It is kinda funny, to me, when I drive the Pontiac most of the time in the summer and then get in the caddy. In particular the gearing for the steering is so different. You have to spin the wheel on the Pontiac so much more when making a turn that I have to be carefull not to turn into the curb with the caddy. The pontiac also doesnt have power brakes so the first time I use the brakes in the caddy, or truck, is kinda funny.

But after those long days at the shop, I put down the top, and all the worlds hassles go away. I enjoy the slight shake of the old V8 under the hood and the low rumble when I come up to speed. Certianly the admiring looks from other drivers is nice for the ego as well.

Push rods, OHV, it is whatever brings a smile to your face that is important. 20 years from now OHV may well be antiquated and 100 years from now..... who knows.

K

wht2000
11-23-05, 11:32 AM
Sure wish I had my '69 Judge back in my garage...that "push-rod dinosaur" was a screamer......

Stoneage_Caddy
11-23-05, 09:54 PM
OHC is a far simpler design , less to go wrong less weight in the valvetrain ,less friction losses ....

The battle to get the new z06 engine to run damn near 8,000 rpm was won in removing wieght in the valvetrain ...very exotic stuff going on in there ...metals and teqniques that till the past few years werent there or werent cost effective ...

There is most likely more technology in the z06 engine or the new 3.9 vvt pushrod engine than in any present honda engine ...honestly....

weight weight weight ...thats the eninmy of horsepower and freind of torque (to an extent)...cranks, pistons, conrods all weigh one number when still , but spin them and the weight grows expoentially ...
too bad horsepower is purely an advertiseing number , means nothing ...

honda always pulled the big HP numbers , and the big rev numbers , if you look at there stuff its very light ....they pay ALOT of attention to weight , years ago the only way to get the weight out of the valvetrain was to run the cams up top ...they make high winding 4 and sixes , and tell everyone there makeing 240 hp from 2.4 liters ....a number thats great , and something you wont see in a V8 , a factory stock V8 i dont think will ever produce hp per liter numbers as a 4 cyl will , because of all the weight and friction involved ...as displacement and cylander numbers goes up , hp per liter goes down ...and torque goes up ...

NVH in pushrod engines has been an issue , yes there smooth but mathmateicly theres more parts and more surfaces working against eachother ...OHC has less parts less chances that toleraces are out of whack ...and from what ive seen have beatter controll over valve spring bounce ......if you ever get a chance to see the pushrod engine's valvetrain under the rocker covers on a high speed camera youll cringe at how things bounce and float around ...

90Brougham350
11-23-05, 11:18 PM
I'll agree that horsepower is a marketer's best friend, but horsepower does mean something. If I could say I had 400 horsepower in my 90 Brougham, it would mean something special because everyone knows it has a 350 TBI which will NEVER see the likes of anything above 4500 RPM. If people were to say "I have xxx horsepower at xxxx RPM," that would really clear things up. I mean, the only reason the new M5 has 500 horsepower is because the thing has to rev to all high hell to get there, but if you realize that it has 500 horsepower at a little over 6000 RPM, that's still 389 ft. lbs or something like that (just going off of memory).

Katshot
11-24-05, 08:04 AM
I think you'll find that push rods will go the way of the dinosaurs eventually. The performance car market will probably be the last hold out but the flexibility and efficiency of a multi-cam (OHC) engine will win out. VVT technology is making small, light engines produce power like much larger ones at a fraction of the weight and price while still giving the best possible fuel economy and the ability to be packaged into virtually any vehicle. Hell, I wouldn't doubt some time in the near future this whole discussion will be worthless due to the total disappearance of cams all together.

1enthusiast
11-24-05, 10:27 AM
About 3 months ago, in Car and Driver, Brock Yates made a pretty blunt observation in his editorial. He was talking about GM's problems, their erroding market share, the rate they are loosing money, and he offered some of his own opinions based on his 40+ years of solid, world wide knowledge of the automobile market. You know what he said? He said GM should immediately and completely cease all pushrod engine production. In fact, all American auto producers should. After all, they are the only ones in the world who still do. The blueprints on some of these engines go back to 1949.

I certianly trust anything Brock says..... I've read his books, followed him on the original Cannonball Run, and his editorial in C&D is the first thing I read even before the actual car tests. The guy knows his stuff about cars, more than anyone I've seen, and certainly more than GM.

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 04:06 AM
I think you'll find that push rods will go the way of the dinosaurs eventually. The performance car market will probably be the last hold out but the flexibility and efficiency of a multi-cam (OHC) engine will win out. VVT technology is making small, light engines produce power like much larger ones at a fraction of the weight and price while still giving the best possible fuel economy and the ability to be packaged into virtually any vehicle. Hell, I wouldn't doubt some time in the near future this whole discussion will be worthless due to the total disappearance of cams all together.

Well, as long as there are car enthusiasts around, pushrods and cams will not die.

Nobody is going to put DOHC in a 1968 GTO, or replace it with a non-cam engine... its just not going to happen.... I know nothing like that is ever going near the '79 DeVille....

I dunno, all this hybrid and cam-less design and stuff is just temporary soultions to the big issue... and that is an alternative fuel source.... the IC enigne itself is in the process of dying.

After seeing first hand what GM did with the 3500/3900, and how they adapted VVT to work with that.... I'll take it any day.... in my eyes pushrod isn't dead... Hopefully GM will ride the 3500/3900 and then start making more versions of it in more cars.

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-25-05, 05:36 AM
Never say never.
I'm sure 20 years ago people said you'd never see a fuel injected engine in a 69 Z28.
But people are doing it.

There's nothing wrong with pushrod engines, they're cheaper to make, the valvetrain has more parts but you don't have a load of cambelt to change. Overall I'd suggest they are more reliable as long as you don't cheapen out on the materials etc.

OHC engines cost more to make but they do make more power. There is a lot more to go wrong. As with all modern engines everything needs to be working A1, they like close tolerences and they won't put up with being mistreated. Why? Because everytihng is running on the edge. They make the road as thin as they dare, the piston as light as possible and so on. Me and a mate got home from a dragstrip some 70 miles away in an early 70s Chevelle which had chewed its rings, collapsed a lifter and thrown a pushrod and rocker. You're not doping that in a modular Ford (or N*).

This isn't so much down to the difference betwene pushrod and OHC, but modern engines in general.

My Caddy is OHC, my Camaro is pushrod. I like them both. The Caddy engine is smoother, more fuel efficient and has lower emissions. The Camaro has more low down torque.

But in reality, today, there's no way you can sell the old engine to a customer who has just test driven a BMW.
Yes the modern engine costs more to make and is more complex and harder to work on and so on, but with the increased reliability of engines in general, along with stricter emissions and economy regulations (and wants) eventually the pushrod engine will die off in terms of availability in new passenger cars.

But there's 100 million small block Chevys out there for us to rebuild and enjoy on the cheap.

turbojimmy
11-25-05, 07:32 AM
Although with the computer, you plug a lap top in and know EVERYTHING about the engine... also to a more simple degree is the on board diagnostics on the Caddy..... that is just cool too.
So I guess I can say.... I'm glad I have both :)

Computerized engine management is one of the biggest reasons why manufacturers are able to get so much HP out of relatively small powerplants. I agree that a big 'ol Holley (or 2, or 3) sitting atop an engine is good for nostalgia but they're a bitch to live with day-to-day. The more power you try to squeeze out the more sensitive the tuning becomes.

My dad brought his '67 Vette by last Sunday. It was barely running. We popped the hood and the days of futzing around with the double pumper on my GTO came rushing back as soon as he took the air cleaner off the Vette. There was that stupid Holley puking fuel all over the intake because a float had stuck. I got a screwdriver and whacked the handle on the bowl a few times. Problem solved. For now. I don't miss that though it is pretty cool to look at.

Anyway, in this month's Hot Rod they did a write-up on the LS1 motor. They got 532 HP out of a '99 LS1 by doing heads, intake, cam and exhaust work - all using the stock engine management. I'm running low-11s in the GN using the stock ECM and custom chips. The really fast guys move to FAST engine management - a more flexible engine management platform. While the REAL drag cars are still running carbs, they only live life 1/4-mile at a time. Electronic engine management allows real street cars to go real fast.

I can't really comment on the pushrod vs. OHC argument. I don't know enough about the pros and cons to have an opinion but I do think the LS7 is a great in-your-face example to hold up to the OHC proponents.

The 3800 is not a smooth idling engine, though it is better than the earlier 3.8L that it's based upon. GM does a lot of damping in the engine and trans mounts to mask how rough they really idle - it has to do with the V configuration and when the cylinders fire. When I switched to semi-solid mounts in the GN you could really tell the difference. The factory rubber mounts absorbed a lot of vibration that now gets transmitted to the frame of the car.

