302 or 305? - 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 > General Technical Discussions > Advanced Jeep Tech > 302 or 305?

Rampage Bowless Soft Top Oconee offroadAlloy USA Still AvailableAdvance Adapters SYE Kits

Reply
Unread 05-11-2013, 02:52 PM   #16
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelin98TJ View Post
Back in the late 80s/early 90s, stock 305 Camaros were running 15-16 second 1/4 miles.

Stock 302 Mustangs were running 14s.
That would be incorrect. No Z-28 of that vintage ran any 16 second quarter. The Mustang 5.0 and Z-28 were practically even in that time frame. Sometimes the Z was faster, sometimes the Mustang was. Mainly, as I mentioned before, because of the Mustang's lighter weight.....it sure as hell wasn't because they 5.0's had a power advantage. Z-28's from about 85-on ran high-14's, to very low 15's with the 305. A good driver in a notch back 5.0 LX might get a 14.6 at the most, on stock tires. And that's only because of the weight. A GT wouldn't get out of the 15's.

So the 305 in Chevy's sporty car made the same power as the 302 in the Mustang, and the 305 Chevy put in trucks made about the same power as the 302 Ford put in their trucks.

So I don't see how either was a "dog". And the Chevy motor had more potential, still does.

Now, if we start talking EARLY 80's, you might have a point. Those computer-controlled carb trucks were pitiful, both Ford and Chevy. So it's apples to apples all through the years, as long as you compare the same size motor from the same year.

__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 03:04 PM   #17
BigYellow04
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New lexington, Ohio
Posts: 223
A buddy of mines stock (minus intake exhaust And gears 4.10) ran a 12.6 with slicks. 89 mustang LX hatchback. Stock my car when it was an auto ran a 15.1, swapped in a 5 speed and my first pass was a 14.5 but I couldn't get off he line without spinning like crazy, through the beams I was 100mph so I know I could be in the low 14-13.9 range with nothing more than intake and exhaust on my car.
BigYellow04 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 03:39 PM   #18
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigYellow04 View Post
A buddy of mines stock (minus intake exhaust And gears 4.10) ran a 12.6 with slicks. 89 mustang LX hatchback. Stock my car when it was an auto ran a 15.1, swapped in a 5 speed and my first pass was a 14.5 but I couldn't get off he line without spinning like crazy, through the beams I was 100mph so I know I could be in the low 14-13.9 range with nothing more than intake and exhaust on my car.
Okay, stock "minus intake/exhaust/gears" isn't stock. And I'd even then, I seriously doubt a 12.6, even with slicks, but regardless, it wasn't stock.

And no way an 89-ish STOCK GT hits 100 in the lights, sorry.

Keep in mind, what passes for "stock" these days for those cars is NEVER actually "showroom" stock. Those cars just don't exist, and if they do, they aren't being driven around by kids who just go their licenses and being taken to the drags. They've already been through the ringer, and most are far from "factory" anymore.

What I'm telling you is, no late 80's factory stock Mustang was that fast. I was there, I drove every version available, hundreds of times. They just weren't. And the archival times you can find will back that up. Mid-14's to low-15's, low-to-mid-90's.

If you ran across any that were faster, like the spinning, mid-14 pass you claim at 100mph, then I can assure you, if that's a late 80's GT, there's no way in hell it's "stock".
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 04:27 PM   #19
BigYellow04
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New lexington, Ohio
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacfanweb

Okay, stock "minus intake/exhaust/gears" isn't stock. And I'd even then, I seriously doubt a 12.6, even with slicks, but regardless, it wasn't stock.

And no way an 89-ish STOCK GT hits 100 in the lights, sorry.

Keep in mind, what passes for "stock" these days for those cars is NEVER actually "showroom" stock. Those cars just don't exist, and if they do, they aren't being driven around by kids who just go their licenses and being taken to the drags. They've already been through the ringer, and most are far from "factory" anymore.

What I'm telling you is, no late 80's factory stock Mustang was that fast. I was there, I drove every version available, hundreds of times. They just weren't. And the archival times you can find will back that up. Mid-14's to low-15's, low-to-mid-90's.

