JeepForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: My ESS story. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
 
 
   

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










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-17-2020 04:40 PM
ColdCase That 79 CJ I had and the 2000WJ were in line 6s of the same mold, strong like dirt. I put a set of headers, a bigger carb, and intake on the 79 which put some zip into it. Everything rusted away around it before the engine was barely broken in, however. I think the only problem we had with either engine were a crank position sensors and a water pump. The CJ went through front wheel u-joints every 5-10,000 miles. I guess they didn't like big tires and a highway commute.
04-17-2020 02:26 PM
2014RedHemiGC
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPheJeep View Post
Definitely one of the best engines ever made. So reliable and easy to work on. We owned 3 XJs with with them and never had any issues with the engine, other than rear main seal leaks after 150,000 miles. I loved how than sounded too. The 4.2 in my CJ7 scratches that itch every time I fire it up.
Agree! Our first Jeep was a ‘91 Cherokee Sport with the 4.0 “High Output” badge on the back - loved that! Such a well balanced running engine with smooth power delivery. My dad bought it from us when we moved up to an ‘02 Overland and drove the 4.0 daily until he turned 92 after 200,000 trouble free miles!
04-17-2020 12:40 PM
BigPheJeep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer1 View Post
The 4.0 is still my dearly-missed favorite.....
Definitely one of the best engines ever made. So reliable and easy to work on. We owned 3 XJs with with them and never had any issues with the engine, other than rear main seal leaks after 150,000 miles. I loved how than sounded too. The 4.2 in my CJ7 scratches that itch every time I fire it up.
04-16-2020 03:14 PM
Homer1
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPheJeep View Post
Yes, the CAFE and other EPA standards are requiring vehicle manufactures to squeeze every MPG and decrease emissions as much as possible. This is especially tough for Jeep that sells so many brick shaped vehicles that aren't the most fuel efficient vehicles because of the requirements of their customers. Who wants a gutless and slow Wrangler and Grand Cherokee that can't tow anything? This does drive up the price and all the technology effects the reliability, in my opinion. Lighter weight parts and over engineered engines aren't going to last like the good old gas hogs of yesteryear, like the beloved 4.0.
The 4.0 is still my dearly-missed favorite.....
04-16-2020 01:42 PM
BigPheJeep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckmiller View Post
Thi isn't a subject that is easy to dissect. In my owners manual it says the ESS function is there to reduce emissions. So by that it appears to be how the manufacturer is dealing with government requirements. If a beefier/more costly starter motor is needed (cost passed down to the consumer) maybe the beneficial tradeoff is less wear on the valve train.
Yes, the CAFE and other EPA standards are requiring vehicle manufactures to squeeze every MPG and decrease emissions as much as possible. This is especially tough for Jeep that sells so many brick shaped vehicles that aren't the most fuel efficient vehicles because of the requirements of their customers. Who wants a gutless and slow Wrangler and Grand Cherokee that can't tow anything? This does drive up the price and all the technology effects the reliability, in my opinion. Lighter weight parts and over engineered engines aren't going to last like the good old gas hogs of yesteryear, like the beloved 4.0.
04-16-2020 08:42 AM
Chuckmiller Thi isn't a subject that is easy to dissect. In my owners manual it says the ESS function is there to reduce emissions. So by that it appears to be how the manufacturer is dealing with government requirements. If a beefier/more costly starter motor is needed (cost passed down to the consumer) maybe the beneficial tradeoff is less wear on the valve train.
04-15-2020 12:19 PM
BigPheJeep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckmiller View Post
What causes more wear on internal rotating parts? Idling with full lubricant circulation or startup with lubricants that have settled?
I don't think the short time period of a minute or two would cause much settling of lubrication. I'm not a engineer though.
04-15-2020 12:08 PM
ColdCase Police cars seem to have valve train issues due to all the idling they do. They idle instead of stop/start. Idling seems to be hard on most car gas engine cam, valves, and lifters. Diesels are different. Truck engines are beefed up to deal with extended idling.
04-15-2020 11:29 AM
Chuckmiller What causes more wear on internal rotating parts? Idling with full lubricant circulation or startup with lubricants that have settled?
04-15-2020 07:17 AM
BigPheJeep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckmiller View Post
I'm not a fan of what has to be a significant increase in starter motor cycles. It could be 5x to 10x the usage. Now granted, unlike my younger years when I helped my dad change starters, alternators, water pumps and hoses, batteries, points and condenser, spark plugs, brakes, etc, ALL THE TIME, I can't remember the last time I heard of a starter motor failing. But ESS has to shorten starter motor life, doesn't it. Doesn't it??
My thoughts on the whole thing is, think of all the idling hours on the engine that are saved for those of us that do a large part of our driving in the city. I'd rather replace my starter a time or two in 200,000 miles of ownership and than all the additional idling hours on the engine. Starters are much cheaper and easier to replace than engines.
04-15-2020 05:43 AM
Nejeep FWIW, I looked at RockAuto's parts list for starters on Jeep GC 3.6 engines. It does show different Mopar part numbers (and higher prices) for newer ESS Jeep starters vs the older non-ESS. However some of the off brand rebuilt starters show the same part numbers for both, so guess which one you might get?
04-14-2020 08:07 PM
ColdCase Yes, but recall that the ESS starter motor is beefed up to provided the same design life. So comparing a non ESS car with the old starter and one with ESS it should be a wash. Now if you put the same beefed up ESS starter in a older car, it should last longer than the older starter.
04-14-2020 07:39 PM
Chuckmiller I'm not a fan of what has to be a significant increase in starter motor cycles. It could be 5x to 10x the usage. Now granted, unlike my younger years when I helped my dad change starters, alternators, water pumps and hoses, batteries, points and condenser, spark plugs, brakes, etc, ALL THE TIME, I can't remember the last time I heard of a starter motor failing. But ESS has to shorten starter motor life, doesn't it. Doesn't it??
04-14-2020 08:51 AM
Salvinorum
Quote:
I also watch the light. If it is changing I let up on the brakes just a bit and the engine starts up.
Oh yeah, I got that down to a science, and it's subconscious at this point, I know instinctively when to "allow" it to turn off and when to crawl forward so it doesn't!
04-13-2020 10:24 AM
rjlindblom I am becoming accustomed to it. Sometimes it depends on how hard I am pushing on the brake pedal at lights. Other times it is temperature. I also watch the light. If it is changing I let up on the brakes just a bit and the engine starts up. When it is my turn the engine is running, oil pressure is built up and off we go.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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