Jim

Randy_W
11-25-05, 10:01 AM
About 3 months ago, in Car and Driver, Brock Yates made a pretty blunt observation in his editorial. He was talking about GM's problems, their erroding market share, the rate they are loosing money, and he offered some of his own opinions based on his 40+ years of solid, world wide knowledge of the automobile market. You know what he said? He said GM should immediately and completely cease all pushrod engine production. In fact, all American auto producers should. After all, they are the only ones in the world who still do. The blueprints on some of these engines go back to 1949.

I certianly trust anything Brock says..... I've read his books, followed him on the original Cannonball Run, and his editorial in C&D is the first thing I read even before the actual car tests. The guy knows his stuff about cars, more than anyone I've seen, and certainly more than GM.

Brock Yates is knowlageble, he's also a self absorbed, bombastic, ego maniac. It's often hard to tell when he's saying something important or just beating his chest.:yup:

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 10:40 AM
I am on the fence with this...

yeah, fuel injection is more easy to live with day-to-day, easy starting etc...

but ya know... I lived with the Qudra-Jet (which I like very much) in the '79 DeVille.... and I didn't have a single issue with that. It was a daily driver, I even drove it in the winter a few times, and the reliability or driveability was in no way at all hendered by the carburator.

I can see it now... in 20 years from now when guys my age start to buy old Camaro's and GTO's and stuff, they are not going to even know what a carburator is, to them, it is "old tech" since all they would be used to is their Honda V-tec's.... so they will dump the carb and switch to fuel injection, then go on to talk crap about carburators and how good FI is... all because they simply don't know how to use one.

1enthusiast
11-25-05, 12:00 PM
There's nothing wrong with pushrod engines, they're cheaper to make, the valvetrain has more parts but you don't have a load of cambelt to change. Overall I'd suggest they are more reliable as long as you don't cheapen out on the materials etc.

OHC engines cost more to make but they do make more power. There is a lot more to go wrong. As with all modern engines everything needs to be working A1, they like close tolerences and they won't put up with being mistreated. Why? Because everytihng is running on the edge. They make the road as thin as they dare, the piston as light as possible and so on.

Which is one of the reasons GM is so reluctant to stop pushrod production. They don't have the same kind of engineers and quality control as most German and Japanese manufacturers. A Honda engine can run for 300,000 miles without skiping a beat. Even the most carefully maintained pushrod, changing all fluids when required and driving it like a baby, will not last that long. Toyota's machining process is lightyears ahead of GM's. Every part is anylized under laser scanning computers to detect imperfections down to the millionths of a millimeter. Cranks are tested on machines for absolute perfect balance even before they come close to the enigne block. And once they've perfected every part, the production process will reproduce each and every part EXACTLY the way the first one was produced.

You can balance a dime on the valve cover of any Japanese engine with 200,000 original, not rebuilt, miles. Try that on a 3800 with that kind of mileage.

GM could do this, but it would require them to totally restructure their entire production process, from engineering to final assembly.

terrible one
11-25-05, 12:44 PM
Then go buy a Toyota.

Pushrod engines aren't going to die soon. Both pushrod and OHC engines have their imperfections. I doubt these are going to change what someone prefers. Many people still love pushrod engines, and they aren't going to ditch them just because import OHC engines are going to hold up longer without maintenance.

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 12:48 PM
That is complete BS.

First... what is it with "GM can't do that"

Hello.... MOST ALL GM's engines are OHC/DOHC.

The only pushrods left are the Corvette, the trucks and the 3500/3900....

So GM *CAN* and *DOES* do it... gosh, the Ecotec in my other thread is a PERFECT example of GM beating Honda at their own game.

Think about it, GM had a 190hp/165ft-lbs torque 2.3L DOHC engine in 1989... Honda didn't have anything near that in that era... Yes, it isn't GM who is playing catch up.

Another thing, DOHC make an engine huge... not in displacement, but in physical size.... This picture tells more then I could describe :)

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 12:51 PM
Oh yeah, if anyone thinks a pushrod GM I4/V6/V8 can't make 300k miles without a rebuild, then you are wrong.

imports are the ones that need all the extra care and maintenace... 50k mile service, 90k miles service, 130k mile service, 160k mile service etc... NOT with GM pushrods, or most any GM engine.

Those stupid timing belts on interference engines.... run a Honda without ever changing the timing belt and see how long it lasts....

run a 3800 with never changing the timing chain....oh yeah... it is very uncommon they go... and if they do, the engine simply stops, not self destructs.

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 12:53 PM
Never say never.
I'm sure 20 years ago people said you'd never see a fuel injected engine in a 69 Z28.
But people are doing it.

There's nothing wrong with pushrod engines, they're cheaper to make, the valvetrain has more parts but you don't have a load of cambelt to change. Overall I'd suggest they are more reliable as long as you don't cheapen out on the materials etc.

OHC engines cost more to make but they do make more power. There is a lot more to go wrong. As with all modern engines everything needs to be working A1, they like close tolerences and they won't put up with being mistreated. Why? Because everytihng is running on the edge. They make the road as thin as they dare, the piston as light as possible and so on. Me and a mate got home from a dragstrip some 70 miles away in an early 70s Chevelle which had chewed its rings, collapsed a lifter and thrown a pushrod and rocker. You're not doping that in a modular Ford (or N*).

This isn't so much down to the difference betwene pushrod and OHC, but modern engines in general.

My Caddy is OHC, my Camaro is pushrod. I like them both. The Caddy engine is smoother, more fuel efficient and has lower emissions. The Camaro has more low down torque.

But in reality, today, there's no way you can sell the old engine to a customer who has just test driven a BMW.
Yes the modern engine costs more to make and is more complex and harder to work on and so on, but with the increased reliability of engines in general, along with stricter emissions and economy regulations (and wants) eventually the pushrod engine will die off in terms of availability in new passenger cars.

But there's 100 million small block Chevys out there for us to rebuild and enjoy on the cheap.

Someone looking at a G6 isn't going to buy a BMW. Someone looking at a BMW isn't going to buy a G6.

BMW, MB, Cadillac, Lincoln.... ALL modern luxury cars are smooth, quiet and very refined, not just BMW.

terrible one
11-25-05, 01:03 PM
Well said Rick. I especially like the DOHC/302 picture! :)

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
11-25-05, 01:27 PM
Someone looking at a G6 isn't going to buy a BMW. Someone looking at a BMW isn't going to buy a G6.
BMW, MB, Cadillac, Lincoln.... ALL modern luxury cars are smooth, quiet and very refined, not just BMW.

It was just an example of 2 engines and brands with different characteristics.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-25-05, 03:52 PM
That is complete BS.

First... what is it with "GM can't do that"



The only pushrods left are the Corvette, the trucks and the 3500/3900....

Think about it, GM had a 190hp/165ft-lbs torque 2.3L DOHC engine in 1989...





Did they kill the 3800?

Yes, the 2.3 "Quad Four" was very advanced for its time. But if I remember correctly, that motor had a headgasket problem, it was very rough, and it was not too reliable. Is that true?

1enthusiast
11-25-05, 04:01 PM
That is complete BS.

First... what is it with "GM can't do that"

Hello.... MOST ALL GM's engines are OHC/DOHC.

The only pushrods left are the Corvette, the trucks and the 3500/3900....

The 3500 and 3900 are "new engines", but still pushrods. The 3800 still lingers on.


So GM *CAN* and *DOES* do it... gosh, the Ecotec in my other thread is a PERFECT example of GM beating Honda at their own game.

The Ecotec motor is better than GM's 4 cylinders of old, but it lags behind Honda. The Acura RSX Type-S with 220 hp 2.3 liter VTEC is far more reliable than a Cobalt SS with 205hp and a supercharger.... Superchargers wear out. The RSX is naturally aspirited.


Think about it, GM had a 190hp/165ft-lbs torque 2.3L DOHC engine in 1989... Honda didn't have anything near that in that era... Yes, it isn't GM who is playing catch up.

Ah, yes, the Quad 4. Notoriously a great idea with horrible results...... GM got gobs of power out of it, no doubt. So much so that they blew head gaskets left and right. GM smartly discontinued that engine. Had they properly engineered it to handle it's own power, maybe we'd talk about GM as being the premier 4 cylinder engine producer in the world in stead of Honda. Yes, Honda didn't have a 190hp 4 cylinder untill 1993. Which just so happens to be the same engine in my 2000 Prelude.... at 138,000 miles of which I drive hard at times. And still, no problems. Maybe if GM would have taken the time to actually engineer the Quad 4 properly, it wouldn't have been such junk after 50,000 miles.

I can think of plenty of times when GM came out with great ideas, better than anyone in the business. But instead of making the idea something worth while, they make it half-assed to where it creates a bit bang, but then is forgotten a few years later. All to have someone else take that same idea, but perfect it and make it very attractive to everyone. I seem to remember GM offering airbags in the 1970s as options..... don't you think if GM had marketed them correctly and shown how it can be a life saver back then that they could stake the claim as beeing on the forefront of safety instead of BMW, MB, or Honda?