If you ran across any that were faster, like the spinning, mid-14 pass you claim at 100mph, then I can assure you, if that's a late 80's GT, there's no way in hell it's "stock".
My car is a 90 mustang LX hatchback, stock 1990 engine besides intake and exhaust. Still running the factory 3.27 gearing. I have slips to show my mph and the 14.5 pass(have to look for them, can't remember if they are in my glove box or in the house somewhere), my fastest mph with the aod was 94 mph, with the 5 speed in it it was 98-99 through the traps.

Still have the full factory red interior, but yes I would agree that a factory gt car, for instance, a 87 gt convertible(which are the heaviest fox bodies)a friend of mine used to own ran a
15.6 with nothing done to it. 5 speeds are much quicker than the automatic ones stock to stock, you lose alot of power through the auto
BigYellow04 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 07:22 PM   #20
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigYellow04 View Post
My car is a 90 mustang LX hatchback, stock 1990 engine besides intake and exhaust. Still running the factory 3.27 gearing. I have slips to show my mph and the 14.5 pass(have to look for them, can't remember if they are in my glove box or in the house somewhere), my fastest mph with the aod was 94 mph, with the 5 speed in it it was 98-99 through the traps.

Still have the full factory red interior, but yes I would agree that a factory gt car, for instance, a 87 gt convertible(which are the heaviest fox bodies)a friend of mine used to own ran a
15.6 with nothing done to it. 5 speeds are much quicker than the automatic ones stock to stock, you lose alot of power through the auto
So that confirms what I said, thanks. Intake and exhaust add some HP, and I can understand picking up a few MPH from that.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 11:40 PM   #21
Wheelin98TJ
JEEP FREAK
 
Wheelin98TJ's Avatar
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , Southeast MI
Posts: 24,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacfanweb View Post
That would be incorrect. No Z-28 of that vintage ran any 16 second quarter. The Mustang 5.0 and Z-28 were practically even in that time frame. Sometimes the Z was faster, sometimes the Mustang was. Mainly, as I mentioned before, because of the Mustang's lighter weight.....it sure as hell wasn't because they 5.0's had a power advantage. Z-28's from about 85-on ran high-14's, to very low 15's with the 305. A good driver in a notch back 5.0 LX might get a 14.6 at the most, on stock tires. And that's only because of the weight. A GT wouldn't get out of the 15's.

So the 305 in Chevy's sporty car made the same power as the 302 in the Mustang, and the 305 Chevy put in trucks made about the same power as the 302 Ford put in their trucks.

So I don't see how either was a "dog". And the Chevy motor had more potential, still does.

Now, if we start talking EARLY 80's, you might have a point. Those computer-controlled carb trucks were pitiful, both Ford and Chevy. So it's apples to apples all through the years, as long as you compare the same size motor from the same year.
I had to check your profile to see if you were old enough to remember these years.

The 5.0 Ford spanked the 5.0 Chevy routinely.

One of countless examples, from a Chevy Forum:

Quote:
The countdown began and engines revved. Both machines leaped off the starting line in a cloud of tire smoke and roar of exhaust. The Mustang was in front by a nose at 30 mph, then widened the gap ato arrive at 60 mph in 6.2 sec versus the Camaro's best of 7.9 sec. The distance grew further as the Mustang's 225 hp went to work, and the Ford covered the quarter mile in a blistering 14.8 sec at 96.0 mph. The Camaro put up a valiant fight, but came in 2nd with its 16.1-sec/86.9-mph pass.
http://www.thirdgen.org/mt_july_1990...the_5.0_corral
Wheelin98TJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 11:45 PM   #22
Wheelin98TJ
JEEP FREAK
 
Wheelin98TJ's Avatar
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , Southeast MI
Posts: 24,645
Not that 1/4 mile times from 20 year old magazines prove anything, I'm just running out of logical explanations.
Wheelin98TJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-11-2013, 11:59 PM   #23
74Maverick
Registered User
1977 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 752
My brothers Completely stock one owner 87 Convertible( heaviest) GT 5spd ran 14.86 on stock tires with 55,000 miles on it. He was a novice driver at the time. a lighter notch or even hatchback would do better, especially with a seasoned driver. Ford have ALWAYS been meaner except fo a couple times in history that for smartly waited for chevy to show its hand.

