What did you do to your ZJ today? - Page 1560 - JeepForum.com

 75Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #23386 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:11 AM
DNFJ
WANNABE DESERT RAT
 
DNFJ's Avatar
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post
As crazy as people have been about swapping in 242s, I think the forum majority now says fix the 249. Even though I don't get better gas mileage in 2 wheel drive and the full time isn't quite as good as the 249's full time, I'm glad I swapped in my 242. I like having the option of locking the transfer case in 4 high if needed. Full time, although it's not as good as viscous coupling, still works great in the rain (I'm assuming the snow too although I haven't had the opportunity to use it yet). I'm not convinced strength is a valid argument for the 249 either. Sure, the 249 may be rated for more torque (1800 ft. lb. for 93-95 and 2030 ft. lb. for 96-98 as compared to 1486 ft. lb. for the 242), but in reality they're all rated for GVWs up to 5500 lb. Not to mention, a 5.2 has how much torque? 300 ft. lb. First gear has a ratio of what? 2.740:1. Multiply that out. What do you get? You get a max torque of 822 ft. lb. Even after you take the torque converter into consideration, you're still under the upper limits of the transfer cases.
I quit posting in the ZJ section for 6 months and no one likes 242 swaps anymore? I'd rather have a 242 any day of the week. Cost considerations and everything else too.

A 249 is a good case, however I don't see why you'd spend the same about on fixing an old case as you could for getting a 242 at the JY to replace it with.


Project ROLLplay
'00 XJ Locked on 35s

Previous:
'00 TJ 2" on 33" Grabbers
'00 XJ 6.5" on 35" KM2s
'96 ZJ 2" on 31" Baja Claws
'93 ZJ - Stock, Totaled
DNFJ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #23387 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:11 AM
MTBlue
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Helena
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndIsNear View Post
You outta check out the Aeroturbine AT3030. I had it on my Ram 5.9 and its sick. There's a video on YouTube of a 5.9 Durango that sold me on the muffler...

Sent from my GS3 using JeepForum
Honestly, I don't hear much of a difference between my Super 44 and the AT3030... Plus it's more expensive... And there's more crackle in the high RPM's... of which I am not a fan. Not trying to bash Aeroturbine at all or your taste, I just like the sound of my Flowmaster a little more. Again, that's only my opinion; take it as you may

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmeyst View Post
Followed the lead of a few of yall and put a can and a half of refridgerant in the ac and got it blow some cold air. Compressor sounds like ..ish and gotta keep it on recirculate but works for now. It was 108 with the heat index today. F-that!
I feel like I'm the only ZJ'er on here that hasn't had to recharge their AC yet... Montana summers must be more mild?

Dirt Deprived
MTBlue is offline  
post #23388 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:25 AM
Maine1994ZJ
Registered User
1993 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phippsburg, Maine
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post
As crazy as people have been about swapping in 242s, I think the forum majority now says fix the 249. Even though I don't get better gas mileage in 2 wheel drive and the full time isn't quite as good as the 249's full time, I'm glad I swapped in my 242. I like having the option of locking the transfer case in 4 high if needed. Full time, although it's not as good as viscous coupling, still works great in the rain (I'm assuming the snow too although I haven't had the opportunity to use it yet). I'm not convinced strength is a valid argument for the 249 either. Sure, the 249 may be rated for more torque (1800 ft. lb. for 93-95 and 2030 ft. lb. for 96-98 as compared to 1486 ft. lb. for the 242), but in reality they're all rated for GVWs up to 5500 lb. Not to mention, a 5.2 has how much torque? 300 ft. lb. First gear has a ratio of what? 2.740:1. Multiply that out. What do you get? You get a max torque of 822 ft. lb. Even after you take the torque converter into consideration, you're still under the upper limits of the transfer cases.
Also, doesn't the 249 have a 30/70 torque split as well as having no way to lock the F&R drive shafts together in LO?

I'm swapping a 231 in place of my 249 with a spent VC soon.

I'd rather drive around in 2wd in the snow and engage 4HI when I want it engaged. Rather than when the case thinks I need it engaged.

I've lived my whole life in Maine and grew up driving rear wheel drive rigs in the snow, even before I had a driver's license, so I know how to drive in the snow without 4wd.
I actually prefer to drive in 2wd in the snow, using 4HI only for up hills.