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 08:04 PM
Well said Rick. I especially like the DOHC/302 picture! :)

Yeah, it is pretty cool :) really puts it into perspective how much more physical size these things are....

thats why you can fit a 3.9L V6 under the hood of a G6.

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 08:08 PM
Did they kill the 3800?

Yes, the 2.3 "Quad Four" was very advanced for its time. But if I remember correctly, that motor had a headgasket problem, it was very rough, and it was not too reliable. Is that true?


I thikn the 3800 is still kickin'.... I hope it is.

The 2.3... known as the Quad4 *was* very advanced... weather it had issues or not isn't the topic... the fact is, GM had what Honda is known for... before Honda even started making it (high RPM, high HP, DOHC 4 cylinders) Except the Quad4, unlike Honda's actually had torque.. not 6,500RPM torque, but a somewhat flat, low end torque curve.

Back to the problems... it was mostly headgaskets... the same problem 1st gen Northstar's have.... you can trace that back to neglect from the owners.

I know alot of people that run Quad4 LO and HO with over 150k miles that don't have an issue.

Its the "Quad OHC" you want to avoid (single OHC) they were junk. the Quad4 DOHC, either LO or HO were very good.

Night Wolf
11-25-05, 08:18 PM
The 3500 and 3900 are "new engines", but still pushrods. The 3800 still lingers on.


"but still pushrods"? damn right! GM got VVT in these things. thats like saying any Honda engine is a "new engine" but just OHC.... OHC is older then pushrods.... get it?


The Ecotec motor is better than GM's 4 cylinders of old, but it lags behind Honda. The Acura RSX Type-S with 220 hp 2.3 liter VTEC is far more reliable than a Cobalt SS with 205hp and a supercharger.... Superchargers wear out. The RSX is naturally aspirited.


HOW does the Eco lag behind Honda? no V-tec?!? yeah, ok.

compare the NA Eco to the NA Honda.... Honda may have more HP, but Honda can't touch anywhere near the flat torque curve of the Eco even with VVT.... Once the Eco gets s/c, it makes make a great thing, even better :)


Ah, yes, the Quad 4. Notoriously a great idea with horrible results...... GM got gobs of power out of it, no doubt. So much so that they blew head gaskets left and right. GM smartly discontinued that engine. Had they properly engineered it to handle it's own power, maybe we'd talk about GM as being the premier 4 cylinder engine producer in the world in stead of Honda. Yes, Honda didn't have a 190hp 4 cylinder untill 1993. Which just so happens to be the same engine in my 2000 Prelude.... at 138,000 miles of which I drive hard at times. And still, no problems. Maybe if GM would have taken the time to actually engineer the Quad 4 properly, it wouldn't have been such junk after 50,000 miles.


The Quad4 lived from 1988-1995.... hardly a short life! then it was made into the 2.4L Twin Cam in 1996 and that went until 2002.... 1988-2002... kinda long for such a crappy engine, eh?

Quad4's blew headgaskets from neglect from owners... Run your wonderful Honda without ever changing that timing belt and see how long it lasts you... people neglect domestics, then trash talk them when they go... yet the imports always get all the maintenace, and then get praised with their high mileage.

Still, it dosn't take away from the fact, GM had what Honda is known for... well before Honda made it :)

If you think all Quad4's go at 50k miles.... well, you are wrong.

GM also had anti-lock brakes in the 1970's.... as well as the air bag....

which leads me again... Honda/Nissan/Toyota don't pioneer a damn thing, they take other peoples ideas and work with that... the only thing Toyota has done first is their hybrid system... thats it.

Folks, Japan is playing catch up, not the US.

Plus, why would GM/Ford/Chrysler need to become domminant with 4 cylinders? we get 6.1L Hemi's, 7.0L LS7's and Ford 427... so yeah, Japan can keep their POS 4bangers... I'll take any of those V8's please :)

Stoneage_Caddy
11-25-05, 08:31 PM
ive gotten 300k out of a whole vareity of GM small blocks .....never cracking a single one open ...

ive even had 6.2 diesels run that far ....

tight tolerances do not make a long life engine ....acutally its quite the inverse (ok to a certain degree)....the tolerances in a 305 chevy would make a honda engineer cringe , that was one loose engine ....but in a box chevy it would outlive any honda ...or toyota ....outside MAYBE a 22re in a toyota pickup....and toyota hasnt made that engine in decades now ....that was there last great engine....Like the early mod motor fords the toyo and honda engines devlop oil controll ring issues ....

look at fleets , and tell me that 300k line ....becuse most fleets dont have a single honda ....taxi business is still activey searching out lightly used B bodys to use , over buying say ....a avalon ....the only import ive seen in taxi service is the honda odsey , and they dont last long at all in new york ...im seeing a high turnover on those critters

honda has never built anything that lived or ran near as long as the 305 powered checker cab ......they would log half a million miles , no problem , they were known for it ...

wolf , only the 3900 v6 has vvt , 3500 doesnt have it ...decent motor , id rather have the 3.9 in the MAXX ...but i still think the MAXX should have goten the CTS 2.8 or 3.2 V6 , i like where it makes power and it would have quietd the people who belive pushrods are a problem ....

i see the 3800 will be phased out very slowly like the 4300 vortec v6....

a note on that pic showing the dimentions of the 302 vs the mod ....early in the C5 vette devlopment the DHOC ZR1 engine was going to be the base engine in the C5 ....But to get the hood line down low enough and to packge the car in such a way to keep the center of grav low the DOHC engine was far too tall , so the call was made to devlop the next GEN small block ....this was all taken place in early 1990 , 7 years before C5 dropped , which is internesting becuse 2 years prior GM fully intended the DOHC 3.4 V6 to take over for ALL small block applications ...with a 2 stroke 3.5 V6 debueing in the 1997 Malibu ....in those days in 1988 Camaro and corvette were to be far diffrent , the 93 camaro as you may know was to be front drive , to compete against the rumored front drive replacemtn for mustang , which would be called probe....Corvette program was to be cancelled by 1994 at one point(early 92 if i remeber right)....this delayed introduction of c5 by 2 years ...

Randy_W
11-25-05, 11:26 PM
Nobody has mentioned the GM 4200. It's a 4.2 liter dohc/vvt engine that puts out 275 h.p. and 275 ft lbs of torque. Currently in it's fifth year.:)

Stoneage_Caddy
11-25-05, 11:36 PM
damn good engine ....one of the many good things to come from the isuzu/gm joint venture , duramax being another

gdwriter
11-26-05, 02:31 AM
Ah, yes, the Quad 4. Notoriously a great idea with horrible results......

The Quad 4, which first appeared in 1988 Oldsmobiles, was also a notoriously noisy, thrashy engine. 12 years ago, I used to carpool with a guy who had an 88 Cutlass Calais, and it made as much noise as it did power. When you stepped on the gas, you almost expected so see car parts scattering on the road behind you. And this guy was meticulous about maintaining his cars.

Unfortunately, GM is still paying the price for half-assed engineering from the Roger Smith era.

Both the Twin Dual cam 3.4 V6 from the early 90s and the Oldsmobile 3.5 V6 from the late 90s Intrigue were much more expensive to build and got worse gas mileage than the old-as-Methuselah 3800, with no significant gain in performance.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-26-05, 02:40 AM
.The 2.3... known as the Quad4 *was* very advanced...

Agreed, I mean this thing had more horsepower in the High output version than the TBI 350s made in the same years. 180hp in the 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais International Series 442 with 2.3 Quad 4. 180hp in the 1992 Buick Roadmaster with 5.7 V8. If that isn't impressive, I dont know what is.

I dont think many other motors in 1988 had four valves per cylinder. Good going GM. :thumbsup:

Night Wolf
11-26-05, 03:10 AM
The Quad 4, which first appeared in 1988 Oldsmobiles, was also a notoriously noisy, thrashy engine. 12 years ago, I used to carpool with a guy who had an 88 Cutlass Calais, and it made as much noise as it did power. When you stepped on the gas, you almost expected so see car parts scattering on the road behind you. And this guy was meticulous about maintaining his cars.

Unfortunately, GM is still paying the price for half-assed engineering from the Roger Smith era.

Both the Twin Dual cam 3.4 V6 from the early 90s and the Oldsmobile 3.5 V6 from the late 90s Intrigue were much more expensive to build and got worse gas mileage than the old-as-Methuselah 3800, with no significant gain in performance.

The 3800 is just a sweet freakin' engine that should countinue to live, and live, and live.

GREAT reliability, great performance, great fuel mileage, SO much potential.