Time and time again ford have done more with less.

Also of note to the guy talking about z28 so you seem to be forgetting that most 305s were in RS camaros, with 170 hp.
Speaking of lesser models say the gt and z28 were apples to apples. take a step "down" and a lx 5.0 surpasses a gt, while a rs 5.0(camaros) struggles to break the tires free.

Iknow these points as a fact while as im only 29 and not of age at the time my brothers each bought a brand new 5spd one the 87 vert gt, one an 89 rs 5.0. They raced the mustang won 10 years later the paint peeled off of the camaro and my brother sold it for 1,700 in 1999. My other brother still has his gt, with 129,000 on it, we freshened up the motor (it has been sitting undriven since 2005). And it is in near original shape, save for some blemishes.

But all this mustang talk doesnt matter, the fact is that the OP can pull a 5.0 out of any fuel injected ford product after 86 and have over 200 hp with alot more available for under $1000(like +300hp) and it will nearly directly bolt to 1 great, 2 solid, and one marginal factory jeep transmissions.
__________________
The Last Great American Hero... the demi-god... to which speed means freedom of the soul.
74Maverick is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 06:33 AM   #24
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelin98TJ View Post
I had to check your profile to see if you were old enough to remember these years.

The 5.0 Ford spanked the 5.0 Chevy routinely.

One of countless examples, from a Chevy Forum:



http://www.thirdgen.org/mt_july_1990...the_5.0_corral
That was an RS Camaro with the lower-rated 305. Of COURSE it lost.

I've been saying Z-28 the entire time. Chevy offered 3 different V-8's in the Camaro. Ford had only one. That doesn't prove a thing, other than the Mustang would handily outrun the lower-rated Camaro.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 06:35 AM   #25
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74Maverick View Post
My brothers Completely stock one owner 87 Convertible( heaviest) GT 5spd ran 14.86 on stock tires with 55,000 miles on it. He was a novice driver at the time. a lighter notch or even hatchback would do better, especially with a seasoned driver. Ford have ALWAYS been meaner except fo a couple times in history that for smartly waited for chevy to show its hand.

Time and time again ford have done more with less.

Also of note to the guy talking about z28 so you seem to be forgetting that most 305s were in RS camaros, with 170 hp.
Speaking of lesser models say the gt and z28 were apples to apples. take a step "down" and a lx 5.0 surpasses a gt, while a rs 5.0(camaros) struggles to break the tires free.

Iknow these points as a fact while as im only 29 and not of age at the time my brothers each bought a brand new 5spd one the 87 vert gt, one an 89 rs 5.0. They raced the mustang won 10 years later the paint peeled off of the camaro and my brother sold it for 1,700 in 1999. My other brother still has his gt, with 129,000 on it, we freshened up the motor (it has been sitting undriven since 2005). And it is in near original shape, save for some blemishes.

But all this mustang talk doesnt matter, the fact is that the OP can pull a 5.0 out of any fuel injected ford product after 86 and have over 200 hp with alot more available for under $1000(like +300hp) and it will nearly directly bolt to 1 great, 2 solid, and one marginal factory jeep transmissions.
Correct, so I said Z-28 every time, and did not mention RS or imply it was "every Camaro". So comparing a 5.0 Mustang to an RS Camaro is ridiculous.

The original point was, the 305 is a perfectly good motor. Not a thing wrong with it, and since it's a Small Block Chevy, which is the best and most successful V-8 of all time, it has all the advantages of an enormous aftermarket and decades of knowledge in making them run.

