Mods please delete

[Terrymo]

See I knew deep down you had the beginnings of a sense of humor

Sponsored

 

[jeepingib]

The problem with this claim is that what you call "changing the meaning of words or disagreeing with my own previous posts" is just you trying to change my statement into something you can disprove. You and your buddies do this constantly. You (meaning you or one of them) did it in the 2024 prediction thread (all over the meaning of the term "refresh"), you did it in the power loss at altitude thread (tried to turn "I think it's overblown" into "the facts are wrong")...it's been done in just about every time we end up here - I make a statement that you disagree with, and then when you are unable to objectively disprove what I said you try to change what I said into something you CAN objectively disprove.

The 2023 thing was me. You stated that it would be more than a refresh, then went on to claim major changes to frame and tub. And that you inferred that it was to fit 37s.

I called BS that it would be anything more than a minor refresh as we would have already seen test mules, and spy photographers would have gotten images.

 

[AnnDee4444]

I got all the way to page 21, but I just couldn’t anymore. This award goes to everyone in this thread.

No, it hasn't happened yet.

@NWJeepr this was a fun one - dude was claiming that the 3.6 is putting out a ton more useful torque than the 2.0 because the torque converter is definitely 100% sending virtually all of the 3.6s torque through by 1500 RPM and there's no meaningful slippage of the converter even though it's well under stall and thus the 3.6 is the more useful engine.

This logic... if the torque converter is slipping, it's multiplying torque.

I actually looked into the 3.6 vs 2.0 torque converter slip here: https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...tire-size-speed-etc.38206/page-5#post-2737119

The 2.0 appears to have more slip below 3500 then mostly lock, while the 3.6 slips all the way through first gear. Keep in mind these are only two Jeeps from a video, so it's not the most accurate.

 

[TheRaven]

I honestly, really, truly think you believe that, and bless your heart, because that's a little sad.

See? @Terrymo - this is the point where I always stop. Like I said, Remorseless CAN carry on adult conversations with intelligence and as long as he does, we're cool (in my mind)...but then he does this thing where he turns into a 12 year old so that's where I stop. But then the cycle restarts in another thread. How do I know it's him and not me? Easy - i've conversed debated and argued with hundreds of members here over four years and I don't have this problem with anyone but Remorseless, yokramer, and like three other kids.

 

[TheRaven]

The 2023 thing was me. You stated that it would be more than a refresh, then went on to claim major changes to frame and tub. And that you inferred that it was to fit 37s.

I called BS that it would be anything more than a minor refresh as we would have already seen test mules, and spy photographers would have gotten images.

You started it, yes. Then later on you brought them into it.

And for the good of the class, tell me again, why was me relaying what I saw such a problem to you? I've re-read that thread so many times over the years and I still can't see why one guy simply stating what he saw would cause anyone to attack with such strong response...and then to BRING OTHER MEMBERS BACK TO IT, REPEATEDLY!!!! Why?

 

[TheRaven]

No, it hasn't happened yet.


This logic... if the torque converter is slipping, it's multiplying torque.

I actually looked into the 3.6 vs 2.0 torque converter slip here: https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...tire-size-speed-etc.38206/page-5#post-2737119

The 2.0 appears to have more slip below 3500 then mostly lock, while the 3.6 slips all the way through first gear. Keep in mind these are only two Jeeps from a video, so it's not the most accurate.

YES!!! THANK YOU!!! His whole claim was flawed because real slip results in MUCH HIGHER torque to the wheels!!! In reality (stock vehicle) TCs hit coupling speed REALLY fast, so they're near 1:1 very early - which is why you DON'T see the false high torque readings in the 1500-2000rpm range of the dyno graphs.

 

[Remorseless]

See? @Terrymo - this is the point where I always stop. Like I said, Remorseless CAN carry on adult conversations with intelligence and as long as he does, we're cool (in my mind)...but then he does this thing where he turns into a 12 year old so that's where I stop. But then the cycle restarts in another thread. How do I know it's him and not me? Easy - i've conversed debated and argued with hundreds of members here over four years and I don't have this problem with anyone but Remorseless, yokramer, and like three other kids.

Just because other folks aren't stubborn enough to call it out doesn't meant they're agreeing with you or not recognizing the flip flopping and revisionism.