I'll keep the 249 for sure, and probably pick up a VC for it eventually, so if by some chance I do break the 231 in the course of wheeling, I'll have a back-up T-case.

'93 V8 ZJ Mountain Goat Edition.
'95 V8 ZJ Limited, '97 4.0L ZJ TSi
'96 4.0L 2wd XJ, '88 4.2L YJ
Maine1994ZJ is offline  
post #23389 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:27 AM
AnotherRedZj
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: fort walton beach
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTBlue View Post


I feel like I'm the only ZJ'er on here that hasn't had to recharge their AC yet... Montana summers must be more mild?
I bet they are! I miss the summers in the mountains. the heat index can jump the temp 20* here, making a nice day a hot muggy mess.

96 ZJ sittin up 6" on 35's with 4:56's and a 12k winch. Cuz...why the hell not!?
AnotherRedZj is offline  
post #23390 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:54 AM
adavis39
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNFJ View Post
I quit posting in the ZJ section for 6 months and no one likes 242 swaps anymore? I'd rather have a 242 any day of the week. Cost considerations and everything else too.

A 249 is a good case, however I don't see why you'd spend the same about on fixing an old case as you could for getting a 242 at the JY to replace it with.
well whats your opinion on rebuilding the 249 (doing it myself so it wont cost too much) for a DD street rig only. It will ultimately be built for speed. It will have no need to lock the front and rear shaft together in LO as it will probably never see LO? I wont really save any gas in 2WD and people will argue that the 249 is betetr than the 242 in Full Time during bad weather situations?

2002 WJ Limited 4.7: 6" Clayton REALLY long arms....yep, they are longer than yours SOLD : (
1998 Platinum 5.9 DD
2007 WK Overland 5.7 wifes DD
TNJEEPS.COM

BUILD: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/...-crap-1399123/

"In a world that he did not create, but he will go through it as if it is his own creation. Half man, half beast, whatever it is it is weird, it is ticked off and it calls itself Slash"
adavis39 is offline  
post #23391 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 07:57 AM
DNFJ
WANNABE DESERT RAT
 
DNFJ's Avatar
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavis39 View Post
well whats your opinion on rebuilding the 249 (doing it myself so it wont cost too much) for a DD street rig only. It will ultimately be built for speed. It will have no need to lock the front and rear shaft together in LO as it will probably never see LO? I wont really save any gas in 2WD and people will argue that the 249 is betetr than the 242 in Full Time during bad weather situations?
If it's built for speed why would you want an AWD tc? Besides from launches I can't see it benefiting more than a 2wd TC.

Also, a 242 TC around here goes for about 150. A VC by itself goes for about the same online, so I don't know how you think you're saving money.

Like you said, it's completely my opinion and if you take that route you'll still be fine, just voicing my thoughts on the matter.

Project ROLLplay
'00 XJ Locked on 35s

Previous:
'00 TJ 2" on 33" Grabbers
'00 XJ 6.5" on 35" KM2s
'96 ZJ 2" on 31" Baja Claws
'93 ZJ - Stock, Totaled
DNFJ is offline  
post #23392 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:06 AM
adavis39
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNFJ View Post
If it's built for speed why would you want an AWD tc? Besides from launches I can't see it benefiting more than a 2wd TC.

Also, a 242 TC around here goes for about 150. A VC by itself goes for about the same online, so I don't know how you think you're saving money.

Like you said, it's completely my opinion and if you take that route you'll still be fine, just voicing my thoughts on the matter.
all opinions welcome...i dont get butthurt over it. Im just so "back and forth" when it comes to my jeeps and mods. I can never decide I may hit the JY this weekend. They have about 9 ZJ's from '95-'98 right now and see if I can find a 242

2002 WJ Limited 4.7: 6" Clayton REALLY long arms....yep, they are longer than yours SOLD : (
1998 Platinum 5.9 DD
2007 WK Overland 5.7 wifes DD
TNJEEPS.COM

BUILD: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/...-crap-1399123/

"In a world that he did not create, but he will go through it as if it is his own creation. Half man, half beast, whatever it is it is weird, it is ticked off and it calls itself Slash"
adavis39 is offline  
post #23393 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:13 AM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNFJ View Post
If it's built for speed why would you want an AWD tc? Besides from launches I can't see it benefiting more than a 2wd TC.

Also, a 242 TC around here goes for about 150. A VC by itself goes for about the same online, so I don't know how you think you're saving money.