What some of you don't seem to be getting in the Mustang/Camaro debate is this: It wasn't the motor that was the difference. The motors had the same power. 225hp is 225hp. There was like a 5lb difference in torque. The ONLY difference was the weight of the car. The Mustang was lighter, therefore, the lightest ones were slightly faster with a good driver. Didn't have a damn thing to do with the motor.

And yes, a 5.0 Stang would beat a RS Camaro with the lesser engine....just like the RS would beat the Mustang with the V-6, and an F-250 with a 460 would beat an F-250 with a 302. Duh.

You have to look at the complete picture.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 07:04 AM   #26
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74Maverick View Post
My brothers Completely stock one owner 87 Convertible( heaviest) GT 5spd ran 14.86 on stock tires with 55,000 miles on it. He was a novice driver at the time. a lighter notch or even hatchback would do better, especially with a seasoned driver. Ford have ALWAYS been meaner except fo a couple times in history that for smartly waited for chevy to show its hand.

Time and time again ford have done more with less.
Totally wrong. Ford has consistently done LESS with the SAME or MORE. The ONLY really success Ford has had against GM was the 5.0 Mustangs, and even then, it wasn't the motor, it was just from having a lighter car.

All through the 60's and 70's, Ford was behind GM, other than the occasional bright spot for them. The proof is on the track. Go to any drag strip and count the engines. Chevy's will outnumber everything else by a HUGE margin. And that's not because "they sold more"......it's because they were BETTER, and THAT is why they sold more, and THAT is why more people choose them to race.

Ford never "did more with less". They got less out of the same or more, consistently. Their FE series big blocks....turds. Their small blocks were turds until the 5.0's. They had some moderate success with the Boss 302/351, but that was with a head design COPIED from the Big Block Chevy.

They tried copying the BBC again with the Lima series big block 429/460's, but they again got them wrong. Takes a lot to make one of those live with any kind of power.

I give Ford credit for going with "less expensive/lighter" with the 5.0 Mustangs. That did more for the aftermarket for Ford small blocks than anything. (besides maybe Bill Elliott's cheating dominance with an undersized car) Before that, it took Texas $$ to make a Ford run worth a crap, and they still weren't reliable.

They still aren't the ultimate equal of the SBC, but at least they are in the conversation now.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 07:06 AM   #27
Wheelin98TJ
JEEP FREAK
 
Wheelin98TJ's Avatar
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , Southeast MI
Posts: 24,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacfanweb View Post
That was an RS Camaro with the lower-rated 305. Of COURSE it lost.

I've been saying Z-28 the entire time. Chevy offered 3 different V-8's in the Camaro. Ford had only one. That doesn't prove a thing, other than the Mustang would handily outrun the lower-rated Camaro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacfanweb View Post
Correct, so I said Z-28 every time, and did not mention RS or imply it was "every Camaro". So comparing a 5.0 Mustang to an RS Camaro is ridiculous.

The original point was, the 305 is a perfectly good motor. Not a thing wrong with it, and since it's a Small Block Chevy, which is the best and most successful V-8 of all time, it has all the advantages of an enormous aftermarket and decades of knowledge in making them run.

What some of you don't seem to be getting in the Mustang/Camaro debate is this: It wasn't the motor that was the difference. The motors had the same power. 225hp is 225hp. There was like a 5lb difference in torque. The ONLY difference was the weight of the car. The Mustang was lighter, therefore, the lightest ones were slightly faster with a good driver. Didn't have a damn thing to do with the motor.

And yes, a 5.0 Stang would beat a RS Camaro with the lesser engine....just like the RS would beat the Mustang with the V-6, and an F-250 with a 460 would beat an F-250 with a 302. Duh.

You have to look at the complete picture.

Mustang is 172 lbs lighter.

THat does not explain a 1-1.5 second difference in the 1/4.

So it must have been the driver then, huh?

Bottom line, Ford 5.0 > Chevy 5.0.

I think its ridiculous to compare them too, and its a no brainer the Ford wins everytime, but that is the thread topic and the question that was asked.

