Ok, I got an idea. Let's design our own TJ replacement! Everyone toss in their ideas anmd let's see what we come up with. Here's my thoughts to begin:
Styling to reflect traditional Jeep themes, grille, fenders, etc. Two basic models, short & long wheelbase. 4cyl, 6cyl & V8 options. Solid axles front & rear, Dana 44 rear axle standard, no D35 option (kill the curse). Expand on current coil over design w/ refinements.
Four basic trim levels on SWB, two on LWB.
SWB: Base model (bare bones), rubber floor mats, minimal trim, however available with all upgraded powertrain options incl. 4:1 xfer case, D44 front axle, V8, etc. (This one would be great for builders.) Sport & Shara as current. Rubicon High Performance model (same as current), to incl. V8 option w D60 rear axle upgrade.
OK, since I like engines, I'll start there. Not sure if a V6 or inline 6 would fit the bill better, but I would like to see an engine with a lot of grunt. Something in the high 4 to low 5 litre range with a long stroke, high flowing heads, tubular exhaust manifolds (headers) that don't crack. This would be the standard engine. There should be 2 V8 options including the 5.7 Hemi. The other one could be a bit more docile and fuel efficient.
Transmissions - 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto with overdrive. Even a 6 speed with the Hemi would be really cool, but I think the length might be a problem there. In any event, the trans should have a low first gear (at least 3:1).
I like the idea of D44's as standard axles with a D60 upgrade. Both should be available with multiple ratios. I also like the 4:1 transfer case. the axles should be available with some type of locker that can be controlled from the dash (electric or air), 4 wheel disc brakes with anti-lock that can be disabled for serious off roading.
Long travel coil-over shock suspension using a triangulated 3 link setup with adjustable shocks. If this was done right, the stock Jeep could be supplied with 30 or 31" tires, and be capable of 33s or "maybe" 35s with just a spring change. The aftermarket does this, so the factory should be able to without a problem. I'm sure this won't happen, but it should keep the Wrangler as one of the top factory off road vehicles.
An option that may be neat would be onboard GPS, but I think most people have a handheld so they can switch vehicles and take the GPS with them. A factory spare tire rack that will hold a 35" tire would be nice too.
In all seriousness, this thread brings up an interesting point. Years ago, the auto makers used to listen to feedback from the public as to what they wanted their vehicles to be equipped with. The was very obvious in the muscle car days, when people were buying the cars that were winning on the drag strip and in NASCAR. These days we get more options that are made for soccer moms then we do for functionality. Does a 4x4 really need a built in DVD player in the back seat, or an in dash camera to use for backing up without hitting something? I guess my point is that if you can't back up a vehicle without an in dash camera to show you the way, then get the hell off the road.
I know some of these ideas may seem far fetched, but there would be a lot of people willing to pay a bit more for something like this because it would save them modifying the vehicle later on. Most companies offer option packages for some of their vehicles. I guess this would be something like the Rubicon package for the Wrangler. It would be a good chance for DC to set the standard in off road vehicles if they wanted to. It would also keep the Jeep off road standards a cut above the rest.
I can't speak for the capabilities of the Rubi, but judging by the feedback I have heard here and elsewhere, it seems to be quite capable off-road. I guess I was just using that as an example for a "package" type option. I was also building the Jeep I wanted, LOL. I would lve to see the leaf spring Jeeps come back (i.e. CJ, YJ), but that is not going to happen. Leaf springs are functional and simple, and don't require track locators, sway bars, etc. Ford and Chevy have both done the retro car thing this year, so why not Jeep? Good idea Bill.
Well, they just built the Rubicon. If it's so wonderful then why change it so fast?
I think simplicity is elegance. So keep it simple. Why not take a CJ as a base model and beef it up with axles, lockers, on board air, currie twin sticks, autometer gauges, 4" lift, 33" tires, engine/transmission of choice, etc, etc, etc.
It'll never happen which is why the after market for jeeps will get better and better. Probably the only way we'll have what we want in the future is by mail order kit.
I guess it also comes down to the saying "Real Jeeps are Built, Not Bought". If we weren't strung out all over the U.S and Canada we could pool together and build our own aftermarket company.
Hey, I can be the company tester. Ha ha.... If it stays together when I get near it it will sail over the Rubicon. LOL.
Anyhoo, what are some examples of a High Liter, Long Stroke engines?
Unfortunately, there aren't many of these anymore. I believe the reason is that the engines have become narrower in the crankcase area in order to fit the new car designs. The inline 6 lends itself perfectly to a long stroke, and it is no surprise that most of the long stroke, smaller bore engines have been inlune 6's. The old slant six Mopars, the Chevy 292 I6 and the Ford 300-I6 are all good examples. You'll notice that most of the newer engines, especially V6's, have their torque peak at a much higher RPM than the older engines. For some reason, Chrysler has mostly had relatively short stroke, big bore engines over the years. For instance, the 400 Big Block Mopar has a shorter stroke than a 350 Chevy, but has a bigger bore than a
454 Chevy. You obviously don't want the bore to be so small that the valve sizes need to be compromised.
I guess my "ideal V6 or I6 engine would have about a 3.75" stroke and 4" bore with a connecting rod about 6" long to reduce piston thrust on the cylinders. The long rod combined with the long stroke is a good part of the reason why the Chrysler slant 6 and the AMC 258 last so long. A short connecting rod puts more side thrust loads on the piston which will accelerate bore and ring wear. The rod length to stroke ratio is how these numbers are usually presented. A good example of a bad design would be the
400 Chevy small block. GM basically took the 350 block and overbored it .125" (new casting with siamesed cylinders), added .270" to the stroke, but made the rod .135" shorter. These engines were notorious for wearing out cylinders and smoking oil because of poor ring seal.
I would then like a cylinder head very similar to the Chevy small block Vortec head which makes good power from idle on up. About the closest V6 out there is the 4.3 Chevy, but "my engine" would have a longer stroke and longer rod. The problem with my idea is that it would require an engine slightly wider than the 4.3 to accomodate the longer stroke and rod. It wouldn't need to be much, and in fact this engine could be built using the current 4.3 block, but would require very short pistons (only 1.125" from the pin centerline to the top of the piston). There are off the shelf aftermarket pistons that fit this design however. This bore and stroke would be very close to the 4.0 stroker using the 258 crank, but would have a .125" larger bore.
Actually the V6 predated the I6 in Jeeps, so reverting back to one would still be in keeping with the "Real Jeep" tradition. Making one with the appropriate low rpm torque peak, now that would be DCs challenge. Who needs a Jeep with a 7500 rpm redline?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.