Like you said, it's completely my opinion and if you take that route you'll still be fine, just voicing my thoughts on the matter.
96+ 249's are two wheel drive until the rear tires slip. Benefit of changing to a 231 would be weight reduction. There is no benefit with a 242.
PolkaPower is online now  
post #23394 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:15 AM
AnotherRedZj
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: fort walton beach
Posts: 2,402
When I had my 249, it seemed to distribute power to wheels better then my 242. I'm not an expert in any way shape or form. I loved my 249 on the street, It felt a lot better then the 242 in any gear on take off. But my 242 is bugging me cuz i started getting binding and wheel hop in part time 4 now. Jus like the 249.

96 ZJ sittin up 6" on 35's with 4:56's and a 12k winch. Cuz...why the hell not!?
AnotherRedZj is offline  
post #23395 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:18 AM
adavis39
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
96+ 249's are two wheel drive until the rear tires slip. Benefit of changing to a 231 would be weight reduction. There is no benefit with a 242.
well hell......now you got me thinking 231. those seem to be harder to find around here for some reason though

2002 WJ Limited 4.7: 6" Clayton REALLY long arms....yep, they are longer than yours SOLD : (
1998 Platinum 5.9 DD
2007 WK Overland 5.7 wifes DD
TNJEEPS.COM

BUILD: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/...-crap-1399123/

"In a world that he did not create, but he will go through it as if it is his own creation. Half man, half beast, whatever it is it is weird, it is ticked off and it calls itself Slash"
adavis39 is offline  
post #23396 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:18 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmeyst View Post
When I had my 249, it seemed to distribute power to wheels better then my 242. I'm not an expert in any way shape or form. I loved my 249 on the street, It felt a lot better then the 242 in any gear on take off. But my 242 is bugging me cuz i started getting binding and wheel hop in part time 4 now. Jus like the 249.
Part time will bind. It's supposed to be locked in part time. Full time acts as an open center differential and should not bind.

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #23397 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:20 AM
ejschultz
Web Wheeler
 
ejschultz's Avatar
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Crown Point
Posts: 3,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavis39 View Post
well hell......now you got me thinking 231. those seem to be harder to find around here for some reason though
The 231 is 65 lbs. A 93-95 249 is 98 lbs, 96-98 is 84 lbs. 242s are 86 lbs.

97 ZJ - 5.2L, 242, 4" IRO lift w/short arms & adj. TBs, JKS Discos/BPEs, DT3000s, Aussie'd 44A, sliders, bumpers, bunch o' skids, 31" Duratracs on 15x8s
Build
ejschultz is offline  
post #23398 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:39 AM
WhiteOut
Web Wheeler
 
WhiteOut's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,205
Still waiting to hear on my rear bumper. Almost 5 weeks now
WhiteOut is offline  
post #23399 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:46 AM
AnotherRedZj
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: fort walton beach
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejschultz View Post

Part time will bind. It's supposed to be locked in part time. Full time acts as an open center differential and should not bind.
Guess it works fine then!

Guess I don't use part time enough to notice before.lol

96 ZJ sittin up 6" on 35's with 4:56's and a 12k winch. Cuz...why the hell not!?
AnotherRedZj is offline  
post #23400 of 44342 Old 06-12-2013, 08:46 AM
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 19,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavis39 View Post
well hell......now you got me thinking 231. those seem to be harder to find around here for some reason though
It equals out to around every 10 lbs weight reduction is around 1 HP. When I had my Acura TL there was a guy on the board who stripped his of everything and carbon fibered things he could. Replaced seats, door panels, dash, insulation, lighter smaller battery, lighter rims, I mean everything. The car sat almost 2" and he removed around 300 lbs. It was really fast after that.


I found the thread just in case anyone wanted to see the results of extreme weight reduction which is basically free HP.
http://tl.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=610974
PolkaPower is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




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
Almost ran out of gas today SYCOHEMI WK Grand Cherokee & XK Commander Forum 37 04-29-2016 10:36 PM
Let me tell you what I did not do today husker_zj ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 9 03-19-2013 01:09 PM
got my 94 ZJ today, and did my first mod Saleen4971 ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 10 09-22-2009 12:52 AM
Hey, Today is 5.9 day! CAHotRodBoy ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 5 05-09-2005 09:35 PM
Have you had your V-8 today?? Myrtle Beach ZJ Grand Cherokee Forum 12 04-30-2005 01:28 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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