YES!!! THANK YOU!!! His whole claim was flawed because real slip results in MUCH HIGHER torque to the wheels!!! In reality (stock vehicle) TCs hit coupling speed REALLY fast, so they're near 1:1 very early - which is why you DON'T see the false high torque readings in the 1500-2000rpm range of the dyno graphs.

I'm not sure @AnnDee4444 was refuting my logic there, but I'll let him confirm or deny that.

Will just say though, at the risk of rehashing the TC discussion, that any slip is a multiplication, even if not a large one. Also that dynos don't really show much at such a low RPM by and large, and that any torque results they do show that low, if started at the appropriate RPM, do show the torque multiplication as part of the results. The multiplication tapers off as slip tapers off and RPM increases and so you don't see a huge jump or dip, but instead a steady climb as the TC is no longer masking the engine's lack of torque and the engine has hit a better spot in its torque curve.

 

[jeepingib]

You started it, yes. Then later on you brought them into it.

And for the good of the class, tell me again, why was me relaying what I saw such a problem to you? I've re-read that thread so many times over the years and I still can't see why one guy simply stating what he saw would cause anyone to attack with such strong response...and then to BRING OTHER MEMBERS BACK TO IT, REPEATEDLY!!!! Why?

Relaying something true, that's awesome. But what you started was pure rumor mongering that I called out at the time as inaccurate. But you doubled down and said that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about.

Later when the new changes were available for all to see and you were being an obstinate usual self, I called back to it as an example of your behavior. As it's clear to all that you were incorrect. It was a minor refresh. But you couldn't save face and just admit that you were wrong.

See you might warn others that are joining about us, and that's fine. But the folks that stick around and can do the math figure out who the real fraud is here.

 

[TheRaven]

Just because other folks aren't stubborn enough to call it out doesn't meant they're agreeing with you

I have no doubt this is true in some cases as it is for anyone. But there are how many members on this site? Thousands, right? To try to claim that you and like four other members are THE ONLY ONES out of thousands of members that are willing to speak up about "the flip flopping and revisionism" is a pretty egocentric stance. I don't argue any differently with anyone else...but I get along with almost everyone else. Conversely, ask pretty much any long time member of this forum about Remorseless and yokramer and you get...

Will just say though, at the risk of rehashing the TC discussion, that any slip is a multiplication, even if not a large one. Also that dynos don't really show much at such a low RPM by and large, and that any torque results they do show that low, if started at the appropriate RPM, do show the torque multiplication as part of the results. The multiplication tapers off as slip tapers off and RPM increases and so you don't see a huge jump or dip, but instead a steady climb as the TC is no longer masking the engine's lack of torque and the engine has hit a better spot in its torque curve.

Mostly agreed. TCs hit what's called "coupling speed" very quickly...they are still slipping, just slightly (though generally this isn't considered slip in the real sense) and thus slightly multiplying torque. But the original claim you made was that the low-end torque advantage of the V6 doesn't matter because the torque converter is slipping that entire time. The second part of that claim is kinda true, but the first part is not. The torque advantage is EVEN BIGGER when the TC is slipping.

 

[TheRaven]

Relaying something true, that's awesome. But what you started was pure rumor mongering that I called out at the time as inaccurate. But you doubled down and said that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about.

Dude all I did was relay what I learned. Regardless of our opinions on the accuracy of that information, your response was completely out of bounds and your future re-hashing of it defies all sensibility.

See you might warn others that are joining about us, and that's fine. But the folks that stick around and can do the math figure out who the real fraud is here.

I don't warn anyone about anyone. It's the rest of the forum that warns new members about Remorseless and yokramer. You aren't included in that...though your continued association with their childishness may change that. I dunno and frankly don't care.

You are right about "the folks that stick around and can do the math"...and i'm not worried at all as I have already seen repeatedly what many of them think. That's what it comes down to - if there's anyone left here besides us who actually cares, they will judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong. If you are confident that what you have said and done here and in the threads you continually dig up makes you look mature, competent and reasonable then i'm cool with that. Cause i'm good with what I posted. With that settled, we should be able to drop this ancient disagreement. Deal?

 

[jeepingib]

I have no doubt this is true in some cases as it is for anyone. But there are how many members on this site? Thousands, right? To try to claim that you and like four other members are THE ONLY ONES out of thousands of members that are willing to speak up about "the flip flopping and revisionism" is a pretty egocentric stance. I don't argue any differently with anyone else...but I get along with almost everyone else. Conversely, ask pretty much any long time member of this forum about Remorseless and yokramer and you get...

