[DMCForum] Re: Jeep Inline 6 (Robert)

["therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@xxxxxxx>]

Check out this link right here:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=46011

It does indeed reflect that the I-6 had it's block redesigned the 
strengthen itself. It might be the same engine in overall desgin and 
function, but the block is indeed different.

No, Chrysler never moved the injectors into the heads. The injectors 
have always remained in the manifolds. Same with my '98 4.0 Wrangler, 
my '96 2.5 Dakota (only year for 1st gen truck, with Jeep engine), 
and even the 2004 Rubicon: http://tinyurl.com/8v6ne

As for the new 3.7L V-6, I've not heard good reviews of it either, 
let alone the new 4-speed automatic on the Wranglers. The same 
transmission used on the Chrysler LH cars. One review said that with 
the the Jeep in 4-L, and the tranny in 2nd gear, they could crank the 
engine to over 2K RPMs, and the tires wouldn't spin. One interesting 
tid bit I have heard, is that DCX is increasing the displacement of 
the 3.7 to 4.0. They're worried that since the displacement of the 
engine is decreasing, many regular consumers may think that the 2006 
Jeeps will be *underpowered* when compared to their previous 
counterparts.

A big hope is that if DCX takes away that I-6 Powertech, maybe 
they'll compromise with an I-5 or so diesel engine! I would certainly 
be willing to buy that (used of course).

-Robert



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "content22207" <brobertson@xxxx> 
wrote:
> According to online Jeep forums, you're off by 3 years (1999). They
> also claim the only changes were on the topside (intake manifold,
> head, and fuel delivery). This may be when fuel injection moved into
> the head -- I had heard that Chrysler fuel injected the 258 in the
> head, but when I looked at a mid 90's Jeep at a shop once the
> injectors were clearly in the intake.  I couldn't find a single
> reference of anything changing inside the engine. In fact, the Jeep
> boys are rather emphatic that the "redesigned" 4.0 "Power Tech" is
> pretty much the same 4.0 and that moniker more properly belongs to 
a 
> totally new 3.7 liter V6 (which doesn't get good reviews BTW).
> 
> Bill Robertson
> #5939
> 
> >--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@xxxx> 
wrote:
> > If you're talking about the straight six, it is NOT the same 
motor. 
> > 1996 was the final year for the AMC design. The block itself was 
> > completely redesigned, is much stronger structurally, and has 
better 
> > vibration dampening, although the heads are interchangable.
> > 
> > It's a damn fine engine, that's pretty easy to work on, and 
straight 
> > forward. The old Magnum 2.5 that they canceled was literally the 
same 
> > engine, with 2 cylinders lopped off. I have that one in my 
Dakota. 
> > Everything is in reach, and is easily accessable.
> > 
> > If I end up keeping my truck, a swap over to an I-6, with a 6-
speed 
> > gearbox is definetly a long-term goal. An engine swap on a truck 
I 
> > already like is a far cheaper alternative than buying a new pick-
up.
> > 
> > -Robert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "content22207" <brobertson@xxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > > That's because it is the old AMC 232/258. One of the single best
> > > engines ever built. In a fit of genius Chrysler threw away 
their 225
> > > when Lee Iacoca reinvented the company. We all know the sad 
story of
> > > its aluminum replacement (that's the reason Chrysler resorted 
to the
> > > PRV in the LH platform, which was designed by former AMC people 
> > BTW).
> > > When Chrysler bought AMC they were smart enough to drop fuel 
> > injection
> > > on the 258 and keep using it all the way until 2004.
> > > 
> > > You can't kill a 232/258. I don't think you could even hurt it
> > > intentionally. The things are truly indestructible.
> > > 
> > > Do you realize the engine in your 1998 Jeep is a 1964 design? 
Fuel
> > > injection is of course late model, but that's in the intake 
manifold
> > > only. Rest of the block is pure vintage quality design. It's 
also a
> > > torque monster -- something like 215 lbs at no more than 1,800 
RPM.
> > > 
> > > Bill Robertson
> > > #5939
> > > 
> > > >--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DMC Erik <dmcerik@xxxx> wrote:
> > > > A quick chime in on the Jeep mention.  My parents bought a 
new 
> > Jeep
> > > Cherokee in 1998.  Its the biggest work horse I've seen!  That 
I-6 
> > has
> > > hauled more deloreans across country...hauled more (fill in the 
> > blank)
> > > on our flatbed trailer than I can remember.  The thing even 
hauled 
> > the
> > > original D-rex from Texas to Chicago through the mountains.  
Sure, 
> > we
> > > weren't going 80MPH through the mountains, but a nice steady 
55mph 
> > got
> > > us there and back with no issues.  When my dad found out they 
were
> > > cancelling the Cherokee he shook his head in disbelief.
> > > > 160K miles later the 1998 Cherokee is still going along, as 
good 
> > as
> > > it was when it was new.
> > > >  
> > > > erik
> > > > 4512
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Once upon a time before the Cherokee got canceled (and now 
> > brought 
> > > > back), the I-6 engine was able to fit in both the Cherokee, 
and 
> > the 
> > > > Wrangler. And even the Commanche pick-up truck once upon a 
time 
> > ago. 
> > > > It's a great engine, but what else could you shove it into 
> > because of 
> > > > it's length? So when the time comes to retool, it gets dumped 
in 
> > > > favor of more compact engines that are used on multiple 
> > platforms. 
> > > > And many Jeep owners (including myself) are not happy about 
the 
> > > > demise of such a rugged, reliable engine. But Jeeps keep 
selling, 
> > so 
> > > > it's not a loss of profit motivation from consumer input. 
It's 
> > just 
> > > > what's cheaper in the long run, despite customer loyalty in 
many 
> > > > cases. Kinda like the F-body too...
> > > > 
> > > >             
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >  Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> > > > 
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "DMCForum" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---