post #526 of Old 10-05-2013, 06:25 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post
Yup. They work. Like I said, you're just going to have some leftover pieces.
Well that certainly is good to know. I was looking into a SCT tuner with a tune from Flyin Ryan and his price is 275 for the tune then you need the hand held. Since I have other than stock injectors I would need a data logger for him to write a tune. All that would be near 1000 bucks. He did say that if I had the stock injectors back in there that all I would need is the handheld and his tune would be 175. More than I thought.

I may rebuild them anyway because I really want a SCT tune from him.

PolkaPower is online now  
post #527 of Old 10-09-2013, 10:45 AM
Phreaq
Registered User
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 225
As for the one piece, non wire adaptors and the 4.0: the throttle and cruise cable bracket is In the way a bit. But I also have different injectors, so it may not be an issue for everyone else.

As for 4.0 vs 5.2
I love the 4.0 but when it comes to a dd and a tall hill, I like the power band of the 5.2. Plus I can tow my boat with the 5.2. As a bonus 5.2's come with a d44

They both are great in there own ways.
I'd say I prefer the 4.0 over all. AMC!!!!
Phreaq is offline  
post #528 of Old 10-09-2013, 12:30 PM
zjosh93
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phreaq View Post
As for the one piece, non wire adaptors and the 4.0: the throttle and cruise cable bracket is In the way a bit. But I also have different injectors, so it may not be an issue for everyone else.

As for 4.0 vs 5.2
I love the 4.0 but when it comes to a dd and a tall hill, I like the power band of the 5.2. Plus I can tow my boat with the 5.2. As a bonus 5.2's come with a d44

They both are great in there own ways.
I'd say I prefer the 4.0 over all. AMC!!!!
I didn't think about that. The have a 1" spacer on mine (that I made) so that probably helped the clearance with the adapters.
zjosh93 is online now  
post #529 of Old 10-24-2013, 11:01 AM
CatSplat
Registered User
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
I can't make a comparison on these 789 'svs the 703's since the 703's were not flow matched or professionally refurbished. But they are working great. As for running rich, they have a slightly less flow rating than the 703's or so I have read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
I don't smell the gas smell anymore. One or more of the JY 703's may have been cycling lazy or something. These 789's are very nice though. Fell in love with driving it all over again.
For the record, the 789s have a slightly higher flow rating than the 703s (240cc/min vs 238cc/min) and the same impedance. If you were running extremely rich with a gassy smell using the junkyard 703s, I'd strongly suspect you had one or more leaky injectors.

1994 5.9L ZJ, retrofitted UC package, NP242 swap, 17" JK Moabs with 32" BFG MT KM's.
The Jeep of Theseus
CatSplat is offline  
post #530 of Old 10-24-2013, 01:23 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,160
Yes I see that I was reading about a comparison to the 784's and thought they were talking about the 703's. This guys numbers are not the same as yours for the flow though. I found the numbers vary from site to site. http://www.fuelinjector.citymaker.co...low_Rates.html

0-280-150-789 lbs/hr 14.35 cc/min 150.8

0-280-150-703 lbs/hr 14.2 cc/min 149.2

It turned out to be the cat causing the smell. I tested the 703 injectors for leaks 3 separate times and they passed. I like the 789's though. It's never been this smooth.
PolkaPower is online now  
post #531 of Old 10-24-2013, 04:57 PM
CatSplat
Registered User
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
Yes I see that I was reading about a comparison to the 784's and thought they were talking about the 703's. This guys numbers are not the same as yours for the flow though. I found the numbers vary from site to site. http://www.fuelinjector.citymaker.co...low_Rates.html

0-280-150-789 lbs/hr 14.35 cc/min 150.8

0-280-150-703 lbs/hr 14.2 cc/min 149.2
Wrong injectors! Tricky parts numbers, you grabbed the numbers for the 0-280-150 series instead of the 0-280-155.

From that chart:
0-280-155-703 23 lb/hr 176 cc/min
0-280-155-789 21 lb/hr 220.7 cc/min

That's another reason that I rarely trust random charts - why does a 23lb injector have a lower cc/min than a 21lb? Impossible.

I usually get my flow numbers from Witchhunter, any injector I've flow tested on my bench has been within 3% of their numbers. That's not to say they're infallible, though.

1994 5.9L ZJ, retrofitted UC package, NP242 swap, 17" JK Moabs with 32" BFG MT KM's.
The Jeep of Theseus
CatSplat is offline  
post #532 of Old 10-24-2013, 05:01 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatSplat View Post
Wrong injectors! Tricky parts numbers, you grabbed the numbers for the 0-280-150 series instead of the 0-280-155.

From that chart:
0-280-155-703 23 lb/hr 176 cc/min
0-280-155-789 21 lb/hr 220.7 cc/min

That's another reason that I rarely trust random charts - why does a 23lb injector have a lower cc/min than a 21lb? Impossible.