Mostly agreed. TCs hit what's called "coupling speed" very quickly...they are still slipping, just slightly (though generally this isn't considered slip in the real sense) and thus slightly multiplying torque. But the original claim you made was that the low-end torque advantage of the V6 doesn't matter because the torque converter is slipping that entire time. The second part of that claim is kinda true, but the first part is not. The torque advantage is EVEN BIGGER when the TC is slipping.

You think that you get along just fine with everyone, and when you aren't trying to argue a false point that can be seen that way. The issue is when you believe yourself to be the only one who is accurate even when presented with facts. Most people just avoid you and move on. But this particular thread is full of people who have been calling you on your BS for a while.

 

[Ratbert]

What I said was "THE FUTURE". That's it.

Again, all of this back-and-forth because we have different definitions of a term. It's silly.

Please clarify what you meant by "the future". If you mean "some time period prior to our local sun running out of hydrogen and swelling into a red giant", then yes, I agree that gas engines are most likely not a significant part of that distant future.

Please stop saying things like "Gas engines aren't the future" without context when we have multiple indications that gas engines will, in fact, be a non-trivial part of our future.

 

[TheRaven]

You think that you get along just fine with everyone, and when you aren't trying to argue a false point that can be seen that way. The issue is when you believe yourself to be the only one who is accurate even when presented with facts. Most people just avoid you and move on. But this particular thread is full of people who have been calling you on your BS for a while.

So I only "argue a false point" with you, Remorseless and yokramer?

No. I've been wrong around many members, and I always acknowledge that. Most recent example I can think of is that I never realized that the JL has NEVER been offered with a 2.0 and manual trans (I thought it was just discontinued in 2020). But the issue here is not right vs. wrong. It's how to have a useful discussion and/or debate like an adult. The difference with everyone else is not that I was right or wrong...it's that we were able to settle the debate (whether coming to agreement or agreeing to disagree) without anyone devolving into tantrums, bullying, or straight up calling their friends into old unrelated threads.

 

[TheRaven]

Please clarify what you meant by "the future". If you mean "some time period prior to our local sun running out of hydrogen and swelling into a red giant", then yes, I agree that gas engines are most likely not a significant part of that distant future.

Please stop saying things like "Gas engines aren't the future" without context when we have multiple indications that gas engines will, in fact, be a non-trivial part of our future.

OBVIOUSLY when I was talking about "the future" in the context of automobile powerplants I was not talking about hundreds or thousands of years from now. I can't even wrap my head around your approach to discussion - I have no idea why anyone would take it that way. Nor can I imagine why anyone would think that a 4-cylinder turbo motor, a concept which has been prevalent for more than two decades already and existed as far back as the 1960s could be called "the future". We all know whether we like it or not, EVs are our future.

You and I are never going to be able to debate with utility. Your obsession over minutiae turns every discussion into a brain-melting bore-fest . I think we just need to accept that and shake hands.

 

[Ratbert]

The problem with this claim is that what you call "changing the meaning of words or disagreeing with my own previous posts" is just you trying to change my statement into something you can disprove. You and your buddies do this constantly. You (meaning you or one of them) did it in the 2024 prediction thread (all over the meaning of the term "refresh"), you did it in the power loss at altitude thread (tried to turn "I think it's overblown" into "the facts are wrong")...it's been done in just about every time we end up here - I make a statement that you disagree with, and then when you are unable to objectively disprove what I said you try to change what I said into something you CAN objectively disprove.

Why are you now trying to rewrite history? Is this not what you clearly (yes, clearly) stated back in The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty One in regards to the 2023 model year changes? That was not a 2024 prediction thread as you're now erroneously trying to claim. Even if it was, your "definitely" predictions would still be blatantly wrong.

The 2023 model is a lot more than a "refresh". I don't know if FCA will call it "all-new" but it's definitely not a re-style. It's got an all new frame and tub. I don't know anything beyond that but logic dictates if that much is new than there could be A LOT more.

Maybe you subsequently backtracked, admitted you were wrong, changed the prediction to 2024, and removed all of the "definitely" errors?

Sponsored