J8 hits production ? - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Future Models & Prototype Discussion > J8 hits production ?

SPARTAN LOCKERS are on sale BIG TIME at ROCKRIDGE 4WD!ROCKRIDGE4WD Introduces a NEW Jeep Wrangler JK *led* tail ANOTHER Rockridge4wd Creation!! Spare Tire Carrier Delete

Reply
Unread 07-28-2010, 10:39 AM   #16
RockRodHooligan
Web Wheeler
 
RockRodHooligan's Avatar
1996 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Noblesville, Indiana
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlerace View Post
Stop being a child.

What, 15% of those vehicles are still actual stock parts. If you want to argue, fine. But atleast bring a valid argument.
And how many parts on a J8 are actually "stock" on a JK? Different axles, brakes, rear suspension, engine, trans, frame, tub...... The J8 wasn't built to race, it was built as a utility vehicle for the military.

You first said Jeeps aren't supposed to be raced, I responded with Jeepspeed. You said JKs "would be one of the worst possible set-ups for it", you want to argue it, then tell me why?

__________________
96 XJ:Parking lot Pre-Runner

89 MJ: Project: Ground up - Sold
01 XJ: Project: Silverback - Totaled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex View Post
Penis inches...
Good god man. Indyorv :rofl: d**k and fart jokes. :rofl:
RockRodHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 10:59 AM   #17
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Okay, since y'all don't seem to comprehend the what torque is or it's usage, how about these specs for you?

2008 JK Unlimited with 3.8L:
202 HP @ 5000 RPM
237 lb-ft of torque @ 4000 RPM
weight-4129#
tow capacity-3500#

2006 Liberty CRD with 2.8L Diesel:
160 HP@ 3700 RPM
295 lb-ft of torque @ 2000 RPM
weight-4306#
Tow capacity-rated same as standard Liberty-5000# (ask some of the CRD guys what they can pull!)

Torque makes all the difference in the world. Drop a 300 HP Honda vtec in a JK and see how you like it. You wouldn't, all rev and no TORQUE.

I got my CRD last week and drove it over 1,000 miles over the weekend. Ran between 80-85 the entire time including going up and down the mountains of I-24 in South Tennessee and never got over 2,500 RPM while averaging over 21 MPG. Ask a JK V6 owner if theirs can do that.
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 11:10 AM   #18
jstrubberg
Registered User
2009 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,124
Just to keep myself honest, I went back and rechecked my figures on the 4bt. The 215hp I psoted was with a mammoth turbo. The stock 4bt was around 105 horses and was mostly used to power van body delivery trucks.

In short, I was wrong.
jstrubberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 11:14 AM   #19
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod_hooligan View Post
And how many parts on a J8 are actually "stock" on a JK? Different axles, brakes, rear suspension, engine, trans, frame, tub...... The J8 wasn't built to race, it was built as a utility vehicle for the military.

You first said Jeeps aren't supposed to be raced, I responded with Jeepspeed. You said JKs "would be one of the worst possible set-ups for it", you want to argue it, then tell me why?
Hmm, try reading below again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlerace View Post
In a situation that the Jeep is designed to be used in, torque is 10x more important than horsepower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlerace View Post
Yep, and a JK platform, as the subject here, would be one of the worst possible set-ups for it.
BTW, you just contradicted yourself.

The JK is a bad set-up for offroad racing due to the crappy engine the designers put in it. The powerband is too high in the RPM range and their is little ground to be made in engine upgrades. The Achille's heel of the JK has always been the drivetrain, it has nothing to do with the suspension.
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 11:44 AM   #20
RockRodHooligan
Web Wheeler
 
RockRodHooligan's Avatar
1996 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Noblesville, Indiana
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlerace View Post
Okay, since y'all don't seem to comprehend the what torque is or it's usage, how about these specs for you?

2008 JK Unlimited with 3.8L:
202 HP @ 5000 RPM
237 lb-ft of torque @ 4000 RPM
weight-4129#
tow capacity-3500#

2006 Liberty CRD with 2.8L Diesel:
160 HP@ 3700 RPM
295 lb-ft of torque @ 2000 RPM
weight-4306#
Tow capacity-rated same as standard Liberty-5000# (ask some of the CRD guys what they can pull!)

Torque makes all the difference in the world. Drop a 300 HP Honda vtec in a JK and see how you like it. You wouldn't, all rev and no TORQUE.

I got my CRD last week and drove it over 1,000 miles over the weekend. Ran between 80-85 the entire time including going up and down the mountains of I-24 in South Tennessee and never got over 2,500 RPM while averaging over 21 MPG. Ask a JK V6 owner if theirs can do that.
I know plenty about torque, but this thread is not the place for the discussion, you want to continue this in PMs or a new thread feel free.
__________________
96 XJ:Parking lot Pre-Runner

89 MJ: Project: Ground up - Sold
01 XJ: Project: Silverback - Totaled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex View Post
Penis inches...
Good god man. Indyorv :rofl: d**k and fart jokes. :rofl:
RockRodHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 01:09 PM   #21
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod_hooligan View Post
I know plenty about torque, but this thread is not the place for the discussion, you want to continue this in PMs or a new thread feel free.
THAT is the whole discussion!!!!!!

They are saying that it would be gutless due to the 158 HP when HP is NOT what motivates a vehicle.....torque is!!!

Fact is that a 158HP diesel would be a more viable engine than the silly V6 the JKs have in them now.
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 03:26 PM   #22
RockRodHooligan
Web Wheeler
 
RockRodHooligan's Avatar
1996 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Noblesville, Indiana
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlerace View Post
THAT is the whole discussion!!!!!!

