[DMCForum] Re: Jeep Inline 6 (Robert)

["content22207" <brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am having a hard time finding the Jeep forum I read yesterday (I'll
keep searching) but until then here are a couple consumer articles
that mention the Power Tech I-6 "redesign" in 1999:

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=2590959
http://www.cartrackers.com/am/showarticle.php?id=6213
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?modelid=3178&src="">
http://www.autointell.net/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/jeep/jeep-cherokee/jeep-cherokee-01.htm

Of course three years doesn't make any real difference. The 232/258
(which AMC ultimately pegged at 4.2 liters -- where did Chrysler's
missing .2 liters go?) was one helluva design with one helluva
production run. I shudder to think how many millions were
manufactured, and how many remain in reliable daily service. 

*MY* AMC, on the other hand, languishes behind a GM 151 (not even the
proper truncated 2.5). My parents were too wierded out by the second
gas crisis to splurge on a 6 cylinder. I've passed through 2 other
AMC's on my perennial quest for a 258, and yet only the underpowered
little Green Car remains...

Bill Robertson
#5939

>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@xxxx> wrote:
> 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.

---