4.0L vs. 3.7L

I think it is getting a 3.8 v6 - not the 3.7 v6 in the Liberty.

3.8 L engine

The HP difference is minimal along with the torque, the big difference is the 4.0L develops it's torque at a much lower RPM there fore it is better suited for off road and has been time tested. Only time will tell.

Coasty

3.8 L engine

The HP difference is minimal along with the torque, the big difference is the 4.0L develops it's torque at a much lower RPM there fore it is better suited for off road and has been time tested. Only time will tell.

Coasty

It's gone because the molds were old and needed to be redone, and the narrow minded DC bureaucrats want to get rid of anything having to do with AMC.

Jeff DeWitt

philthy wrote:

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If Chrysler wanted to kill that engine because it's an AMC engine, they would have done it nineteen years ago. Ditto when Daimler came into the picture.

The casting molds and machine tools to produce the engine have been retooled many times since 1987, D-C even redesigned the manifolds in 2000.

More likely it's because now NO OTHER VEHICLE in the DC lineup uses that engine except TJ, which makes it cost ineffective to continue producing it, unless you want the Wrangler to be a low-volume high-dollar specialty vehicle like the Viper. How many automakers make one specific engine for only one high-volume model? Like it or not, the company has to run its business like a business. Get over it.

There is a phenomena called "core shift" that effects the kinds of molds they use to make engine blocks, and as the molds age the shift gets worse and eventually they have to be remade, which is a rather expensive proposition.

It's relatively easy to redesign things like manifolds, that's why it's easy to get manifolds from after market companies like Edelbrock, nuts I can even get after market manifolds for a Studebaker V8.

There are some other problems with that engine too, as it's design doesn't lend itself to an easy conversion to a multi valve head, and that makes meeting fuel economy and emissions standards more difficult.

The fact that no other vehicle in the DC lineup uses the engine isn't so much a reflection on the engine as it is on DC's determination to kill it.

The 4.0 could have been (should have been) reworked and kept in production if DC had wanted to, they just didn't want to.

Yes, I got in a gratuitous dig at the DC bureaucrats, but these are the same idiots who crushed all the NOS AMC parts after taking over AMC and then let themselves be sold to Damlier, so they are not exactly worthy of respect.

Jeff DeWitt

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

Funny, I had a 93 XJ that had parts all over it with the AMC logo on it. Apparently all the NOS AMC parts weren't crushed.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

See what you wrote above. Why would they kill it if there is almost no R&D investment to make up, and why invest in new R&D when you have several new engines that already meet the necessary standards? You think it's a personal decision on the part of DC, but it's a business decision, the details of which the average you and me are usually not privy to.

Because.....(see above).

Am I sad the I-6 is dead? Sure. Do I understand why? Of course. Let's be honest, most Jeep customers don't give a shit whether the Wrangler engine is an I-6, a V-6 or a radial.

When Chrysler took over AMC they issued an order to all the dealers to return any AMC parts they had. Those parts were then crushed, no doubt there was some business reason for it (probably a tax reason), but it was still a really bad decision.

I don't imagine the order applied to Jeep parts, but if you need a NOS taillight lens for a 74 Gremlin forget it.

Jeff DeWitt

The alternatives are just regular old boring V6's, pretty much minivan engines, and for a real Jeep they just aren't as good. There were two big reasons why I bought the Jeep I bought, first it was a small station wagon, which is a REALLY handy design and what I needed for work at the time, the second was that wonderful six cylinder engine. When I was looking at this Jeep there was another one sitting on the lot right next to it. Virtually the same, same options, same price, just two differences, the other one was new, and it had the four.

I didn't have to think twice.

I understand WHY DC made the choice they did, I just happen to think it was a wrong choice (and wrong choices aren't exactly an alien concept to DC!). You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly a small percentage that DOES care... hmm, a radial, now THAT would be cool!

Jeff DeWitt

Heck the 3.7 is only having till 2011 run. Then it's days are numbered. I'm hoping it will go with a head improvement. With the overhead cam engineering there should be little trouble in adding a extra valve (s). Man I love to see a quad valve design on the reving engine. The complete lower end would need no change what so ever, just beef the chain and sprocket to the valve train.

Jeff,

I suspect that this decision has more to do with economy of production, than any antipathy that might exist towards the inline six or its fans. And where were you when they eliminated the inline four? ;^)

Earle

Although "not a real Jeep" the WW2 Sherman Tank was equipped with several radial engines. One was even a diesel.

But, do you think DC would even consider it? After all they have a selection of Panzer engines to choose from. :-)

Never been a fan of fours, inline or otherwise, however a straight eight is pretty cool

Jeff DeWitt

Earle Hort> Jeff,

Many CJ's were equipped with Buick V6's way before minivans were around.

You may be right about most Jeep customers, but it's not exactly

All Joe Q. Public cares about is eight cylinders are "better" than six. Who cares how the cylinders are arranged?

Yep, and it was replaced with the straight six for good reason... well two good reasons, one being that GM bought the V6 back.

People who known anything about engines.

Jeff DeWitt

If everyone why buys cars knows anything about engines, the Liberty would sell about 500 units a year. Unfortunately most people buy cars don't necessarily buy them for what engine it has, unless there is a specific need (towing, high-speed performance, etc). For the vast majority of people, whether or not car has seat heaters, 20" factory rims and a DVD player for the brats is more important than the cylinder arrangement. Sad but true.

Sad but true.

Jeff DeWitt

Matt Macchiarolo wrote: