What did you do to your ZJ today? - Page 849 - 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 > What did you do to your ZJ today?

Introducing MONSTALINER™ UV Permanent DIY Roll On Bed LineFS: Wrangler RGB Multicolor Fog Light LEDs: Awesome EffectSavvy Aluminum Gas Tank Skid

Reply
Unread 06-20-2012, 08:53 PM   #12721
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,988
You can say what you want but there is no replacement for displacement and the V8's and 4.0 get just about the same MPG. Personally I would rather have a nice diesel motor in a ZJ.

PolkaPower is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 08:54 PM   #12722
CharlieDog
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fairburn, GA
Posts: 63
Got her slightly dirty. Wasn't a really good mud puddle. Those are hard to find here, as it hasn't rained in ages.
CharlieDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:11 PM   #12723
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
You can say what you want but there is no replacement for displacement and the V8's and 4.0 get just about the same MPG. Personally I would rather have a nice diesel motor in a ZJ.
Diesel is superior for truck applications.

Also, I refuse to accept the "no replacement for displacement" idea. My GMC has a 5.7l V8 that supposedly makes 210hp and 300lbft of torque. The smaller 5.2l V8 in the ZJ makes 15 more hp, and the same torque, despite the .5l difference. Hell, the 1.3l rotary turbo in the RX7 made 280hp and 230lb-ft despite being closer to a quarter the size. Engineering is a great substitute for displacement in applications where heavy, large-displacement engines are undesireable.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:12 PM   #12724
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,295
V8s aren't inherently better for everything, but they're not a bad thing either. Every application has an engine best suited to it. Personally, I find the nice, flat torque curve, decent power and nice, deep growl (not a bland rumble) I get out of the modded 5.9 in my ZJ is pretty much perfect for the vehicle.

With equal amounts of engineering, more displacement will still make more power. Also, rotaries are a whole different story. Especially considering you're comparing a boosted rotary to a non-boosted V8, which isn't a a fair comparison, as boost adds effective displacement (14.7 psi of boost is similar to doubling displacement).

On topic, I tested the seat heaters in the parts 5.9 (in 90* weather ), and they both work, so I'll be swapping front seats once I clean the mud off the ones in the parts Jeep.
comptiger5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:24 PM   #12725
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by comptiger5000 View Post
With equal amounts of engineering, more displacement will still make more power. Also, rotaries are a whole different story. Especially considering you're comparing a boosted rotary to a non-boosted V8, which isn't a a fair comparison, as boost adds effective displacement (14.7 psi of boost is similar to doubling displacement).
V8s epitomize the idea of "Let's not do any clever engineering, we'll just have a bunch of huge cylinders".

The DB9, M3, and M5 are the only foreign performance cars I can think of currently made with V8s. Everything else has something clever like a twin-turbo V6, or a boxer engine. Mazda's in between rotaries (easily the most different performance engine of all) right now.

And boost doesn't add displacement, it improves effective compression ratio. Higher compression results in greater power from any given displacement. The fact that small engines are turbocharged to great effect, and V8s are rarely subject to Forced Induction (and even then, it's usually a supercharger) lends itself to the notion that V8s are underengineered.

To that end, Ford is likely to release the next Mustang with a 2.3l I4 turbo making 320hp. Which is more than the current 5l GT.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:24 PM   #12726
PolkaPower
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss, MD
Posts: 15,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC View Post
Diesel is superior for truck applications.

Also, I refuse to accept the "no replacement for displacement" idea. My GMC has a 5.7l V8 that supposedly makes 210hp and 300lbft of torque. The smaller 5.2l V8 in the ZJ makes 15 more hp, and the same torque, despite the .5l difference. Hell, the 1.3l rotary turbo in the RX7 made 280hp and 230lb-ft despite being closer to a quarter the size. Engineering is a great substitute for displacement in applications where heavy, large-displacement engines are undesireable.
I thought we were talking about conventional motors? The wankel rotary motor makes more power at a smaller size. I would take a rotary motor in a ZJ too if it was reliable but they don't offer one. :/ If you milked a v8 for every last drop of HP and used bolt-ons like a turbo or supercharger you would be pushing 1000+ HP. It would surpass the smaller conventional motor with the same modifications. These motors are de tuned from the factory to meet emissions.

If you take an I6 and a 5.2 and did the same modifications the 5.2 would eat it. That's why there is no replacement for displacement.

Also trucks should be measured in torque HP is for cars. But if you took that 5.7 and took all of the restrictive B.S. off of it, got a tuner for it, and put a supercharger or turbo on it, it would be pumping more HP than you could control.
PolkaPower is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:36 PM   #12727
comptiger5000
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stamford, CT / Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,295
FWIW, the current 5.0 Mustang GT (2011+) is over 400hp, so the 320hp turbo I4 would be to replace the V6. And yeah, I agree, V8s are rarely seen in performance applications, simply because for the power level they're looking for, they could go for a cranked up 4 / 6, or a mild V8, so why not go smaller and get better mpg? If they were after max power, they could put in a cranked up V8 and end up way ahead on power. However, due to weight, size, etc, not all vehicles are suitable for a large engine.

For what it's worth, I like I6s a lot, as they're a great design (V12s too), but they're not an answer for everything. Also, large displacement is good in something like a Jeep or truck where fuel mileage can be sacrificed, as the bigger engine will generally have a flatter torque curve for a given power output.
comptiger5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:36 PM   #12728
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaPower View Post
Also trucks should be measured in torque HP is for cars. But if you took that 5.7 and took all of the restrictive B.S. off of it, got a tuner for it, and put a supercharger or turbo on it, it would be pumping more HP than you could control.
The 350 isn't restricted, it's just poorly designed. It was the first TBI model, and it doesn't have any restrictors, just a badly-designed intake and larger bore than stroke. Stroke makes torque, not overall displacement. Bigger strokes lend themselves to larger displacements, but an engine with a short stroke and large bore will underperform an engine with a long stroke and small bore, at the same displacement.

Rotaries produce superior torque-displacement ratios through being extremely clever. That's why I respect them, even if they do sound like weedwhackers and have the reliability of your roommate in college.

EDIT: Comptiger, I made a mistake. The 315hp GT was a few years ago. The current V6 makes 305 though, you're right about that. Also it should be noted inline engines have better torque-displacement ratios than V engines, especially I6s, because the design lends itself to torque over power. But large I6s are hard to stuff into engine bays without them being way long. Look at large diesel applications. Most of them are I6s.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:45 PM   #12729
nickpequignot
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: columbia city, indiana
Posts: 2,829
I plan on doing what bad bird did and swapin a 5.3 or 6.0 ls motor. Havnt decided yet.
__________________
96 limited build thread-http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f13/96-limited-build-1351732/
nickpequignot is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:47 PM   #12730
badbird17x
Web Wheeler
 
badbird17x's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lisbon, nd
Posts: 3,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC
Let me just say it like this:

I was a tuner before I was a Jeeper. I worked on Japanese cars with all sorts of engines (including V8s) before I ever touched a Jeep. I saw all kinds of crazy things done with inline-6's and inline-4's. Superchargers, turbochargers, nitrous oxide, mechanical. All kinds of ways these people pulled power out of engines. It took me a good while to get over the idea that 2.4l is not a big engine, because you can't go much over that in an I4. Hell, I used to own an RX7. The engine in that is a 200hp 1.3l. (The final model in 2002 had the same engine, boosted to 300hp by sequential turbochargers) The power-weight ratios on these engines is phenomenal. A lot of people also did LS1 swaps for easy horsepower, which threw off their cars' weight balance and really ruined it. V8s seem like the thrashy easy way out to me. They're not the fruit of personal ingenuity and labor. They're a cheap lay.

I don't like them. At all.
Throw a simple supercharger on a ls engine, you have the quickest super car in production, most reliable as well, don't forget by far the cheapest. Zr1 is the best bang for the buck by far, and will most Likely only be dethroned by the next ls powered zr1. I agree v8 is a cheap lay, but you forgot that its also the best, hottest, cheapest lay on the planet. If you'd rather pay a ton of money for a fat ugly hor that sucks in bed, just so you can spend *** piles of $ to fix her up to be almost as good as a v8, well thats your call, but you can't fix the bad lay, aka the fact is sounds ****. Wambaaa
__________________
94 jz, bruiser, la, cage,5.3 ls, 36 swampers 98 jz, the mutt, 3.5 iro, 33 swampers, avalanche conversion, 02 north face avalanche blacked out work truck, 06 rhino R1 engine, 4x4, Leeroy's custom paint, 04 escalade wifes truck 22s, 03 duramax 18s, completely blacked out, efilive by nick, wicked wicked truck, 39 chop chevy rod, aluminum 5.3 ls, 08 apex, 310hp mcx turbo, holz 162, completely black, CCM built.
badbird17x is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:51 PM   #12731
badbird17x
Web Wheeler
 
badbird17x's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lisbon, nd
Posts: 3,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC

Diesel is superior for truck applications.

Also, I refuse to accept the "no replacement for displacement" idea. My GMC has a 5.7l V8 that supposedly makes 210hp and 300lbft of torque. The smaller 5.2l V8 in the ZJ makes 15 more hp, and the same torque, despite the .5l difference. Hell, the 1.3l rotary turbo in the RX7 made 280hp and 230lb-ft despite being closer to a quarter the size. Engineering is a great substitute for displacement in applications where heavy, large-displacement engines are undesireable.
That's what happens with boost, aka displacement. Show me a naturally aspirated engine under 4.0 that can hang with a lsx 454, that's 700 ponies on a crappy tune, na.
__________________
94 jz, bruiser, la, cage,5.3 ls, 36 swampers 98 jz, the mutt, 3.5 iro, 33 swampers, avalanche conversion, 02 north face avalanche blacked out work truck, 06 rhino R1 engine, 4x4, Leeroy's custom paint, 04 escalade wifes truck 22s, 03 duramax 18s, completely blacked out, efilive by nick, wicked wicked truck, 39 chop chevy rod, aluminum 5.3 ls, 08 apex, 310hp mcx turbo, holz 162, completely black, CCM built.
badbird17x is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:52 PM   #12732
stockzj
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: North Easton, MA
Posts: 137
Took most of the carpet out of my jeep but then couldn't figure out where the back bolts of the front seats were
__________________
97 ZJ with 31x10.5 Ravines spacers 2" bb rough country shocks 8 kcs 204k xj marker light doorless
stockzj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 09:56 PM   #12733
badbird17x
Web Wheeler
 
badbird17x's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lisbon, nd
Posts: 3,988
Dont get me wrong, I have a 1000cc Yamaha engine in my sled, that with a turbo makes 310 Hp from 1 liter. It is a wicked engine, but would be worthless in a 4500 lb jeep, and as soon as you go bigger, everything needs to be bigger, just like I can't make a larger Rc car with all the same materials by just scaling up, it won't work.
__________________
94 jz, bruiser, la, cage,5.3 ls, 36 swampers 98 jz, the mutt, 3.5 iro, 33 swampers, avalanche conversion, 02 north face avalanche blacked out work truck, 06 rhino R1 engine, 4x4, Leeroy's custom paint, 04 escalade wifes truck 22s, 03 duramax 18s, completely blacked out, efilive by nick, wicked wicked truck, 39 chop chevy rod, aluminum 5.3 ls, 08 apex, 310hp mcx turbo, holz 162, completely black, CCM built.
badbird17x is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 10:05 PM   #12734
Freestyle713
Registered User
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: , CT
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC View Post
I on the other hand have seen 1700hp rotaries. And superpower I4s.

Of course, NASCAR is more about who's the luckiest driver; the cars are all basically identical, due to the class's restrictions.

Also, it should be noted the engineering that goes into a race V8 is far superior to that of any production model. NASCAR Chevies aren't using LS-series. Toyota's engines aren't 1UZs. A large number of European and Japanese racing series don't use V8s at all. Mazda's Furai was a 3-rotor that kicked ***. Nissan built the Skyline GT-R as a racecar first and then de-tuned its I6 to make it a production car so they could enter it in various racing leagues.

Besides, nothing beats the sound of a Nissan V6. The sound of a VG30 is enough to make my pants tight, on its own. V8s just sound like a barrel rolling down a hill.
Race 6's and 4's are detuned and put into production cars because they are able to have a low enough horsepower to be put in production, unlike v8's. They can't be detuned enough for production.

Plus, I've never met anyone that prefers 4's and 6's to 8's. To me, most v8's sound better than 10's and 12's as well. There is probably no sexier sound than a cammed LS7.

OT: Looks like I'm going to wally world tomorrow for some yellow touch up paint.
2012-06-20-22.12.43.jpg  
__________________
[B]94 Grand Cherokee 5.2[/B] [SIZE="1"]33in. Federal Couragia M/T's on Procomp Steelies, np231 swap, IRO Hack n Tap SYE, Carolina Driveshaft, 4.5 in. lift, RE front upper/rear lower ca's, RC front lowers, Ironman rear uppers, IRO 4.5 coils in rear, 3.5 and 2" bb (no isolators) in front, Bilstein 5100's, Clayton/JKS adj. track bars, KOR rad support and SS, Magnaflow/Flowmaster exhaust, clear corners, custom light bar w/ Hella 500's[/SIZE]

[CENTER][COLOR="Yellow"][URL="http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/groups/zombie-outbreak-response-vehicles/"][COLOR="Yellow"]Zombie Outbreak Response Team[/COLOR][/URL][/COLOR][/CENTER]
[QUOTE=elcorvino;14544406]Yea... It's kind of like the fat chick who lives around the corner. You aren't trying to get caught with her, but you know she'd be a good time.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ScottD16;14460352]I had a dream my entire family was attacked by a giant polar bear. The crazy part was he attacked us with a giant spoon. Best dream ever.[/QUOTE]
Freestyle713 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-20-2012, 10:29 PM   #12735
badbird17x
Web Wheeler
 
badbird17x's Avatar
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lisbon, nd
Posts: 3,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freestyle713

Race 6's and 4's are detuned and put into production cars because they are able to have a low enough horsepower to be put in production, unlike v8's. They can't be detuned enough for production.

Plus, I've never met anyone that prefers 4's and 6's to 8's. To me, most v8's sound better than 10's and 12's as well. There is probably no sexier sound than a cammed LS7.

OT: Looks like I'm going to wally world tomorrow for some yellow touch up paint.
YouTube Tim Cameron. His lsx454 at idle could give a def 95 year old man a chub
__________________
94 jz, bruiser, la, cage,5.3 ls, 36 swampers 98 jz, the mutt, 3.5 iro, 33 swampers, avalanche conversion, 02 north face avalanche blacked out work truck, 06 rhino R1 engine, 4x4, Leeroy's custom paint, 04 escalade wifes truck 22s, 03 duramax 18s, completely blacked out, efilive by nick, wicked wicked truck, 39 chop chevy rod, aluminum 5.3 ls, 08 apex, 310hp mcx turbo, holz 162, completely black, CCM built.
badbird17x is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
door latch
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.