2000 Monte Carlo SS (Grand Prix GTP, Regal GS) does 1/4 in 14.8s. Do a simply s/c pully swap and you just cut that time down to 14.4s. I have seen it first hadn at the track on a stock Monte SS.

my fathers lightly modded '99 GP GTP pulls like no other... the damn thing has so much power!

turbojimmy
11-26-05, 08:24 AM
Well said Rick. I especially like the DOHC/302 picture! :)

Ditto. My dad is so impressed with the Northstar that he wanted to put one in our '33 Buick but it simply won't fit. We're going to put a 3.8L turbo in it instead, with the only problem being that the downpipe will have to stick out of the side a little.

Jim

1enthusiast
11-26-05, 11:51 AM
The Quad 4, which first appeared in 1988 Oldsmobiles, was also a notoriously noisy, thrashy engine. 12 years ago, I used to carpool with a guy who had an 88 Cutlass Calais, and it made as much noise as it did power. When you stepped on the gas, you almost expected so see car parts scattering on the road behind you. And this guy was meticulous about maintaining his cars.

Unfortunately, GM is still paying the price for half-assed engineering from the Roger Smith era.



Which brings me back to the point that if GM is to turn their boat around, they must start wowing people by building cars better than anyone else. Otherwise, warranted or not, their reputation is going to stick with them and they will continue to loose market share and fall further behind the rest of the world.

gdwriter
11-26-05, 04:37 PM
The 3800 is just a sweet freakin' engine that should countinue to live, and live, and live.

The 3800 is the automotive equivalent of the B-52. Older than God, but it still gets the job done.

Actually, the last of the B-52s were built in 1962. Wasn't that the first year for what became the 3800? Interesting coincidence. The USAF has upgraded the BUFF about as much as GM has upgraded the 3800.

Night Wolf
11-26-05, 10:54 PM
pfff, the B-52 is a sweet plane... one of the rare casses where WWII equipment wasn't sold to other contries or scraped... they kept near every B-52 and now use them for everything, from transport, hospital work, weather, NASA has a handful etc....

the 3800 is like.... soo many things that stand the test of time and just keep going and going and going.... I don't give a damn if I can't balance a dime on the valve cover of my 17 year old, 131k mile 3800... the freakin' thing is a beast and a half and when I drive the Oldsmobile, I don't know what puts more of a smile on my face more... the fact I dirve/own an Oldsmobile, or the fact that I own/drive a 3800....

Obviously when you put a 3800 into an Oldsmobile, it is a natural harmony for me, that not even the Caddy can reproduce.

Here is the car:

http://inoventionseast.com/Oldsmobile/Olds.jpg

here is the 3800. 1989, 131k miles, starts up everytime without a blink, amazing on gas, plenty of power, super reliable, super easy to work on, to sum the 3800 up in 1 word, it would be *amazing*

I added the strut bar :)

http://inoventionseast.com/Oldsmobile/3800.jpg

Night Wolf
11-26-05, 10:58 PM
BTW, have 10mins to kill?

This is just how tough an old GM product is... and it keeps going and going and going....

http://inoventionseast.com/Oldsmobile/Oldsmobile1.wmv

dosn't have the fit and finish of a Toyota? see if I care one bit :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-26-05, 11:44 PM
oh god you got him started on his '89 Eighty Eight...this will never end:nono:
lol jk:tongue2:

ben72227
11-27-05, 12:13 AM
I think this says it all:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10139923/

The first in a long line of mistakes that would ultimately lead to GM's demise...or at least that's what the history books will say:histeric:

How's that for an engine...no wonder GM stuck with pushrods:histeric::histeric::histeric:

Katshot
11-27-05, 09:07 AM
I can't believe I sat through that whole video!!! What a loser I am.
Anyways, as far as the Buick 3800 goes, I doubt I'd own one. I tried a '85 Park Ave for our fleet and it was a great car but the engine and trans were junk. We finally pulled it from fleet duty around 130K miles after the trans had gone multiple times and the engine had gone once. We had Caddy Devilles at the same time and considering that they are virtually the same cars with the engines being the main difference, the Caddies with HT4100's did far better than the V6 did. Again, I tried a Buick 3800 in '89 but this time it was in my personal car, a Pontiac SSE. Great car, hot looking, nice riding, fairly quick, all the toys you could ever want. Unfortunately, shortly after 50K miles I started getting lousy gas mileage and guess what was causing it? How about low compression in all cylinders! Dumped that car fast. The Buick V6 has a great history but IMO, it's a POS engine that can't hold up like a V8.

Night Wolf
11-27-05, 09:19 AM
I can't believe I sat through that whole video!!! What a loser I am.
Anyways, as far as the Buick 3800 goes, I doubt I'd own one. I tried a '85 Park Ave for our fleet and it was a great car but the engine and trans were junk. We finally pulled it from fleet duty around 130K miles after the trans had gone multiple times and the engine had gone once. We had Caddy Devilles at the same time and considering that they are virtually the same cars with the engines being the main difference, the Caddies with HT4100's did far better than the V6 did. Again, I tried a Buick 3800 in '89 but this time it was in my personal car, a Pontiac SSE. Great car, hot looking, nice riding, fairly quick, all the toys you could ever want. Unfortunately, shortly after 50K miles I started getting lousy gas mileage and guess what was causing it? How about low compression in all cylinders! Dumped that car fast. The Buick V6 has a great history but IMO, it's a POS engine that can't hold up like a V8.

Don't like my video? :( ah well... I like it.

1985 3800 had some issues... up until 1988 they were still getting better.... 1985 was the first year and therfore would have questionable reliability.

By '89 the engines were solid... sounds like you just got a freak with low compression in all the cylinders at 50k miles.... damn... my '89 3800 can attest to that.

1985 3800 was the first production engine to ever have Multi-Port Fuel Injection (not TB) *AND* distrubutorless ignition (coil packs) Hows that for GM beating out Honda? Not only that but BOTH systems proved VERY reliable, and now, 20 years later, neither the fuel or ignition system on these cars have problems... and that was a first for these ever used on such an engine. It paved a way for all future GM engines. The C/H body these engines were in were also a first on a few things (like 4 wheel independent suspension in a FWD mid/full size car) Not too bad back in the day... I know I would be damn proud to buy my Olds Eighty Eight brand new back in 1989.... a car I could easily keep using 20 years later? THATS an investment :)

turbojimmy
11-27-05, 10:25 AM
Here's a little history on the 3.8L V6:
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

They've performed very well in the Turbo Regals. There are guys running in the 11s with well over 100k miles on their stock long blocks. Mine packed it in right at 100k miles because of my inexperience with forced induction. Lots of boost and not enough fuel to support it will kill anything. I hammered the bearings out of it with detonation after moving to a bigger turbo.

I don't have any experience with the FWD version of the engine.

Jim

1enthusiast
11-27-05, 10:28 AM
My Mom used to have a 1988 Delta 88...... it was the car I took my drivers test with :)

I never liked the way it handled - rolly polly handling, soft brakes, and it wasn't a stick shift. As you can clearly see, we like two different types of cars - you like your floating land yachts and I like a car that nimble, tight, and you can row your own gears with. That's the main reason I think OHC is better than pushrod. And judging by the paradigm shift in general public opinions, I'm not alone. Most people my age no longer want rough running land barges.... they want high reving, fun to drive performance coupes and sedans.

And I will never own an automatic transmission. I hate them. So, the fact that there are only 5 cars GM offers a manual with (Cobalt, Corvette, GTO, CTS, and G6 GTP) pretty much crosses them off my list even before I actually look at the cars.

Brings up another point - GM needs to get with the fact more of us young professionals under 40 want sticks. Every Honda but their SUVs have stick shifts. Even the Acuras (except for RL). You can get a stick with most any Toyota passenger car. Even the new Lexus IS comes with a 6 speed manual. And of course, BMWs are really recomended as stick shifts.

When it comes to personal preferences, you like big cars. That's just fine. All I'm saying is GM needs to look at the big picture of where the majority of customers are.

Randy_W
11-27-05, 06:43 PM
I can't believe I sat through that whole video!!! What a loser I am.
Anyways, as far as the Buick 3800 goes, I doubt I'd own one. I tried a '85 Park Ave for our fleet and it was a great car but the engine and trans were junk. We finally pulled it from fleet duty around 130K miles after the trans had gone multiple times and the engine had gone once. We had Caddy Devilles at the same time and considering that they are virtually the same cars with the engines being the main difference, the Caddies with HT4100's did far better than the V6 did. Again, I tried a Buick 3800 in '89 but this time it was in my personal car, a Pontiac SSE. Great car, hot looking, nice riding, fairly quick, all the toys you could ever want. Unfortunately, shortly after 50K miles I started getting lousy gas mileage and guess what was causing it? How about low compression in all cylinders! Dumped that car fast. The Buick V6 has a great history but IMO, it's a POS engine that can't hold up like a V8.

