The Definitive Injector Swap HOW TO - Page 36 - 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 > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum > The Definitive Injector Swap HOW TO

Stainless Steel Door Hinge PinsPoly Door Hinge BushingsDual Color LED Light Bars White/Amber

Reply
Unread 10-05-2013, 06:25 PM   #526
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,732
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-09-2013, 10:45 AM   #527
Phreaq
Registered User
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: , CA
Posts: 207
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-09-2013, 12:30 PM   #528
zjosh93
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,079
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 11:01 AM   #529
CatSplat
Derp.
 
CatSplat's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,192
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 01:23 PM   #530
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,732
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 04:57 PM   #531
CatSplat
Derp.
 
CatSplat's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,192
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 05:01 PM   #532
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,732
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 05:03 PM   #533
CatSplat
Derp.
 
CatSplat's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,192
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-24-2013, 05:14 PM   #534
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,732
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-27-2013, 01:20 PM   #535
zander21510
Lord of Retro Machines
 
zander21510's Avatar
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,784
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
__________________
208K (5/26/14)
208k: 4/20/14; 207k: 2/6/14; 206k: 1/6/14;
2013: 197-205k; 2012: 191k-196k
My ZJ Injector Swap HowTo
zander21510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 06:31 PM   #536
firefighter534
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Bend, IN
Posts: 20
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
2004 WJ Limited 4.7L
2004 WJ Overland 4.7L HO
firefighter534 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 06:32 PM   #537
firefighter534
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Bend, IN
Posts: 20
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
2004 WJ Limited 4.7L
2004 WJ Overland 4.7L HO
firefighter534 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 07:07 PM   #538
jnowak
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: dahlonega, ga
Posts: 463
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   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2013, 03:58 AM   #539
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point, Indiana
Posts: 3,036
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 - 5.2/242, 4" lift, 31s, locked, armored
14 JKU Sport S - Stock
ejschultz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2013, 06:01 PM   #540
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,732
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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