I don't need to preclude this with any asterisks, it does not have to be a GT or LX or XYZ model, it does not take a special driver.
Wheelin98TJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 08:19 AM   #28
Pacfanweb
Go Wolfpack
 
Pacfanweb's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelin98TJ View Post
Mustang is 172 lbs lighter.

THat does not explain a 1-1.5 second difference in the 1/4.

So it must have been the driver then, huh?

Bottom line, Ford 5.0 > Chevy 5.0.

I think its ridiculous to compare them too, and its a no brainer the Ford wins everytime, but that is the thread topic and the question that was asked.

I don't need to preclude this with any asterisks, it does not have to be a GT or LX or XYZ model, it does not take a special driver.
See, that's dead wrong. I ONLY ever mentioned Z-28. And no late 80's 5.0, whether LX or GT, was ever 1-1.5 SECONDS faster than a Z-28.

An 89-ish Z-28 ran high 14's to maybe a hair over 15 flat. Same as a GT. The LX was lighter, and a bit faster than both. Period, end of story. That's the fact. And you're talking maybe 14.6, max, for a dead-stock LX.

So the difference in driver was often the difference in the race between a GT and a Z-28. That's another fact. Driver's make a HUGE difference.
And even if your weight difference is correct, that's an almost .2 advantage for the lighter car. Every hundred pounds is a tenth in the quarter. Think about it: That's the difference between a 15 flat and a 14.8. Not motor, weight.


Show me a test of a Z-28 that is a second slower than a Mustang GT or even an LX. Don't worry, you can't. Not in an apples-to-apples comparison. If you compare a Z convertible vs. an LX Stang, maybe.....but that's not apples-to-apples, and frankly, would be intellectually dishonest to claim all Stangs are faster based on that race, just like it's dishonest to say the same because a 225hp Stang can outrun a 170hp RS Camaro. Duh, of course it could. That wasn't a performance model.

And again, the ONLY difference between the LX and GT's performance was the weight. Everyone knew that, that's why people bought LX's instead of GT's. They were faster because they were lighter. The drivetrain was the same.


I will give Ford credit for coming a long way in a short time, though. Just 6 years earlier, in 1983, the Mustang was like 600lbs lighter and was STILL a half a second slower that the Z with that old 305 "boat anchor". So to bring the GT dead even with the Z by 89 was a nice job.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 11:24 AM   #29
74Maverick
Registered User
1977 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 752
Yeah 75-85 was dark times for everyone buddy. An old roomate of mine is driving around a 1980 Vette that will not break the tires free for a second. Thats a 350.

And your still only comparing the creme of the crop 305 to every 302 of the era. Seems like cheating to me.

Speaking of cheating, you can go ahead and leave awesome bill out of this. Bill Elliott did as much for nascar as anybody in the last 30 years. You dont see me going and danceing on earnhardt grave do ya.

Back to ford beating chevy GT350>corvette GT40>all!!! Boss 302>z28,aar,amx Boss 429>ss396,ss454 Boss429 engine>nascar(prompted chrysler to engineer a freeking airplane) Flathead V8> over everyone for for a decade the list goes on.

Once again to go out and get a AVERAGE! 302/305 out of a 80-early 90s vehicle of any size. You will see more out of the 302 and ultimatly building a 305/302 up to 600hp is going to cost about the same +/- $250.

Honestly ford VS chevy will never end ( COUGH! 2013 GT500/Shelby 1000 COUGH!)

LETS JUST GO BACK TO HATING FOREIGN CARS, DIDNT THE OP ASK IF THE 4 CYL OUT OF A 76 HONDA WAS A GOOD SWAP FOR A MILITARY CJ?
__________________
The Last Great American Hero... the demi-god... to which speed means freedom of the soul.
74Maverick is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 05-12-2013, 11:32 AM   #30
Wheelin98TJ
JEEP FREAK
 
Wheelin98TJ's Avatar
1998 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: , Southeast MI
Posts: 24,645
^ Good point, I think that is what I was trying to say before I busted out the 1990 magazine article.

A common Ford 302 is better than a common Chevy 305, at least in my opinion.
Wheelin98TJ is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

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.


Thread Tools






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.