Amazing, the 3800 consistently goes 200000 miles yet you can only get 50000. It seems you've had really bad luck with every GM engine that becomes a subject here.:bigroll: Maybe fleet experience isn't all that useful, after all, huh? It seems that you've had just awful problems with two of the better engines ever built, the 3800 and the Northstar. Two very powerful and long lived engines that made many thousands happy and still do on a daily basis, yet you couldn't get either one to live for you! That's curious, isn't it? 95% of people have no major problems with either one and you can't manage to get either one to work for you. Maybe your expert service technics, learned while manging the largest fleet in the world short of the Pacific Fleet, were all wrong. Many people just change the oil and filter and ride for years.
If the first 3800 was such a pos, why on earth did you buy one for yourself, slow learner?

I know, now you and Blackout will bash me for three days:crybaby: and you'll cite your experience of seeing 300 Northstars all torn down on the floor with bad headgaskets at the same time. Of course those pictures haven't showed up yet!:bigroll:

You constantly bashing GM's, has gotten so predictable that anyone with any crediblity just passes it off as so much fodder, which it is. Go ahead, tell us how smart you are and how your 'vast fleet experience', makes you the resident expert of all things automotive. Then say some mean things to me, because I really care!:bigroll:

Playdrv4me
11-27-05, 06:57 PM
Nothing beats the king of old engines for me... the Jeep 4.0L inline 6. THAT is an OOOLLLDDD engine. Unfortunately, the castings for it have been destroyed and the engine is no longer produced.

thu
11-27-05, 07:24 PM
BTW, have 10mins to kill?
This is just how tough an old GM product is... and it keeps going and going and going....
http://inoventionseast.com/Oldsmobile/Oldsmobile1.wmv
dosn't have the fit and finish of a Toyota? see if I care one bit :)

Nice mini-restoration/repair job.

Makes me wonder....either the car or the driver is a giant accident magnet. :) lol

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 01:14 AM
Nothing beats the king of old engines for me... the Jeep 4.0L inline 6. THAT is an OOOLLLDDD engine. Unfortunately, the castings for it have been destroyed and the engine is no longer produced.

I know its the last AMC-designed engine still used by Chrysler (the 2nd to last being the old 2.5L 4cylinder)

It lives on for one more year... the 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last to use it, the all new 2007 Wrangler is said to have a 3.8 V6 which should be an updated version of the current 3.7 used in the Liberty.

the 4.0 I6 is a glorified tractor engine.... it has been updated as much as possible, they are getting 190hp from it... not bad, but from 4.0L of displacement in 2006? yeah... What it lacks in high revving HP it makes up for in sheer low end torque and reliability. It is very hard to compare the 4.0 I6's pulling power to another gasoline engine, so instead it is compared to a Cummins turbo diesel! that thing can loaf around at 1,200RPM all day and never think twice, it makes 85% of its total torque *at idle*

It is such an amazing engine also... I just love these old, but insanly proven designs that flat out work... the downfall? the 4.0 I6 is a gas guzzer at any RPM, its loud, crude, and not the smoothest engine.... *BUT THATS WHY I LIKE IT*

The 4.0 I6 played a major roll in me deciding on a Jeep Wrangler as a next vehicle...... I don't care if it will get 15mpg and is noisy on the highway..... the fact that if I was ever put into a situation where it really came down to life or not, I know the Jeep/I6 would pull thru... and at that time, it really dosn't matter if the engine is noisy at 70mph or the interior was designed in 1993.

It can happen more then you think..... Hurricane Katrina? New Orleans was cut off from the world... but there on the news video was a guy driving his Jeep TJ thru the flooded city streets to get food and shelter.

Lets say I was camping up in the mountains, bad storm came by, trees fell, rivers flooded etc... sorry, but a Honda CR-V isn't getting out of there....

Since I actually plan on doing such activities and not using the Jeep as a mall crawler, it is just nice to know that if the situation ever came up and I had to do something, I could.... as much as I love the Caddy's, I am stuck to the paved road (somewhat :) ) and I don't like that at all.

Lets say you are stopped in traffic for miles, there is a guard rail to your left, and the on coming lane is seperated from you by a big grass valley type thing... you get a call on your cell phone saying there is an emergency at home and you need to get back.... well, with grid lock traffic, the Cadillac isn't doing much help.... if it was a Jeep you could simply drive right thru the grass, up the big hill and go back.... see, its stuff like that where even though the Jeep is perhaps the most un-refined vehicles to date, it simply dosn't matter.

When I test drove the '03 Wrangler Sport (nearly everything I wanted in the Jeep) it wa a 5spd... the amount of sheer torque from the I6 was amazing, I was shifting at 2,000RPM and it was putting me in the seat, I could cruise around in OD 5th at 40mph and hit the gas it it lurched forward.... may not be the fastest in the 1/4 mile, but damn, it is a perfect example of how high amounts of low-end torque prevail over high revving HP.

I would be so proud to own a 4.0L I6, just as I would a 3800 V6 in its old and crude form then the newest and hottest, loaded up with tech junk from Japan.... it just means so much more to me.

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 01:18 AM
Nice mini-restoration/repair job.
Makes me wonder....either the car or the driver is a giant accident magnet. :) lol

That car was... everybody said it :)

a guy backed into it when my mother was driving it... no damage though.

When I bought the car the front bumper was pushed in on the right side (still is) so something hit it, lol

That car is such a beast... nothing would stop it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-28-05, 01:21 AM
How does the 4.0 I-6 compare to the 8.2 for low end torque?

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 02:03 AM
lol

Now you are making it a little rough....

Considering the I6 is less then half the displacement, and has 2 less cylinders.... it fairs well.

It is used in much smaller, lighter vehicles (though a 4wd Cherokee is up there)

I would say flat out, the 500 has alot more torque, which it does.....

the the I6..... eh.... its just one of those things you gotta see and understand to truely love... it is perhaps the only truck engine that needs not a single thing to make it any better... it is already perfect.

There are s/c and turbo kits for it... but I woudln't do that, if I wanted more power I would go the 4.7/5.0 stroker route.... on the high end we are talking 325hp and 500ft-lbs torque from a truck I6... it is crazy.

Among other truck engines that are nearly perfect is the Ford 4.9L (300cid) I6.... those were damn good engines, not so much with the single barrel Carter, but the FI.... gosh.... the 4.9 I6 was a massive 145hp, but it would easily out pull a 5.0 V8, and be on par, or above a 351 (5.8) V8, all with being one of the most reliable engines to date :)

I like truck engines.... it really puts it into perspective on how much high RPM or high HP has nothing to do with anything, yet such low end and broad torque curves, with lots amount of torque out perform above and beyond....

like the old L-134 flathead "Go Devil" used in the Willys MB and CJ-2A... that little 134cid (2.4L IIRC?) 70hp putt-putt nearly won the US WWII.... in fact it was said by the president that without the Jeep, we wouldn't have won WWII.... and surely everyone has seen the movies of the Jeeps loaded up towing trailers, yet baja'ing thru the forest and all that? those were torqey little suckers even if they did top out at 50mph :)

Katshot
11-28-05, 10:11 AM
Ah Randy. Can always count on you to be a jerk. :thumbsup:

I'm not even going to get into anything here about the Northstar, and I did mention that I only had first-hand experience with (2) 3800's so I would never call myself any kind of expert on them for sure. I was just relaying a couple experiences I had with them, nothing more. Did you also miss my mention that I realize they DO have a great history? I know, you were too worried about bashing me to actually READ the whole post. As for my techs, you've got a lot of balls busting on guys you don't even know anything about Randy. That was low even for you.

Getting back to others here....
You guys are talking about another engine that I'm getting intimate with. The Jeep I6. I have one in my newest toy, a '05 Wrangler. I LOVE IT, period! Yeah, I know the engine is no race winner (although it DOES pull pretty good if you push it) but, it DOES have some serious real-world torque. I have a 6-speed in mine and I was very impressed by the engines ability to pull from some pretty low rpm's. I mean you can REALLY lug this engine down low and then simply give it some gas and it pulls away with no bucking or anything. I don't have a lot of experience with the engine but I understand it's pretty reliable. I was warned by many people to stay away from the auto trans and I4 engine when I was looking to buy my Jeep. That was easy since I really wanted the manual trans and 6-cyl. engine anyways.

Randy_W
11-28-05, 11:43 AM
Ah Randy. Can always count on you to be a jerk. :thumbsup:

I'm not even going to get into anything here about the Northstar, and I did mention that I only had first-hand experience with (2) 3800's so I would never call myself any kind of expert on them for sure. I was just relaying a couple experiences I had with them, nothing more. Did you also miss my mention that I realize they DO have a great history? I know, you were too worried about bashing me to actually READ the whole post. As for my techs, you've got a lot of balls busting on guys you don't even know anything about Randy. That was low even for you.



:yawn:

Randy_W
11-28-05, 11:48 AM
My son currently has a '99 Wrangler, 4.0/5 spd, prior to that he had a '97, same combo. My daughter drives a Grand Cherokee with the 4.0 and previously had a Wrangler 4.0/automatic. My wife and mother both owned Grand Cherokees with 4.0's in the mid ninties. All were great! I had 2 Grand's but both were V8's, liked them, too.

