My sister was told that Jeep produced an engine prior to 2000 that was nearly bulletproof in the reliability catefory. She was told that any vehicle she found one in may be a rustbucket but it was worth it for the engine and the guy who told her this said that he drove one to 500,000 miles (yes thats 1/2 million). Can anyone tell me what engine and vehicle this guy was talking about?
Welcome to Allpar Forums for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Plymouth, and more
![]() |
|
| Guest Message © 2009 DevFuse | |
Register and log in now! Then you can avoid seeing all these ads!
Bulletproof Reliability In A Jeep Engine what is this engine?
#1 Guest_Bigalexe_*
Posted 09 September 2006 - 06:07 PM
My sister was told that Jeep produced an engine prior to 2000 that was nearly bulletproof in the reliability catefory. She was told that any vehicle she found one in may be a rustbucket but it was worth it for the engine and the guy who told her this said that he drove one to 500,000 miles (yes thats 1/2 million). Can anyone tell me what engine and vehicle this guy was talking about?
#2
Posted 09 September 2006 - 10:40 PM
#3
Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:49 PM
Bigalexe, on Sep 9 2006, 05:07 PM, said:
I believe your sister is talking about the 4.0 inline six found in several model Grand Cherokee's, Box Cherokee's, Wranglers, Commanches and so on. Anyways, I've witnessed many of these engines go hundreds of thousands of miles with simple maintenance. I highly recommend them.
#4 Guest_Bigalexe_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 02:50 PM
#5
Posted 13 September 2006 - 07:56 PM
D100man
#6
Posted 22 September 2006 - 01:47 AM
It's a shame that it ran into emissions issues. I think a 99 is the best all around. It's got the better intake manifold ..and doesn't have the intregrated pre-cats that the 2000 on up have. If that goes bad, you're looking at a grand to have someone else fix it.
#7
Posted 22 September 2006 - 02:12 PM
D100man, on Sep 13 2006, 08:56 PM, said:
D100man
Best as always...
ADDENDUM:
http://en.wikipedia...._Tornado_engine
http://www.film.quee...ings/Wagon.html
http://www.ifsja.org...rs/tornado.html
This post has been edited by Bob_Sheaves: 22 September 2006 - 02:15 PM
#8
Posted 06 October 2006 - 10:30 PM
Starting out at 199.6cid and finally ending in 242cid (4.0L) when Chrysler in yet another foolish move discontinued it for a V6 that probally will never make the torque the L6 did!
I have had 3 AMC's over the years with the inline motors. The 72 Gremlin had a 232cid in it. Rather underpowered, but good with the 3-speed. My 79 AMC Concord had a 258cid in it and its still running to this day with over 350,000 miles on it. Only problem was a stripped out rocker arm stud which was retapped and never gave a problem again!
they did have some head gasket issues, especially after AMC switched from the cast iron head to the aluminum head in 1987 for the 4.0L, and sometimes the cast iron heads on the 258/232 had a tendancy to warp if constantly overheaded, but otherwise they are very reliable, cheap to work on, and easy to fix!
#9
Posted 07 October 2006 - 12:57 AM
Michael A. Stanhope, on Oct 6 2006, 11:30 PM, said:
Starting out at 199.6cid and finally ending in 242cid (4.0L) when Chrysler in yet another foolish move discontinued it for a V6 that probally will never make the torque the L6 did!
I have had 3 AMC's over the years with the inline motors. The 72 Gremlin had a 232cid in it. Rather underpowered, but good with the 3-speed. My 79 AMC Concord had a 258cid in it and its still running to this day with over 350,000 miles on it. Only problem was a stripped out rocker arm stud which was retapped and never gave a problem again!
they did have some head gasket issues, especially after AMC switched from the cast iron head to the aluminum head in 1987 for the 4.0L, and sometimes the cast iron heads on the 258/232 had a tendancy to warp if constantly overheaded, but otherwise they are very reliable, cheap to work on, and easy to fix!
The in line 6 was discontinued after 2001 due to the tougher emission standards that went into 2002 MY vehicles. The 6 could not meet the newer standards.
#10
Posted 08 October 2006 - 09:04 PM
This post has been edited by alvin: 11 October 2006 - 04:37 PM
#11 Guest_Jazzhead_*
Posted 16 October 2006 - 06:24 PM
#12
Posted 16 October 2006 - 10:46 PM
karlStolz, on Oct 7 2006, 12:57 AM, said:
Actually the engine is still in use on the 06 Wranglers. When the TJ production is phased out, the 4.0 will be phased out with it. The last major changes to the engine were back in 1999,when it received coil-on-plug ignition in place of the regular plug/wire/distributor setup,and minor H.P./torque increases(depending on the vehicle).
#13
Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:50 AM
#14
Posted 18 October 2006 - 02:26 PM
For '65, AMC brought out a shorter stroke version displacing 199 CID that was meant to replace the aging "Nash" 195.6 engine that had been around since God was a little boy.
The 199 continued through 1970 (it was the standard engine in the first Gremlins).
In 1971, AMC brought out a longer-stroked version of the six which displaced 258 CID.
The 232 lasted through the 1979 model year and the 258 soldiered on in cars through 1987 (the 4WD Eagle) and in Jeep Wranglers through 1990 (or even into 1991?).
One bit of trivia: The 199, 232 and 258 all used the same bore dimension of 3.75"; the different displacements were achieved by varying the stroke length (199 = 3.75" X 3.00"; 232 = 3.75" x 3.50"; 258 = 3.75" x 3.90").
The Jeep 4.0L six, introduced for 1987, was a modernized & updated derivative of the earlier AMC six. It featured a bore & stroke of 3.88" X 3.41", resulting in a displacement of 243 CID, or 4.0 liters.
Any and all of these engines feature truck-like ruggedness and durability. I've owned a bunch of them down through the years and never experienced any mechanical issues with them; the basic design was simple & sound. I've seen the bottom end of these things ang it was built to last.
The new 3.8L V6 being used in the Wranglers starting in '07 is more or less the same engine that's been used in minivans starting in 1994 (actually first appearing in the FWD Fifth Avenues/Imperials back in '91). It has proven to be durable as well, at least doing minivan duty (and those things ain't light)...
#15
Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:52 PM
A small displacement hemi V8 could catch my attention.
#16
Posted 19 October 2006 - 10:57 AM
skinpine, on Oct 19 2006, 01:52 AM, said:
I tend to agree with you. For some reason, a Jeep doesn't seem to be "whole" to me unless it has that big ol' inline six under the hood (I actually prefer it to the 304 V8).
Of course, the '48 CJ2 I learned to drive in had a puny little 134 CID flathead four :blink:
The minivan V6 is a pretty stout engine from my experience. I love it in the minivans--but it will take me awhile to get used to the idea of it powering Jeeps...
#17
Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:38 PM
Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote