Super unleaded gas for 3.6 liter

Status
Not open for further replies.

jludave

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
1,850
Location
The Isle of Long
Vehicle(s)
2020 Wrangler Unlimited Sport Altitude
Vehicle Showcase
1

JLUandCJ-7

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
337
Location
Charleston, SC
Vehicle(s)
2020 Sahara w/mods
Vehicle Showcase
1
I’m hearing the issues with the 3.6 liter engine in the JL could be remedied by using super unleaded gasoline. That high build up of carbon could be the issue. Back in the day (1986) I never used anything other than super in my CJ7 and the engine ran quiet even with 158,000 miles.
Feels like muckraking, and you do realize that the 3.6L Pentastar is NOT in JLs and JLUs, right?
Screenshot_20210630-201308_Chrome.jpg
 

JJSix

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
286
Reaction score
499
Location
Tucson AZ
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2016 Dodge Caravan
Occupation
Military
Vehicle Showcase
1
You’re a fool. Why would I lie. I’m not selling anything . Like it’s really matters what happens to others. Do what you want but I’m taking these experts advice.
Heck if I know friend-o, but you're lying. You said that Chrysler recommends something they don't recommend. If you only said mechanics I know recommend going with 89 or 91, then cool man, that might be true. But you didn't, you said they recommend something that they explicitly don't recommend. For some reason you have doubled-down on it many times, even though other and I have all shown you that you are incorrect.

Again, I'm not going to say that running 89 or 91 is bad or you shouldn't, though every mechanic I talk to has said the opposite, people can do what they want. Heck, I run a UPR catch-can and that debate has been raging for years on if they are worth it or do anything at all. But you are flat our lying when you say Chrysler recommends something they explicitly don't. That kinda makes you a jerk or a blowhard for lying about what they say, especially when confronted with direct evidence that says you are wrong.
 
OP
OP

Stac0608

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
80
Reaction score
39
Location
Rockland county New York
Vehicle(s)
2021 Wrangler 2 door Sport
Heck if I know friend-o, but you're lying. You said that Chrysler recommends something they don't recommend. If you only said mechanics I know recommend going with 89 or 91, then cool man, that might be true. But you didn't, you said they recommend something that they explicitly don't recommend. For some reason you have doubled-down on it many times, even though other and I have all shown you that you are incorrect.

Again, I'm not going to say that running 89 or 91 is bad or you shouldn't, though every mechanic I talk to has said the opposite, people can do what they want. Heck, I run a UPR catch-can and that debate has been raging for years on if they are worth it or do anything at all. But you are flat our lying when you say Chrysler recommends something they explicitly don't. That kinda makes you a jerk or a blowhard for lying about what they say, especially when confronted with direct evidence that says you are wrong.
Prove I’m not lying. You can’t because you refuse to do research or even contact Chrysler to get the actual facts. So you stay safe in your mind that you think you’re Granville King.
 

tk1700

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tom
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
80
Reaction score
130
Location
New Mexico
Vehicle(s)
2007 JKR, 2019 JLU Altitude, 2021 JLUR,2016 Tundra
Prove I’m not lying. You can’t because you refuse to do research or even contact Chrysler to get the actual facts. So you stay safe in your mind that you think you’re Granville King.
Ahhh, Granville King, there are probably lots of people on here that have no idea who he is. I still have a copy of his Jeep Bible and remember his articles in the 4wd mags. He would probably pee in the gas tank, adjust timing and plug gap then just drive off across the desert! Octane number be damned!
 
OP
OP

Stac0608

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
80
Reaction score
39
Location
Rockland county New York
Vehicle(s)
2021 Wrangler 2 door Sport
Ahhh, Granville King, there are probably lots of people on here that have no idea who he is. I still have a copy of his Jeep Bible and remember his articles in the 4wd mags. He would probably pee in the gas tank, adjust timing and plug gap then just drive off across the desert! Octane number be damned!
I met that old bastard. Had no idea who the hell he at the time. Got an autographed copy of the Jeep Bible 1st edition. Even dawgs paw print is next to his signature. Good old days when Jeep CJs were cheap and life was long.
 

entropy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
4,162
Location
Pasadena
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Sport S JL 2-D
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Data Scientist
Prove I’m not lying. You can’t because you refuse to do research or even contact Chrysler to get the actual facts. So you stay safe in your mind that you think you’re Granville King.
"
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

see also: The reversed responsibility response – switching the burden of proof, Science or Not December 4, 2012

Burden of Proof

From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise? "

You gotta prove your claim fella. You lost this argument.
 
OP
OP

Stac0608

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
80
Reaction score
39
Location
Rockland county New York
Vehicle(s)
2021 Wrangler 2 door Sport
"
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

see also: The reversed responsibility response – switching the burden of proof, Science or Not December 4, 2012

Burden of Proof

From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise? "

You gotta prove your claim fella. You lost this argument.
Ow go away before I piss in your fuel tank. I’m using super. You can do what you damn well please.
 

entropy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
4,162
Location
Pasadena
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Sport S JL 2-D
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Data Scientist
Ow go away before I piss in your fuel tank. I’m using super. You can do what you damn well please.
Very intelligent response. But thats it, we do what we want. Isnt this country wonderful.
 
Advertisement
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mac Haik CDJR Georgetown
 
Advertisement
Top