What's new
By:
Filters

Wrangler 392

I'd love to have one. Except for the stupid price tag that'll go with it. ... Oh well.... Don't care what the MSRP is, I'm betting the dealers get 100K for the first year.
 
TreeClimber said:
I'd love to have one. Except for the stupid price tag that'll go with it. ... Oh well.... Don't care what the MSRP is, I'm betting the dealers get 100K for the first year.
Click to expand...

local dealer sold the TRX RAM for upwards of $140k, according to one of the managers... crazy.
 
Ebs said:
4-door only :rainbow:
Click to expand...

Years ago, I got to wheel with some Chrysler engineers on a developmental trip. The JK was recent, and the subject of a V8 was talked about. The engineers had no problem installing the engine, but making it meet/exceed crash safety standards was the issue. The engine was simply too bulky, and took up too much room, for the frame/body to absorb impact without pushing that 'block' of metal into the passenger space. Not sure how they're accomplishing it now, but I can certainly see that the longer wheelbase would create better handling characteristics than the short wheelbase, and crash testing, handling characteristics, NVH, and a whole host of considerations come into play when selecting what configuration gets the HP.
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Wake me up when they put 60's under it to handle the power they put in it..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This was my wonder as well. I get leaving the Front 44, but the rear 44 seems to me would be a big issue. are the JL D44s different than the JKs?
 
Toreadorranger said:
This was my wonder as well. I get leaving the Front 44, but the rear 44 seems to me would be a big issue. are the JL D44s different than the JKs?
Click to expand...

Slushbox with torque management. You've eliminated any sudden or harsh shock to the drivetrain.
 
BUCKLAND said:
Quick search says 1979 CJ 7. 125 hp:lmao:
I’ve got a 78 in the yard that I sold the 304 out of.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm out of line, but how does a V8 only make 125hp? My Samurai was 1300cc and made 40....ish. :laughing:
 
TreeClimber said:
Years ago, I got to wheel with some Chrysler engineers on a developmental trip. The JK was recent, and the subject of a V8 was talked about. The engineers had no problem installing the engine, but making it meet/exceed crash safety standards was the issue. The engine was simply too bulky, and took up too much room, for the frame/body to absorb impact without pushing that 'block' of metal into the passenger space. Not sure how they're accomplishing it now, but I can certainly see that the longer wheelbase would create better handling characteristics than the short wheelbase, and crash testing, handling characteristics, NVH, and a whole host of considerations come into play when selecting what configuration gets the HP.
Click to expand...


This doesn't make sense to me because they've been putting V8s in Grand Cherokee for years. Is the GC any larger than the TJ/JK/JL?
 
Raygoddamn said:
This doesn't make sense to me because they've been putting V8s in Grand Cherokee for years. Is the GC any larger than the TJ/JK/JL?
Click to expand...

crash standards have changed quite a bit since then, and IIRC, the JK/JL engine bay is a bit smaller(?)
 
YotaAtieToo said:
1979 :flipoff2:​​​​​​

Fuck I think the tbi 454 was only like 170 :laughing:

Just gots those torques
Click to expand...

1989 C3500 trucks were fitted with either a 6.2-liter engine or a 7.4-liter engine. The 6.2-liter engine produced 143 horsepower and 257 ft-lbs. of torque. The 7.4-liter engine offered 230 horsepower and 385 ft-lbs. of torque.:flipoff2:
 
Ya'll drove some bulldozers. :laughing:
 
woods said:
Perhaps I'm out of line, but how does a V8 only make 125hp? My Samurai was 1300cc and made 40....ish. :laughing:
Click to expand...

After the fuel embargo, engines were derated for fuel consumption reasons.
20 years ago pickup trucks were good cresting north of 500 ft/lb torque, now they are over 1000.
 
woods said:
Perhaps I'm out of line, but how does a V8 only make 125hp? My Samurai was 1300cc and made 40....ish. :laughing:
Click to expand...

The 1973 427 tall deck in my dump truck is rated at an earth shattering 220HP.
 
larboc said:
The 1973 427 tall deck in my dump truck is rated at an earth shattering 220HP.
Click to expand...

Almost seems like its physically impossible. You would think with the amount of displacement, it'd be almost natural to get those numbers higher.

Never really sat down and looked at old school numbers. heh
 
Raygoddamn said:
This doesn't make sense to me because they've been putting V8s in Grand Cherokee for years. Is the GC any larger than the TJ/JK/JL?
Click to expand...

GC was unibody, and designed to crumple differently. The JK (and now JL) are full frame, and crash differently. (I assume) it's easier to crumple the sheet metal unibody design. But who the fuck knows.... I am just relaying the reason (or excuse) I was given at the time. (and fwiw, I was expecting a reasoning of fuel economy standards, or, some such crap)
 
woods said:
Almost seems like its physically impossible. You would think with the amount of displacement, it'd be almost natural to get those numbers higher.

Never really sat down and looked at old school numbers. heh
Click to expand...

How they measured rated HP also changed in the early 70s which is why there was a huge drop around that time in advertised power numbers as well.
 
I’m sure it’s only available in the four door to appease the lawyers. That would have been a lot of power for a 100” wheelbase.
 
Toreadorranger said:
How they measured rated HP also changed in the early 70s which is why there was a huge drop around that time in advertised power numbers as well.
Click to expand...

HP was a bare engine at the flywheel before 1974-1975, then they started measuring it with a full exhaust and with accessories on the motor. They still do it that way today which shows how much power has increased over the years. Then again, shit is heavier these days too. A 3/4 ton then was maybe just over 5000lbs instead of 7000 like now with all the extra wiring safety shit, glass, etc.
 
woods said:
Almost seems like its physically impossible. You would think with the amount of displacement, it'd be almost natural to get those numbers higher.

Never really sat down and looked at old school numbers. heh
Click to expand...
medium duty stuff is its own animal, they put on a tiny carburetor so that you couldn't rev it to the moon

sometimes they had a separate butterfly in underneath the throttle that had a flyweight governor hooked up to it, but the cheaper solution was just a tiny carb on a small to moderately sized big block
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh