Thinking about a change

[Tncdrew]

Selective memory make it sound better? The TJ was nowhere near as good as the JL in any fashion. Slow, tiny wheel openings, low power, terrible ride by comparison, poor handling, short control arms so the angles and handling really go to crap when you start lifting it, and in my experience no more or less reliable than the JL.

You've made your point clear... countless times. Some folks here happen to like TJ's and older models.... is that ok?

Sponsored

 

[autotragic]

What a jackass thing to say!

Well he is a jackass. Well that and just flat out stupid but I digress. I like driving a TJ personally. One of the greatest Jeeps ever made.

I have him on ignore for a reason and nothing of value is lost.

 

[Zandcwhite]

You've made your point clear... countless times. Some folks here happen to like TJ's and older models.... is that ok?

You can like them all you want, you can even pretend you prefer them like many on this forum do. The fact that you own a JL proves that's not true. You could buy one with a decent body and replace the entire drivetrain for less than a base model JL... and yet here we are.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Well he is a jackass. Well that and just flat out stupid but I digress. I like driving a TJ personally. One of the greatest Jeep ever made.

You could drive 3-6 of them for what a new JL costs...I think you're on the wrong forum? Don't worry, stating facts often hurts feelings of the weak minded who can't support their own arguments... and then they cry and start name calling.

 

[Tncdrew]

You can like them all you want, you can even pretend you prefer them like many on this forum do. The fact that you own a JL proves that's not true. You could buy one with a decent body and replace the entire drivetrain for less than a base model JL... and yet here we are.

WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG!
You don't know me, which obviously means you don't know what I like and dislike. Your logic in that last post is presumptuous.
Your arrogance towards me (and as displayed in your last post), towards other members as well, is next level. I will give you that
Enjoy!

 

[The Last Cowboy]

The Buick V6 with ~ the same HP as the AMC V8, but much lighter, simpler, fuel efficient, no smog crap, had 1/3 more HP than the AMC 6 that replaced it, and didn’t require a 6” stretch. IMO the best CJ-5 “factory” engine. Performance parts were available for the Buick.

And, many don’t know that the V6 pre-dated the inline six in Jeep CJs. I remember when the JK came out with a V6, and there were howls of discontent.

 

[Zandcwhite]

WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG!
You don't know me, which obviously means you don't know what I like and dislike. Your logic in that last post is presumptuous.
Your arrogance towards me (and as displayed in your last post), towards other members as well, is next level. I will give you that
Enjoy!

It has nothing to do with arrogance. The JL is better in every measureable way period. As far as being simple and reliable, you aren't repairing a failed crank shaft position sensor (very common) or pcm or a number of other things on the old 4.0L with a crescent wrench and a screw driver. The minute they put 1 sensor in that is 100% required for the vehicle to run was the end of that argument. Talk is cheap, we vote with our wallets. Even if you own a TJ, you spent more on a JL and you're here. Again, simple facts.

 

[Tncdrew]

The Buick V6 with ~ the same HP as the AMC V8, but much lighter, simpler, fuel efficient, no smog crap, had 1/3 more HP than the AMC 6 that replaced it, and didn’t require a 6” stretch. IMO the best CJ-5 “factory” engine. Performance parts were available for the Buick.

I appreciate your thoughts on the Buick 225!
However, one thing I always liked about my 258 (which I fuel injected), was the low end torque (reciprocating mass) you get with that long, heavy 7-main bearing crankshaft, over the rather short crank in a V6. Granted, the inline's weren't HP makers, but I never really thought it was about HP when I was crawling the Sierra Nevada rocks back in the day. My CJ-7 had a fairly low 80:1 crawl ratio, and in 1st gear 4-low you practically could not stall that engine... even standing on the brakes.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

Well, this thread went to shit fast. How can one guy tell another what he likes, should like, or ought to like.

 

[2nd 392]

And, many don’t know that the V6 pre-dated the inline six in Jeep CJs. I remember when the JK came out with a V6, and there were howls of discontent.

A good engine for a Jeep, a friend swapped one into his 3B making it hwy capable.

 

[Tncdrew]

And, many don’t know that the V6 pre-dated the inline six in Jeep CJs. I remember when the JK came out with a V6, and there were howls of discontent.

My buddy back in HS had a super clean '64 Buick Special with the "Odd fire" 225 V6... nicely rebuilt, headers, Offy 4 barrel manifold & Holley carb. It was set up well, and a nice little runner.... good times!
But I digress.

 

[Flip]

Toyota...

What in the sam hell is going on in here....???

 

[Zandcwhite]

Well, this thread went to shit fast. How can one guy tell another what he likes, should like, or ought to like.

Again, I'm stating the facts. Like I said you can like whatever you want to. You can drive whatever you want to. The JL is better on and off road but maybe you like low power and poor handling, more (or less?) power to you. Claiming you like the TJ better while driving the significantly more expensive JL is lying to yourself if nothing else.

 

[2nd 392]

I appreciate your thoughts on the Buick 225!
However, one thing I always liked about my 258 (which I fuel injected), was the low end torque (reciprocating mass) you get with that long, heavy 7-main bearing crankshaft, over the rather short crank in a V6. Granted, the inline's weren't HP makers, but I never really thought it was about HP when I was crawling the Sierra Nevada rocks back in the day. My CJ-7 had a fairly low 80:1 crawl ratio, and in 1st gear 4-low you practically could not stall that engine... even standing on the brakes.

Yes- I-6’s make good low end torque, heck my 62 Chevy PU had 280 lb ft that I even used to make fun of Jeep’s V6, we’ve come a long way in 62 years but the good winding Buick made the 5 also hwy capable for the first time, Warn OD also made a factory option. That’s why “factory”, a friend de-smogged his V8 and added a cam, Edelbrock, Holley, for respectable gains. But the smog heads and low compression pistons would need to be replaced to put it in the same league as my Chevy powered 63. Here in Ca requires a 75 down for upgrades to avoid smog check.
all manner of performance parts were available for Buick V6’s. Even factory.

 

[Tncdrew]

Yes- I-6’s make good low end torque, heck my 62 Chevy PU had 280 lb ft that I even used to make fun of Jeep’s V6, we’ve come a long way in 62 years but the good winding Buick made the 5 also hwy capable for the first time, Warn OD also made a factory option. That’s why “factory”, a friend de-smogged his V8 and added a cam, Edelbrock, Holley, for respectable gains. But the smog heads and low compression pistons would need to be replaced to put it in the same league as my Chevy powered 63. Here in Ca requires a 75 down for upgrades to avoid smog check.
all manner of performance parts were available for Buick V6’s.

Another friend bought a '55 CJ-5, and a few of us gathered once a week in his garage for various car/truck projects/beer drinking... Anyway, we did a ground up restoration on the 5. It's power was a fresh 4.3 Chevy V6 built with nice goodies. Now that Jeep was fun when done! Great engine... as you know 90°, essentially a short small block... fun!

Sponsored