V-6 in '08 Wrangler???

A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by Mitsubushi.
Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.

Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling
up the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6
would do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get anyplace.

Probably better on the highway.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...


Jack Carter wrote:
> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by Mitsubushi.
> Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine and that it's
> used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a long time.
>
>

Maybe you should check out the gear ratios in the 6-speed transmission and
then take one for a test drive - preferably one with the optional 3.73
axles. If you're open minded - as opposed to empty headed - you might change
your mind!


"Mike Romain" > wrote in message
ng.com...
> Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling up
> the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6 would
> do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get anyplace.
>
> Probably better on the highway.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
>
>
> Jack Carter wrote:
>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>> Mitsubushi. Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine
>> and that it's used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a
>> long time.

Mike is right. There is no substitute for a low-revving, high torque engine
with high rotational mass. Simple physics says Mike is right and you are
easily persuaded by marketing smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Earle

"Jack Carter" > wrote in message
. ..
> Maybe you should check out the gear ratios in the 6-speed transmission and
> then take one for a test drive - preferably one with the optional 3.73
> axles. If you're open minded - as opposed to empty headed - you might
> change your mind!
>
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ng.com...
>> Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling up
>> the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6 would
>> do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get anyplace.
>>
>> Probably better on the highway.
>>
>> Mike
>> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
>>
>>
>> Jack Carter wrote:
>>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>>> Mitsubushi. Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine
>>> and that it's used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a
>>> long time.
>
>

Ditto. But I do love spinning tire, just it takes a heck of a lot more
horsepower than that puny V6: http://www.billhughes.com/pismo.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O


"Earle Horton" > wrote in message
...
> Mike is right. There is no substitute for a low-revving, high torque
engine
> with high rotational mass. Simple physics says Mike is right and you are
> easily persuaded by marketing smoke and mirrors.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Earle



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

You feel the need to insult my opinion just because you got took and
didn't look under the hood?

I feel sorry for you, but Chrysler 'did' make that special oil additive
'just' for the Mitsubishi smokers so it might last a little while... ;-)

So I have the sand pit wall in mind if you want a test, bring on the
mini van engines!!!

Seriously, it would be fun. I am in the Toronto Canada area and love to
sit at the top taking photos of folks trying to make it.

I'll even post the photo album up.

Mike


Jack Carter wrote:
> Maybe you should check out the gear ratios in the 6-speed transmission and
> then take one for a test drive - preferably one with the optional 3.73
> axles. If you're open minded - as opposed to empty headed - you might change
> your mind!
>
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ng.com...
>> Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling up
>> the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6 would
>> do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get anyplace.
>>
>> Probably better on the highway.
>>
>> Mike
>> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
>>
>>
>> Jack Carter wrote:
>>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>>> Mitsubushi. Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine
>>> and that it's used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a
>>> long time.
>
>

What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
"minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?

Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....


Jon

Sucker.
But the fifty pound flywheel like used on the Buick V6 to allow it to
idle did have a secondary advantage of storing inertia energy. Your V6 won't
have it as also eats gasoline. But you may buy them for the wimpy four
bangers. And of course we all know of the go quick small block, thirteen
pound wheel, and it's rough idle.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/


"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> What total garbage -- particularly in light of the chart NRS was so
> kind to link. The preceding posts make it sound like comparing this
> "minivan" motor to the I-6 is akin to comparing a wicked, ill-tempered
> race motor and its street counterpart. So we've lost a bit of
> rotational inertia from the engine -- I'd put my money on a good
> driver any day over the _grand_ difference between these two
> powerplants. ...garage equivalent of armchair semantics...so let's
> talk about that really butch 4.0/4.2 .... is it more "Jeep", or is it,
> too, a grocery getter - just from AMC?
>
> Anybody care to comment on the huge flywheel effect or massive torque
> rise on a stock-engined a Samurai? Must make for a lousy crawler....
>
>
> Jon
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The jury is out, but as a general rule the V6 makes its power at speeds well
off of idle, but the old I6 makes 80% or 90% of its torque while idling. The
result is that the old I6 makes for better rock crawling because you can
select 1st in 4LO and have more than enough power to creep (crawl) over
stuff.

On the other hand, the V6 makes its power at speed, so it will make for a
far more pleasant commute -- where engine speeds are high, and thus noisey.

I can't say for certain, but the odds favor the new V6 to be a poor
performer for offroading. Having said that, the old 225 Even Fire (and, for
that matter the Odd Fire as well) were very desirable engines in the olden
days. But, when those motors were in production, they were essentially V8s
with two chopped off of one end. The point being, they had a long stroke,
which is where torque comes from. A motor with a short stroke will produce
torque further up on the RPM band, and offroaders (rock crawlers) prefer the
torque to be very low on the RPM band. It is far better to pull a stump at
idle than it is to yank it at 3000 RPM.





"Jack Carter" > wrote in message
. ..
> Maybe you should check out the gear ratios in the 6-speed transmission and
> then take one for a test drive - preferably one with the optional 3.73
> axles. If you're open minded - as opposed to empty headed - you might
> change your mind!
>
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ng.com...
>> Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling up
>> the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6 would
>> do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get anyplace.
>>
>> Probably better on the highway.
>>
>> Mike
>> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
>>
>>
>> Jack Carter wrote:
>>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>>> Mitsubushi. Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine
>>> and that it's used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a
>>> long time.
>
>

Well, one thing you can release the clutch at idol on the I6 and you just
crawl along. If you do this with a V6 it stalls.

Coasty


"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
news:Xc8Ui.21997$od4.9082@trnddc04...
> The jury is out, but as a general rule the V6 makes its power at speeds
> well off of idle, but the old I6 makes 80% or 90% of its torque while
> idling. The result is that the old I6 makes for better rock crawling
> because you can select 1st in 4LO and have more than enough power to creep
> (crawl) over stuff.
>
> On the other hand, the V6 makes its power at speed, so it will make for a
> far more pleasant commute -- where engine speeds are high, and thus
> noisey.
>
> I can't say for certain, but the odds favor the new V6 to be a poor
> performer for offroading. Having said that, the old 225 Even Fire (and,
> for that matter the Odd Fire as well) were very desirable engines in the
> olden days. But, when those motors were in production, they were
> essentially V8s with two chopped off of one end. The point being, they had
> a long stroke, which is where torque comes from. A motor with a short
> stroke will produce torque further up on the RPM band, and offroaders
> (rock crawlers) prefer the torque to be very low on the RPM band. It is
> far better to pull a stump at idle than it is to yank it at 3000 RPM.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jack Carter" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Maybe you should check out the gear ratios in the 6-speed transmission
>> and then take one for a test drive - preferably one with the optional
>> 3.73 axles. If you're open minded - as opposed to empty headed - you
>> might change your mind!
>>
>>
>> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
>> ng.com...
>>> Yup, it would appear you now have a mini van engine. No more crawling
>>> up the sides of sand pits or over rocks at 400-500 rpm like the old 6
>>> would do. You now need tire spinning, hole digging, rpm to get
>>> anyplace.
>>>
>>> Probably better on the highway.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>>> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack Carter wrote:
>>>> A friend tells me that the engine in my new Wrangler is made by
>>>> Mitsubushi. Is he correct? All I've heard is that it's a "good" engine
>>>> and that it's used in most Chrysler-made vans and has been around for a
>>>> long time.
>>
>>
>