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 12:57 PM
You guys are talking about another engine that I'm getting intimate with. The Jeep I6. I have one in my newest toy, a '05 Wrangler. I LOVE IT, period! Yeah, I know the engine is no race winner (although it DOES pull pretty good if you push it) but, it DOES have some serious real-world torque. I have a 6-speed in mine and I was very impressed by the engines ability to pull from some pretty low rpm's. I mean you can REALLY lug this engine down low and then simply give it some gas and it pulls away with no bucking or anything. I don't have a lot of experience with the engine but I understand it's pretty reliable. I was warned by many people to stay away from the auto trans and I4 engine when I was looking to buy my Jeep. That was easy since I really wanted the manual trans and 6-cyl. engine anyways.


NICE!

My TJ is going to be '05+, I want the 6spd.

What model? X? Sport? what options?

you know the 6spd has a MUCH lower first gear then the old 5spd, but the 5spd OD was actually a bit deeper.

Many people that have '05+ simply start in 2nd since they are shifting outta 1st so early.

the 4.0L I6 is one of THE most reliable, tough, crank it out engines from Mopar... let alone in general.

The ONLY issue with them was mostly on early versions (early 90's) the rear main would leak....THATS IT! :) 150k means nothing to a 4.0 I6.

when you can get the 4.0 I6, I would never consider a 4cylinder... I am tired of autos and wouldn't consider an auto.

Isn't the sheer torque from the thing amazing? any RPM, any speed, any gear, it dosn't care, it'll just keep going. :)

Though, like I said, because it is a glorified tractor engine... you can put all the high flow air filtes, larger throttle bodys, headers and free flowing exhaust on the thing, and it'll do nothing at all. Really, that engine (short of forced induction or stroker kit) is at the limit of its power... not because it can't handle it, much the oppisite... but it was made in the 80's with designs going deep into the 70's and eairler. It is a gas guzzler, even with the Jeep parked and the engine idling the 4.0 I6 uses far more gas then most all V8's do, but the general public dosn't care if it is one of the greatest engines ever made, they want DOHC, smooth, quiet and high gas milage.... so this coming year is the last of the great I6... it'll continue to live on for ever though.

It is simple... without the I6 the Cherokee wouldn't be the truck it is today.... thats another amazing product.....

gosh... I am getting myself even more hyped about my future Jeep purchase :) I can't wait.

Katshot
11-28-05, 02:01 PM
You SHOULD be. I know I was. I talked about getting a Jeep for so long it was getting to be a joke. But then I was kind of hot on getting a Mustang convertible too. I kept going back and forth between the two, it was driving me crazy!:bonkers:
Finally, I just figured I'd get more use out of the Jeep. I have the Caddy for cruisin' and having fun, the Jeep for toying around on the weekends, and my wife's Aviator for commuting to work.
I agree with you about the manual trans. I wouldn't even consider a Jeep with an automatic. When I was looking for the Jeep, I told everyone that my requirements were:
1. Soft top
2. Manual trans
3. 6 cyl engine
From there, the rest was just gravy. I ended up getting the 'X' model with whatever options it could have. As I recall, there weren't many anyways. The stereo was a nice upgrade option though. The base one was kinda wimpy but the optional one w/subwoofer really kicks pretty good! I didn't want the factory Jeep foglights so I got it without. I wanted better lighting than stock anyways. When you get yours, I gotta tell you you'll probably hate the stock lighting. It's REAL weak. The answer is a H4 conversion kit and boy does it work wonders. I also installed Hella Micro DE's in the bumper and Hella 500 fogs on top of the bumep in the factory position. This combination turns night into days and was actually fairly cheap. Here's a link to a picture of the front end so you can see the lighting.
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4549/lights1rz.jpg
And you're absolutely right about the 6-speed, I never use 1st gear. 2nd is plenty low enough for all but the toughest conditions. So do you have any idea about your timeframe for getting your Jeep?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-28-05, 03:59 PM
How does the 4.0 I-6 compare to the 4.9 V8 for low end torque?

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 05:38 PM
You SHOULD be. I know I was. I talked about getting a Jeep for so long it was getting to be a joke. But then I was kind of hot on getting a Mustang convertible too. I kept going back and forth between the two, it was driving me crazy!:bonkers:
Finally, I just figured I'd get more use out of the Jeep. I have the Caddy for cruisin' and having fun, the Jeep for toying around on the weekends, and my wife's Aviator for commuting to work.
I agree with you about the manual trans. I wouldn't even consider a Jeep with an automatic. When I was looking for the Jeep, I told everyone that my requirements were:
1. Soft top
2. Manual trans
3. 6 cyl engine
From there, the rest was just gravy. I ended up getting the 'X' model with whatever options it could have. As I recall, there weren't many anyways. The stereo was a nice upgrade option though. The base one was kinda wimpy but the optional one w/subwoofer really kicks pretty good! I didn't want the factory Jeep foglights so I got it without. I wanted better lighting than stock anyways. When you get yours, I gotta tell you you'll probably hate the stock lighting. It's REAL weak. The answer is a H4 conversion kit and boy does it work wonders. I also installed Hella Micro DE's in the bumper and Hella 500 fogs on top of the bumep in the factory position. This combination turns night into days and was actually fairly cheap. Here's a link to a picture of the front end so you can see the lighting.
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4549/lights1rz.jpg
And you're absolutely right about the 6-speed, I never use 1st gear. 2nd is plenty low enough for all but the toughest conditions. So do you have any idea about your timeframe for getting your Jeep?

The X is basically an SE with the I6.... there is 1 reason why I persoanlly would never consider an X....

the Dana44 rear end is not an option on the SE/X (on Sport it is)

You have the Dana35.... for daily driver use, its ok, but as soon as you start hitting the trails, you'll realize that there isn't much to do with a stock D35, they break pretty easy.... if you keep the Jeep stock, it will be ok, but I wouldn't go any bigger then 32" tires, and even then... that is keeping the throttle light. Take a look at the rear end cover, there is a tag... it'll say what gears you have... pray you have 3.73 and not the 3.07....

Besides the I6/manual/soft top.... the D44 is another "must have" for me...

Yeah, the 7-speaker stereo isn't that bad.. .the little 50-watt sub in the consol helps fill in the lows... add an Infinity Basslink if you want even more bass for cheap and not take up much space.

I personally really ike the stock fog lights, I have heard the headlights are weak... like you said, the H4 conversion, and there are also some HID kits... AKA "booby lights" which I don't like the look at all.

The Jeep is going to be my next vehicle... I decided on that after thinking about it awhile... I was going back and fourth, Eldorado ETC, Seville STS, G6 GTP Coupe (as mentioned in the recent thread) but I am tired of "cars" automatics and luxury options... I want a truck...

I really like trucks, so I decided on a ~2002+ Silverado extended cab, short bed, Z71, 5300 Vortec, green, I really like them... but then as I thought about it, I really didn't have a use for the bed... I really want a manual, and I really want a convertible...

I wasn't even thinking about it, but then it hit me..... JEEP WRANGLER! so I joined a couple Jeep forums and have been reading, reading and more reading about everything I can find on them.

I think I have since changed the Jeep I want though... here is what I *used* to want....

2005 TJ Rocky Mountain Edition, it is an X with extras...such as D44 rear axel (the special editions came with the D44 even tho its an X) body color fender flares, special black/silver two-tone seats with Jeep in the head rests, the center consol was silver also. It has the 7-speaker AM/FM/CD stereo, fog lamps, tow hooks etc... and cool Rocky Mountain Ediiton badges on the side.

Bascially, it is ALL the options I wanted, in a cool package, no longer did I have to worry about finding the perfect Jeep but to find out it has a D35 etc... Also I used to never like he black fender flares, they fade over time (tho it can be fixed) and the RME has the body color flares.... I want Patriot Blue, soft top with factory tinted vinyl windows, cruise control (leather steering wheel package) and AC.

But really, I have been giving more thought to the Rubicon's... I figure if I am going to buy a near new vehicle that I am going to have for a looooong time, may as well go all out... it would be like getting a Corvette Z06 vs base model, or a 2WD pickup etc...

I like the 16" wheels (though I really like the 15" Ravine wheels on the RME) the Rubi has D44 front and rear with 4.11 gears.... which is one of the reasons why I am still considering the Rubicon... the 4.11 are kinda low for daily driver (highway) use... the 3.73 are better... but the 4.11 are perfect for 32/33" tires... so when I go to upgrade, the gears would be there already.

The transfer case if 4:1 vs the stock 2.73:1 (IIRC) which is good for rock crawling... but not so good for higher speed (well, higher for 4lo) use like sand, dirt etc... and of all off-roading things, rock crawling appeals to me the least.... I prefer higher speed type things.... that alone brings a concern being that the short wheel base Jeep is amazing for rock crawling, but because of the short wheel base, it isn't very good for higher speed use... so I'll have to live with it.

the Rubicon is also fully loaded... don't gotta worry about tow hooks or fog lamps not being on it etc... I think cruise and AC are still optional, so it must have both.