I usually get my flow numbers from Witchhunter, any injector I've flow tested on my bench has been within 3% of their numbers. That's not to say they're infallible, though.
Crap, mind blown again. That means I just put these injectors in my truck not knowing what their specs are I'm glad they worked out.
PolkaPower is online now  
post #533 of Old 10-24-2013, 05:03 PM
CatSplat
Registered User
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,375
As long as your Jeep is running fine, that's all that matters!

(Also, in your original post when you got the injectors you said "703's are rated for 23lbs P/H and the 789's are rated for 21", so I figure you read the chart correctly at least once, haha)

1994 5.9L ZJ, retrofitted UC package, NP242 swap, 17" JK Moabs with 32" BFG MT KM's.
The Jeep of Theseus
CatSplat is offline  
post #534 of Old 10-24-2013, 05:14 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatSplat View Post
As long as your Jeep is running fine, that's all that matters!

(Also, in your original post when you got the injectors you said "703's are rated for 23lbs P/H and the 789's are rated for 21", so I figure you read the chart correctly at least once, haha)
Yea I guess I went back and read it incorrectly later lol. Too many numbers here, time for some vodka. Thanks though for getting me on the right track.
PolkaPower is online now  
post #535 of Old 10-27-2013, 01:20 PM Thread Starter
zander21510
Registered User
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post

Yea I guess I went back and read it incorrectly later lol. Too many numbers here, time for some vodka. Thanks though for getting me on the right track.
I had so much trouble not mixing up all the damn numbers when I first wrote this post lol. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found the wrong numbers in the OP lol
zander21510 is offline  
post #536 of Old 11-04-2013, 06:31 PM
firefighter534
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Bend
Posts: 25
So what has people been running for extended period of time? I have a 96 ZJ with 5.2. Some say the 703's but I also heard about the 712's??? Which ones? Thanks.

1996 ZJ Limited 5.2L - 220,000
2004 WJ Limited 4.7L - 71,000
2004 WJ Overland 4.7L HO - 113,000
firefighter534 is offline  
post #537 of Old 11-04-2013, 06:32 PM
firefighter534
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Bend
Posts: 25
I guess what I mean by extended period of time is several years with no problems. Sorry and thanks again!

1996 ZJ Limited 5.2L - 220,000
2004 WJ Limited 4.7L - 71,000
2004 WJ Overland 4.7L HO - 113,000
firefighter534 is offline  
post #538 of Old 11-04-2013, 07:07 PM
jnowak
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: dahlonega
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighter534
I guess what I mean by extended period of time is several years with no problems. Sorry and thanks again!
Not to be a brat but if you get several years out of any part that is usually a win. Any part that last for 5+ yrs is a success. Things don't last forever
jnowak is offline  
post #539 of Old 11-05-2013, 03:58 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighter534 View Post
So what has people been running for extended period of time? I have a 96 ZJ with 5.2. Some say the 703's but I also heard about the 712's??? Which ones? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighter534 View Post
I guess what I mean by extended period of time is several years with no problems. Sorry and thanks again!
I've had my 703s in my 5.2 for probably almost 2 years now. The only gripe I have with them is they made my inaccurate overhead display more inaccurate as far as the MPG reading go. It used to read about a half an MPG high, now it's roughly 1.5-2 MPG high. That being said, when time allows, I'm going to refurb my 778s and see how they perform compared to the refurb 703s. My buddy redid his 778s on his 4.0 but didn't have luck because he somehow broke a 778. It worked for a little bit but it eventually started spewing fuel everywhere. I think he cracked it somehow. He's got 5 778s in there and 1 703. It's probably not the best way to run, but he's going to get another 778 from the JY when he gets a chance.

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, OEM skids/hooks/hitch, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #540 of Old 11-05-2013, 06:01 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,160
Just completed a round trip of around 1400 miles. I measured from full to half tank and came up with just under 14mpg going about 70 roughly with two adults and the rear filled with luggage and the spare .I'm about 235 and my wife is about 130. It's not very accurate since I'm guessing the half tank marker to me 11.5 gallons. 789's were nice and smooth the whole way.
PolkaPower is online now  
Reply

Tags
703 , 715 , ford , fuel injector , neon , swap


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Jeep Forums Replies Last Post
1998 zj 5.2 fuel injector swap 1SASjeepster ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 7 12-28-2011 06:17 PM
Injector swap? ZJPRKID ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 24 11-20-2011 04:59 PM
junkyard fuel injector swap and result karik ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 27 07-30-2011 06:10 PM
Fuel injector swap? airwolf9090 ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 6 06-10-2011 05:46 AM
injector swap madhappy401 ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 0 02-17-2010 05:28 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome