How about your opinions.

If they are 4WD then I'd choose the 92. Before that they were still AMC (not necessarily bad) and they did not keep the front driveshaft spinning while the vehicle was in 2WD. IMO that's just asking for trouble being that it's more complex of a design. My '92 has the front driveshaft always spinning, and it's ready to shift right in to 4WD without having to wait for the synchro to get the front shaft up to speed. Makes for a long lived 4X4 system that hardly ever has any trouble.

As for the engines, both are ok. The 4 cylinder will be easier to rebuild (well.. it does have 2 fewer cylinders). But the 4.0 is tough and long lived (can't speak for the 4 banger). They generally last more than 200 thousand miles with regular oil changes. The 4 cylinder will have lower gears, I believe. Better for off-roading (so I've heard). I have never had gear ratio problems with my 4.0's setup.

I would choose the 4.0 over the 2.5 although the 5 speed would make it hard.... The Jeep auto transmissions are very tough. Both from what I've read and what I've experienced.

I don't know about the 2.5's common problems, but the 4.0 commonly has a valve cover leak, rear main seal leak, and problems with cracking that big ol' exhaust manifold. Mine has a slight rear main leak, and I fixed the valve cover with some rtv silicone. But she's tough as nails and a blast to drive. It's faster than most people expect.

Go for the 4.0 all else being equal. The auto is veryy good and that engine is barely broken in if it has been given minimal care.

The 4.0 can crawl all day at low rpm and yet cruise on the highway at any speed she should ever be driving in a short wheelbase Jeep plus a bit more. Far more relaxed power train than buzzing along a highway with the 4 banger like an old british "beginner" sports car.

Try driving both at 65-70 and see the difference as the 4.0 just lopes along and the 2.5 buzzes its brains out.

Easily fixed aftermarket.

The 4.0 is much nicer driving as you charge up the battery and make sure the gas stays fresh. This works best if you drive it every day and give it a good run every now and then. >:-)

In an aero body the 4.0 can get just over 20 with 3.73 rear gears, dunno about the more bricklike SWB Jeep. The lockup torque convertor in that auto really helps keep the engine nice and relaxed at sane highway speeds.

The 4.0 has all sorts of rebuild stuff available including the ability to get really nutso and stroke it to 4.5 to 4.9 and/or turbo it for dealing with riced out shitboxes.

Once you start driving that Jeep around town I bet you will find you get to like the Jeep, nothing like a Jeep in a crowded parking lot when your fighting for a spot.

Here is an example of half doors as for the rest of your questions I will leave that to the experts. BTW that isn't an example of the top you will be getting it is just an example of a half door.

Here is a Bikini top >>>

Knowing the younger generation she would be happier with the 92 and the soft top assuming you don't live in the great white north like I do, I have a hard top for the winter and a 1/2 top for the summer.

My half top >>>

On 15 Dec 2003 02:08 PM, J posted the following:

Buy the one with the 4.0L.

---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:

Turbo it?`I saw a turbo kit on ebay for about $100,I liked the idea but couldn't figure if he was just selling a universal fit kit.No resp.from inq. It looked good in pic,in Jeep but....Does it just slip in the air intake tube(like K&N?) -Anyone done this? Work well?

-Hank.

I know a few folks with the auto and 4.0 setup and they seem to work very well.

The 4.0 engine is a very easy one to rebuild or refresh with new bottom end bearings. I have helped 2 folks from this newsgroup refresh their engines. Both had very good compression but lost it on the bottom ends. One was put together wrong by a 'rebuilder' and the other lost all the oil on the highway. (with a broke oil pressure gauge)

Both got a remanned crank and new bearings, new timing chain and gears, new seals and both are still running very strong a couple/few years later.

The auto seems 'sluggish' compared to the 5 speed, but that is deceiving. When the auto owners drove in my 5 speed they went wow, it's so much faster than my auto. Then we drove side by side and they both accelerate almost identically up to 70 mph once moving past 10 mph. (1st gear in the 5 sp)

The 4.0 is a much better engine for the highway and it is nice to have that extra punch if needed off road.

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

J wrote:

L.W. (ßill) Hughes III did pass the time by typing:

That's a supercharger. :) But it's a vane type that will generate lots of excess heat.

This is a turbocharger.

Ok.. first off, if your asking a question like that you need to do a lot more research or your going to get screwed.

read

Then do a bit of googling, check my writeup for the Hesco SC. check out , yes, they go for 4K now. For that price you might be better doing the simple things first.

Like a bored out throttle body, headers, and cat-back. Skip the air swirrly things, Tornado and ilk. they are all garbage.

Thank for the clarification. :-)

Hah! Riced out shitboxes. :-D

And 4.0 turbo? Now THAT sounds like fun. Bored out to 4.9 and turbo? Damn, I didn't think they were that tough!

I think my 4.0 (in my Cherokee) is the toughest 6 cylinder I've ever owned. It's fun to drive naturally aspirated. I can't imagine what it's like with a boost. Plenty of room for a turbo.... and the manifolds are on the same side of the engine....

But $3,000? Guess it'll have to wait until I'm rich(er).

Doug has one if memory serves. Dunno if it was stroked and blown or just blown.

Lotsa daydream info at Clifford and Hesco

or

Follow my investment strategy, invest in lottery futures.

If you are only going to buy one of them then you should get the 92''. But you should really buy the 4 cyl. 91'' for the granddaughter.. And then buy the 92'' 4.0 6 cyl for your self. You do know if you go out and test drive one your going to want it... You'll be hooked !!! It will be all over, but the crying... L.O.L It's called a Jeep thing.

Jimmie; 86'' CJ-7 Jeep's Rule... A proud member of the Iowa Mud Slingers

4x4 Club

L.W. (ßill) Hughes III did pass the time by typing:

Now that is a "historic" piece of hardware.

Just goes to show some of the kiddos that not all the black magic isn't as new as it appears. :)

Here is a real good blower mod... (put down the coffee)

Man, the weirdness that's out there never ceases to astound me.

Hey Bill I used to own one too. Mine was white, with the 312ci engine and Paxton belt driven supercharger. I bought it off my future brother-in-law in

1962 right after I went into the Marines. I drag raced it in "Ultra Stock" class for three years, and won a lot more times than I lost. But no one has told as big a lie as Ford about the supercharged 57's. They said the 312 ci engine only produced 300 hp. From 65mph to 130mph it was the fastest accelerating stock street car I ever drove. The engine had so much torque that when shifting from 2d gear to high (3rd) gear you could spin the tires and burn all the rubber off the wheels if you didn't ease off slightly. (In those years you had to run street tires, no slicks allowed in the stock classes.) A Jeep 4.0 with a belt drive charger should be a killer. Better performance than a turbo I would think..

I already though about this suggestion. I already have a 1980 GMC 4X4 Pick-up, and the ultimate tow car a 1978 Pontiac Bonneville with its 400 ci engine bored and stroked to 460 chi but it is Christmas and no one deserves a present more than I do. But last week I was driving my wife's Cadillac on an errand when someone crossed five lanes of traffic and hit me. I found out today its totaled, so I have to shop for a new car for her also.

I am going with everyone advice and getting the '92 4.0L.

Thanks everyone.

Jim

LOL. Some people have way too much time on their hands.