fs 93 xj, 3.5" lift, 4.7 stroker $3000

[tone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbYtqAWDF2U

FIFY


:sunshine:

 

[Vanimal]

LOL wtf?

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

I wheeled my 93 with the stroker on 31s and 32s locked f/r and never had a lack of power when on the trail, so I never saw the need to regear. Especially when running on the freeway the taller stock gears kept the engine rpms low and the fuel economy happier. when you regear, the engine rpms have to go higher to reach the same cruising speeds. When you add bigger heavier tires the stock engine does have a harder time turning the bigger tires, but with the added torque of the stroker no regear needed, at least in my experience of wheeling my rig for 7+ years. Now that my 93 has had all of the extra weight from armor, winch and recovery gear removed, she screams like a pissed off ape, pissed off a few ricers around town when they were revving there engines at the light then get beat by a lifted cherokee on 32s, kind of funny.

 

[cal]

too bad you never wheeled that rig with the stroker, 32's, and the 4.56 gears it deserved.

with my stroker, 37's, and 5.13 gears I can spin the tires through second gear at a stop sign, drive 80 comfortable and get 17 mpg..

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

too bad you never wheeled that rig with the stroker, 32's, and the 4.56 gears it deserved.

with my stroker, 37's, and 5.13 gears I can spin the tires through second gear at a stop sign, drive 80 comfortable and get 17 mpg..

yup, too bad i never ran 37s that need both the regear and the stroker, and the axles that could handle 37s.

4.56 gears also add more stress to axle shafts and outer u joints up front, and my build was to run on stock axles without dishing out the money for chromoly axle shafts.

On 32 with stock gearing at 65 mph engine sits at a happy 1800 rpm, with 4.56s that puts it over 2300 rpm.

2300 minus 1800 = 500 rpm difference which mean better fuel economy at highway speeds and overall.

Anyways, I am glad that my for sale thread could turn into a debate.

 

[GrimmJeeper]

On 32 with stock gearing at 65 mph engine sits at a happy 1800 rpm, with 4.56s that puts it over 2300 rpm.

2300 minus 1800 = 500 rpm difference which mean better fuel economy at highway speeds and overall.

the engine's power band starts at ~2k and 23-2500 is the optimal engine speed for the 4.0, you would get better fuel economy at cruising speed in the power band than bogging down the engine, at lower RPM it has to work harder to maintain speed.

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

the engine's power band starts at ~2k and 23-2500 is the optimal engine speed for the 4.0, you would get better fuel economy at cruising speed in the power band than bogging down the engine, at lower RPM it has to work harder to maintain speed.

yes a 4.0 starts at 2k, however i built my 4.7L to start at 1500 rpm

 

[cal]

yes a 4.0 starts at 2k, however i built my 4.7L to start at 1500 rpm

stroker specs
89 4.0 block bored 40 over
72 80lb 4.2L crank and rods
4.0 40 over pistons
melling high volume oil pump
flow kooler water pump
96 HO head
24lb four bros racing 4 ports injectors
89 cam

which is it?

 

[GrimmJeeper]

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

4.0 block + 40 over bore + 4.2L crank = 4.68L as previously stated.

 

[GrimmJeeper]

i think he's asking about how you are moving the powerband with what was previously posted as an "89 cam", which makes it sound like a stock cam is in it.

 

[cal]

but you used a stock cam, so how did you build it to change the torque range of the engine?

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

With the heavier drivshaft, the longer stroke, and the 89 cam it actually moves the power band down. The 89 cam was already designed to start power band sooner than the later cams used when they started using the HO heads. That is why I used the 89 cam in the combination instead of the 93 cam.

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

When I fix the video card in my other laptop, I can upload the dyno specs of the engine that I used when building my stroker. I ran it with both cam profiles.

 

[cal]

they are the same cam.

From the FSM's

The stock '87-'95 Jeep 4.0 camshaft is a single pattern cam with thefollowing specs:

Advertised duration int./exh.: 270.0/270.0 deg
Duration @ 0.050" lift int./exh.: 197.0/197.0 deg
Valve lift int./exh.: 0.424"/0.424"
Lobe separation angle: 112 deg
Intake centerline angle: 120 deg
Valve overlap (advertised): 46 deg
IVO: 21.5 deg ATDC (0.050" lift)
IVC: 38.5 deg ABDC
EVO: 22.5 deg BBDC
EVC: 5.5 deg BTDC


The stock '96 and later Jeep 4.0 camshaft is a dual pattern cam thatproduces more torque at lower rpm and a wider torque spread. Thespecs are as follows:



Advertised duration int./exh.: 256.0/260.0 deg
Duration @ 0.050" lift int./exh.: 188.0/192.0 deg
Valve lift int./exh.: 0.408"/0.414"
Lobe separation angle: 107 deg
Intake centerline angle: 114 deg
Valve overlap (advertised): 43 deg
IVO: 20 deg ATDC (0.050" lift)
IVC: 28 deg ABDC
EVO: 16 deg BBDC
EVC: 4 deg BTDC


Would you like to try again?

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

yes i apologize, I had the 96 cam and the 89 cam. not the 93, I mispoke there. When running the numbers on engine dyno with the stroker specs it show the 89 starting soon for its torque band. And knowing that the strokers do not like high revs, that is why the 89 cam was used.

 

[cal]

the extra half inch of stroke makes no difference in the RPM's.

I run my stroker at 3300 RPM's on the highway, and the Team Naxja race car spins up around 6k and holds it.

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

And by strokers, I am speaking of budget strokers with the shorter 4.2L rods that create a higher angle in the bore and more engine heat and wear.

 

[cal]

my driver jeep (the one i run at 3300 on the highway) *is* a budget stroker.

the end of the day here is you are wrong about a stroker replacing regearing, under any circumstance.


you're selling a cheap jeep with a cheap stroker for a cheap price. its not a bad deal really.

stop trying to spread bad tech to justify the build and someone will probably buy it, right now you're just looking like an ass.

 

[HandBuiltXJ]

No bad tech here, just different tech. If your engine has the extra power needed to turn the larger heavier tires, then there is no need to waste money regearing.