They are saying that it would be gutless due to the 158 HP when HP is NOT what motivates a vehicle.....torque is!!!

Fact is that a 158HP diesel would be a more viable engine than the silly V6 the JKs have in them now.
Gutless it will not be, not with a 7500lb towing capacity, but with only 158hp, it's not going to be quick.
__________________
96 XJ:Parking lot Pre-Runner

89 MJ: Project: Ground up - Sold
01 XJ: Project: Silverback - Totaled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex View Post
Penis inches...
Good god man. Indyorv :rofl: d**k and fart jokes. :rofl:
RockRodHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 03:36 PM   #23
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod_hooligan View Post
Gutless it will not be, not with a 7500lb towing capacity, but with only 158hp, it's not going to be quick.
Exactly. Even with it's shortcomings, the small 4 cylinder diesel is a more useable engine than the 3.8. Plus for military application, they want a fuel burner.


The 3.0 in the GC CRD is the one I would want to see in it!
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 09:14 PM   #24
AMCSportTruck
Registered User
1988 MJ Comanche 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prairie du sac, Wisconsin
Posts: 753
so an 08' V-6 makes 202hp & 237tq wow big update the old Jeep 4.0L I-6 made 195hp & 235tq, plus i bet the I-6 made it power at slower rev's making it a stronger puller then the V-6 and long lasting engine too . . .

the 2.8L turbo diesel started life in the 80's with 140hp n 236tq, by the 2000's it got up to 160hp n 295tq ?
It should be more like a 225hp & 315tq by now way to keep up . . .

The 5.9L Cummins turbo diesel start out with 160hp in 80's in less then 20 years it jump to 300+hp just saying

Mike
AMCSportTruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 09:22 PM   #25
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMCSportTruck View Post
so an 08' V-6 makes 202hp & 237tq wow big update the old Jeep 4.0L I-6 made 195hp & 235tq, plus i bet the I-6 made it power at slower rev's making it a stronger puller then the V-6 and long lasting engine too . . .

the 2.8L turbo diesel started life in the 80's with 140hp n 236tq, by the 2000's it got up to 160hp n 295tq ?
It should be more like a 225hp & 315tq by now way to keep up . . .

The 5.9L Cummins turbo diesel start out with 160hp in 1989 in less then 20 years it jump to 350hp just saying

Mike
Yeah, Jeep really dropped the ball with the 3.8L, they would have been better sticking with the 4.0L.

Those 2.8L are not a related engine. The new one is an Italian design. BTW, with a tune it does make those numbers you talk about. (placing my order tomorrow!)

I have a 4.0 in my TJ, great engine. I always said if I upgraded it I would like to go with the 4.8L that is in my truck. After the last week, give me the diesel!!!!!
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 10:42 PM   #26
BadAsh74
Registered User
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 191
Yeah Jeep really, REALLY dropped the ball with that crappy 3.8 V-6. I test drove a 2-door 6-spd with the dinky tires (it did have the weenie highway gearing) and my '00 with 100K on the clock and 32" BFGs--also with the weenie highway gearing--is way more powerful. Granted, the butt dyno is only a butt dyno but still.

I understand why the 4.0 inline was ditched and thats fine. A v-6 as the BASE engine is also ok by me, but why not the 4.0 V-6? Its got something like 260 hp and I forget how much torque. Basically its fairly comparable to the 4.7 V-8, numbers wise. They put them in the minivans all day, which is a waste, IMHO.

Until some better engines--A V-8 AND a turbodiesel become options in all bodystyles and with both manual and auto options on both, the Wrangler will always be held back by a lack of muscle under the hood. Its never going to reach its full potential as the kickass vehicle id COULD be. And anyone who tries to say theres no business case doesnt know what theyre talking about. The aftermarket conversions are hella expensive and yet they're obviously in demand and profitable. The factory could realize economies of scale and do it much more economically.
BadAsh74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 11:14 PM   #27
AMCSportTruck
Registered User
1988 MJ Comanche 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prairie du sac, Wisconsin
Posts: 753
I believe the XJ/MJ 2.8L diesel is the same as the "new" 2.8L prolly the same manufacturer anyhow they call it the VM2.8 turbo diesel and is was only for export only.

The diesel option for the US Market in the XJ/MJ was a 2.1L Renault diesel which made 85hp n 136tq and to my knowledge nobody bought them with that diesel.

You sure you aint thinking the 2.1 ? Maybe the 2.8s completely different.

Mike
AMCSportTruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-28-2010, 11:23 PM   #28
turtlerace
Best taken in small doses
 
turtlerace's Avatar
1979 J-Series Truck 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 4,080
Jeep Horizons :: 2005 Jeep Liberty Engine and Transmission Information

This was probably the best description of it I found.
Couldn't find anything on the XJ/MJ engine.

I may have been thinking the 2.1. It appears the newest design is updated by the CRD injection system.
__________________
Miss Amy's sensibilities and the language filter prevent me from telling you what I really think about you.
turtlerace is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-29-2010, 02:30 PM   #29
bruteboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: british columbia ca
Posts: 476
for more info on the j8,check out aev's website
bruteboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-29-2010, 07:38 PM   #30
AMCSportTruck
Registered User
1988 MJ Comanche 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prairie du sac, Wisconsin
Posts: 753
So here is what i don't get about Cryco, they have Cummins diesel contract's right ? . . .

They own jeep and as of 2006/2007 they fully made it there own by running mini Van V-6's and Neon I-4's in jeep's . . .

Why wouldn't they build a Cummins powered jeep ? . . . I bet a Cummins diesel option would sell more jeep's then the jeep itself !

Mike
AMCSportTruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.