Most of all though are the front and rear axel lockers.... I like them alot... and really the D44 and axel locks are stuff that are pretty much needed when you start getting into off-roading, so why spend $1,000's later when I can get it all factory now?

the Rubicon gets 2-3mpg less when compared to a Sport... the gearing, extra weight and tires have a play in that... that was another thing... but ya know, I am not buying a Jeep to worry about gas milage.

So I am still on the fence... *if* I was getting a Rubicon, I may consider an '03/'04 with the 5spd, since it actually has a slightly deeper OD....I dunno, depends on the deal I get.

What it really comes down to is, what is avalible when I am ready to buy... I will not be in a rush, but when a Jeep exactly like I want comes along, and I have the money, I am going to jump on it... so if it is an '05 RME or any year Rubicon.... I like the colors, options etc... I'll take it. While the RME seats are nice, I like the pattern on the Rubicons.

When do I plan on buying? I am *hoping* that in 2 years from now, I'll be driving a Jeep :) I graduate tech school Jan 31st '07, hopefully I'll land a good job making money and I'll be able to afford the payments.... it will have been 4 years by then that I have been driving the same car and havn't got a new vehicle... I think that is long enough, I already have the new car bug...kinda bad... don't worry though, I am never selling the '93 Coupe :)

Compared to, say a 2002 Seville STS (about the same price as a '05 TJ) the Jeep is far slower, hardly near the options, and a dated interior.... but none of that matters to me, really... it just dosn't bother me... plus, my newest interior was designed around 1980, so with the TJ interior designed around 1993, I already moving up a generation :)

I am not really giving any consideration to the '07 Wrangler... for many reasons.... but I am hoping that when it comes out, it'll help drop the price of the TJ.... thats another thing, Rubicon's will hold their value better, since the RME is basically an X (says Wrangler X on the window sticker) I am hoping that according to the blue book, they'll price it going by it being an X, despite all the extras.... so maybe that will help a bit more.

It really dosn't matter tho, everything the Rubi has, can be put on any Jeep... real Jeeps are built, not bought :) and while I will off-road it, it'll be a daily driver for a long time... so the RME may be the better choice over the Rubi for me... like I said, it's all about what is there when I am ready.

BTW, the most basic, cheap and easy first mods people do to the TJ....

2" Rubicon Express Budget Boost... 2" coil spacers, 4 new long-travel shocks and new bump stops... effectively getting a 2" lift and 2" more suspension travel... nothing but great things about it... it is $250 and easy to do yourself... really looks good....

also a 1" Body Lift... about $120 (get a 1" Motor Mount Lift as well) between the 2" BB and the 1" BL (lifted 3" total) not only does the Jeep look so much better, but you can easily fit 33" tires with no rubbing... and 2" BB, 1" BL and 33" tires makes a VERY capable near-stock Jeep.... after that would be to start adding more armor under it :)

Night Wolf
11-28-05, 05:41 PM
How does the 4.0 I-6 compare to the 4.9 V8 for low end torque?

In which aspect?

the 4.9 has more torque... 275ft-lbs vs 235 IIRC of the I6....

but it is hard to compare... the I6 has such a broad torque cruve... IIRC the torque peaks at 4,000RPM, yet 85% of that torque is there at an idle.

the 4.0 I6 can pull and loaf at a low RPM that the 4.9 can't....

then again, it is hard to compare... vehicles are vastly different, gearing, transmissions etc....

I would say for flat out pulling brute force, the 4.0 I6 by far.... but for moving a heavy luxury car around fast.... the 4.9

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-28-05, 06:43 PM
The X is basically an SE with the I6.... there is 1 reason why I persoanlly would never consider an X....

the Dana44 rear end is not an option on the SE/X (on Sport it is)

You have the Dana35.... for daily driver use, its ok, but as soon as you start hitting the trails, you'll realize that there isn't much to do with a stock D35, they break pretty easy.... if you keep the Jeep stock, it will be ok, but I wouldn't go any bigger then 32" tires, and even then... that is keeping the throttle light. Take a look at the rear end cover, there is a tag... it'll say what gears you have... pray you have 3.73 and not the 3.07....

Besides the I6/manual/soft top.... the D44 is another "must have" for me...

Yeah, the 7-speaker stereo isn't that bad.. .the little 50-watt sub in the consol helps fill in the lows... add an Infinity Basslink if you want even more bass for cheap and not take up much space.

I personally really ike the stock fog lights, I have heard the headlights are weak... like you said, the H4 conversion, and there are also some HID kits... AKA "booby lights" which I don't like the look at all.

The Jeep is going to be my next vehicle... I decided on that after thinking about it awhile... I was going back and fourth, Eldorado ETC, Seville STS, G6 GTP Coupe (as mentioned in the recent thread) but I am tired of "cars" automatics and luxury options... I want a truck...

I really like trucks, so I decided on a ~2002+ Silverado extended cab, short bed, Z71, 5300 Vortec, green, I really like them... but then as I thought about it, I really didn't have a use for the bed... I really want a manual, and I really want a convertible...

I wasn't even thinking about it, but then it hit me..... JEEP WRANGLER! so I joined a couple Jeep forums and have been reading, reading and more reading about everything I can find on them.

I think I have since changed the Jeep I want though... here is what I *used* to want....

2005 TJ Rocky Mountain Edition, it is an X with extras...such as D44 rear axel (the special editions came with the D44 even tho its an X) body color fender flares, special black/silver two-tone seats with Jeep in the head rests, the center consol was silver also. It has the 7-speaker AM/FM/CD stereo, fog lamps, tow hooks etc... and cool Rocky Mountain Ediiton badges on the side.

Bascially, it is ALL the options I wanted, in a cool package, no longer did I have to worry about finding the perfect Jeep but to find out it has a D35 etc... Also I used to never like he black fender flares, they fade over time (tho it can be fixed) and the RME has the body color flares.... I want Patriot Blue, soft top with factory tinted vinyl windows, cruise control (leather steering wheel package) and AC.

But really, I have been giving more thought to the Rubicon's... I figure if I am going to buy a near new vehicle that I am going to have for a looooong time, may as well go all out... it would be like getting a Corvette Z06 vs base model, or a 2WD pickup etc...

I like the 16" wheels (though I really like the 15" Ravine wheels on the RME) the Rubi has D44 front and rear with 4.11 gears.... which is one of the reasons why I am still considering the Rubicon... the 4.11 are kinda low for daily driver (highway) use... the 3.73 are better... but the 4.11 are perfect for 32/33" tires... so when I go to upgrade, the gears would be there already.

The transfer case if 4:1 vs the stock 2.73:1 (IIRC) which is good for rock crawling... but not so good for higher speed (well, higher for 4lo) use like sand, dirt etc... and of all off-roading things, rock crawling appeals to me the least.... I prefer higher speed type things.... that alone brings a concern being that the short wheel base Jeep is amazing for rock crawling, but because of the short wheel base, it isn't very good for higher speed use... so I'll have to live with it.

the Rubicon is also fully loaded... don't gotta worry about tow hooks or fog lamps not being on it etc... I think cruise and AC are still optional, so it must have both.

Most of all though are the front and rear axel lockers.... I like them alot... and really the D44 and axel locks are stuff that are pretty much needed when you start getting into off-roading, so why spend $1,000's later when I can get it all factory now?

the Rubicon gets 2-3mpg less when compared to a Sport... the gearing, extra weight and tires have a play in that... that was another thing... but ya know, I am not buying a Jeep to worry about gas milage.

So I am still on the fence... *if* I was getting a Rubicon, I may consider an '03/'04 with the 5spd, since it actually has a slightly deeper OD....I dunno, depends on the deal I get.

What it really comes down to is, what is avalible when I am ready to buy... I will not be in a rush, but when a Jeep exactly like I want comes along, and I have the money, I am going to jump on it... so if it is an '05 RME or any year Rubicon.... I like the colors, options etc... I'll take it. While the RME seats are nice, I like the pattern on the Rubicons.

When do I plan on buying? I am *hoping* that in 2 years from now, I'll be driving a Jeep :) I graduate tech school Jan 31st '07, hopefully I'll land a good job making money and I'll be able to afford the payments.... it will have been 4 years by then that I have been driving the same car and havn't got a new vehicle... I think that is long enough, I already have the new car bug...kinda bad... don't worry though, I am never selling the '93 Coupe :)

Compared to, say a 2002 Seville STS (about the same price as a '05 TJ) the Jeep is far slower, hardly near the options, and a dated interior.... but none of that matters to me, really... it just dosn't bother me... plus, my newest interior was designed around 1980, so with the TJ interior designed around 1993, I already moving up a generation :)

I am not really giving any consideration to the '07 Wrangler... for many reasons.... but I am hoping that when it comes out, it'll help drop the price of the TJ.... thats another thing, Rubicon's will hold their value better, since the RME is basically an X (says Wrangler X on the window sticker) I am hoping that according to the blue book, they'll price it going by it being an X, despite all the extras.... so maybe that will help a bit more.

It really dosn't matter tho, everything the Rubi has, can be put on any Jeep... real Jeeps are built, not bought :) and while I will off-road it, it'll be a daily driver for a long time... so the RME may be the better choice over the Rubi for me... like I said, it's all about what is there when I am ready.

BTW, the most basic, cheap and easy first mods people do to the TJ....

2" Rubicon Express Budget Boost... 2" coil spacers, 4 new long-travel shocks and new bump stops... effectively getting a 2" lift and 2" more suspension travel... nothing but great things about it... it is $250 and easy to do yourself... really looks good....

also a 1" Body Lift... about $120 (get a 1" Motor Mount Lift as well) between the 2" BB and the 1" BL (lifted 3" total) not only does the Jeep look so much better, but you can easily fit 33" tires with no rubbing... and 2" BB, 1" BL and 33" tires makes a VERY capable near-stock Jeep.... after that would be to start adding more armor under it :)

Rick, I think you set a new record for post length! :)

Randy_W
11-28-05, 07:57 PM
I gotta tell you you'll probably hate the stock lighting. It's REAL weak. The answer is a H4 conversion kit and boy does it work wonders. I also installed Hella Micro DE's in the bumper and Hella 500 fogs on top of the bumep in the factory position. This combination turns night into days and was actually fairly cheap.

You're right about factory lighting, my son replaced the bulbs in the fogs and did the H4 conversion. WOW what a difference. I replaced all my bulbs and did the mod to make the low beams stay on when the hi beams are on, on my Tahoe, after I saw what those bulbs did for his Jeep.:thumbsup:

Night Wolf
11-29-05, 07:21 AM
oh yeah, while on the lighting subject.. on the TJ's there is a really simple fix to make the factory fog lights stay on even with high beams...

I know, I know... fog lights plus high beams blah blah.... but it does add more light, and it does look cool :)

If anyone is interested I can dig up the link...

Katshot
11-29-05, 09:54 AM
DAMN! Looks like somebody's been doing a lot of reading on Jeeps! I DO have the 3.73 gears, and yeah, I know the 'X' isn't as hard-core as the Rubicon but I wasn't looking for anything more than a weekend toy and will NEVER be doing any serious off-roading with it. I'm not like those guys out buying a Hummer just to have it as a status symbol. If I bought a Hummer, you better believe I bought it to go off-roading! Same could be said about a Rubicon as far as I'm concerned. Not much better for off-roading but unless you DO intend to do a lot of off-roading, there's a lot of compromises to contend with so it's just not for me.
You've obviously done a lot of homework on the TJ. Not that I know enough about them to say whether what you posted is right or not. Like I said, I love my Jeep and I'm sure you will too. Good luck with it and let me know when you get yours, I'd love to bounce some ideas and thoughts about them off you after you get some seat time in yours.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-29-05, 11:18 AM
I'm not like those guys out buying a Hummer just to have it as a status symbol. If I bought a Hummer, you better believe I bought it to go off-roading!

Thats always good to hear! I hate it when people go out and buy a H2 just because they can afford it, and just to show it off!:mad2:

Katshot
11-29-05, 02:24 PM
Thats always good to hear! I hate it when people go out and buy a H2 just because they can afford it, and just to show it off!:mad2:

Don't you hate that? But in the end they are the real losers since they are driving something that forces them into huge compromises. Yeah morons think it's SO COOL but it rides like crap, handles like crap, is loud on the interior, has no power, is impossible to park, is banned from many normal roads and bridges due to it's size and weight, and gets terrible gas mileage. IMO, the H1 is the only REAL Hummer and Lord knows it has some amazing off-road capabilities but they are NOT great at everything off-road. As for the H2 and H3, they are only posers IMO. Currently used chassis with Hummer sheet metal to make people think they're something more than they really are. Great sales gimmick huh?
No, sorry, I actually laugh when I see people driving Hummers. But like PT Barnum said "there's a sucker born every day".

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-29-05, 04:08 PM
This ties in to your statement about the idiots buying H2's because they're "cool"

GM made a big mistake when they quit producing the B and D bodies for SUVs and Trucks. If they hadn't done that, would there ever be an H2? I wonder.

Night Wolf
11-29-05, 08:39 PM
DAMN! Looks like somebody's been doing a lot of reading on Jeeps! I DO have the 3.73 gears, and yeah, I know the 'X' isn't as hard-core as the Rubicon but I wasn't looking for anything more than a weekend toy and will NEVER be doing any serious off-roading with it. I'm not like those guys out buying a Hummer just to have it as a status symbol. If I bought a Hummer, you better believe I bought it to go off-roading! Same could be said about a Rubicon as far as I'm concerned. Not much better for off-roading but unless you DO intend to do a lot of off-roading, there's a lot of compromises to contend with so it's just not for me.
You've obviously done a lot of homework on the TJ. Not that I know enough about them to say whether what you posted is right or not. Like I said, I love my Jeep and I'm sure you will too. Good luck with it and let me know when you get yours, I'd love to bounce some ideas and thoughts about them off you after you get some seat time in yours.

Yeah, well the X is a new model... mostly an SE, which is stripped down and basic.... but it has the I6...the X is lower then the Sport. The X is a perferred model for the hardcore folks because they end up replacing everything, so they used to buy stripped down SE's... but then either have to deal with the ho-hum 4banger, OR end up doing an engine swap later on... so the X gets rid of that problem all together by slapping the I6 in there... but you still have the D35 issue that most take care of anyway....

Yeah, the X is not a Rubicon... but hell, even the most basic, stock SE TJ will/can go places 95%+ that other vehicles on the road simply can not... and when hitting the trails in 4LO, it really dosn't that TAKE much power to keep you going and be happy...

I was simply saying, the X does not have the D44 option (the Sport does) and not only for off-road, but the D44 is pretty much needed.... there are lots of stories of the D35 breaking from simply accelerating hard, doing a burnout or banging thru the gears... yeah, I know it's a Jeep etc... but knowing me, I am going to drive it hard at times, just as I do my Cadillac... and I am not going to want to worry about snapping my rear diff because I did a burn out :)

The axel shafts get smaller as they get closer to the pumpkin, they snap right at that point, which means if you keep driving, the whole wheel/tire, hub and whats left of the axel will literaly walk right out of the housing... not good.... and when in the middle of no where with no spare parts.... very bad... I have heard and seen stories/pics of people doing some crazy things when the D35 broke on the trails... you can still drive the Jeep in 4wd... but you need to get crafty to keep that tire from simply falling out... it isn't a good thing....

Although the D35 isn't an egg... lots of people like them, and wheel for years with them never breaking anything... NEVER lock a stock D35.. don't do bigger then a 32" tire and most of all, stay off the throttle... and you'll be ok. There is a Super35 kit to make the D35 *almost* as strong as the D44... but for the kit or a D44 swap on a TJ you are looking at $1,000-$2,000 when said and done (how cheap you can find it, misc parts etc...) personally, I don't want to spend that or bother with the hassle of swapping, which is why I want to find a Jeep with the D44 option.... so X is out for me, but the RME (glorified X) has it standard, so it takes the guess work out.. Rubicon has D44 standard front and rear, even better.

everything but the Rubicon has the D30 in the front, weaker then the D35, but hardly ever an issue even on nicely built rigs, simply because when in 2wd, there is no stress on it, and even when in 4wd, the rear wheels do most of the work, so the D30 is nothing to worry about, even locked with big tires.

Yeah, I am really hooked... Once I test drove that '03 5spd, nearly everything I would want... it made it worse.. it was an 8mile test drive, but damn did I like it.... all I can do now is do good in school so I land a good job, and maybe try to save up a bit for more of a down payment... but I WILL have it, just a matter of time :)

Night Wolf
11-29-05, 08:40 PM
Tahoe Z71 is just as cabable off road as Hummer H2 is, and almost $20,000 cheaper.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-29-05, 09:15 PM
It's just like the people that say their Pontiac Grand Prix can handle better than the Buick Regal GS just because it has the "widetrack" design.

It's marketing at its best!

Night Wolf
11-29-05, 10:19 PM
It's just like the people that say their Pontiac Grand Prix can handle better than the Buick Regal GS just because it has the "widetrack" design.

It's marketing at its best!

Yeah, the '97+ GP is no wider then a Regal at all...

in fact the Regal in some casses handles better then the GP, because the Regal has a facotry strut bar... it was kindly left out on the GP.....

my father bought a strut bar speced for a Regal, drilled some holes and slapped it on...