jeep 4.0 HO work in 89 ranger

[Mac]

I had absolutly no problem with the 4.0 in my Cherokee for 145K except for one themostat. In Summer was getting over 20 mpg but would drop to 17-18 in Winter. Anybody remember when that motor first came out, mid 60's in a Rambler maybe?
Dave

 

[rockwerks]

I had absolutly no problem with the 4.0 in my Cherokee for 145K except for one themostat. In Summer was getting over 20 mpg but would drop to 17-18 in Winter. Anybody remember when that motor first came out, mid 60's in a Rambler maybe?
Dave

predecessor of the 4.0 was the AMC 258 introduced in 1971 for the J series pickups and wagoneer

 

[James86]

I had my Cherokee for about two years and consistently got an average of 17-18 per tank, and I lived in town, worked in town, bummed around town. On the highway I nailed 24 solid and my personal best was drafting three semis from the Twin Cities to Rochester down US 52 and I averaged 27 that tank. My best mileage was about 72mph (wish it was in my Ranger, that does best below 65mph) but it would drop DRAMATICALLY abot 75mph. As for design, its actually based on the AMC 2.5 litre, not the 258. The crank will fit giving you a stroker, but otherwise, the design is shared with the 4 popper in jeeps. The 2.5 and 4.0 were injected whereas the 4.2 was carbureted. I often wonder what gear ratios my 5 speed and rear end in the jeep had that it felt so damn peppy and got such good mileage with the aerodynamics of a brick that my Ranger can't compete with a 4spd auto, 4.10 rear end, cruise control (the XJ didnt have cruise) and a fibreglass topper, whcih after enough driving with and without it, does help with aerodynamics. I'd be interested to see the long term result of a AMC 2242 swap into an RBV.

 

[PlumCrazy]

The big advantage of the I6 over the V6 is that the I6 is perfectly balanced and runs smooth for ever. The V6 design is an unbalanced ticking time bomb.IMO. Why do you think most big diesels are either I6 or V8? They are naturally balanced with no need for extra balance shafts.

I have been thinking about sticking a 300 in a Ranger for a long time, but I have never really measured anything. I did see a Ranger with a Cummins 5.9 once, and it was a tight fit.

-PlumCrazy

 

[Hahnsb2]

I had my Cherokee for about two years and consistently got an average of 17-18 per tank, and I lived in town, worked in town, bummed around town. On the highway I nailed 24 solid and my personal best was drafting three semis from the Twin Cities to Rochester down US 52 and I averaged 27 that tank. My best mileage was about 72mph (wish it was in my Ranger, that does best below 65mph) but it would drop DRAMATICALLY abot 75mph. As for design, its actually based on the AMC 2.5 litre, not the 258. The crank will fit giving you a stroker, but otherwise, the design is shared with the 4 popper in jeeps. The 2.5 and 4.0 were injected whereas the 4.2 was carbureted. I often wonder what gear ratios my 5 speed and rear end in the jeep had that it felt so damn peppy and got such good mileage with the aerodynamics of a brick that my Ranger can't compete with a 4spd auto, 4.10 rear end, cruise control (the XJ didnt have cruise) and a fibreglass topper, whcih after enough driving with and without it, does help with aerodynamics. I'd be interested to see the long term result of a AMC 2242 swap into an RBV.

5 speed 4.0 XJ should be 3.07s...

My 4.0 V6 5 speed 4.56s and 34" LTBs is faster than my buddy's 4.0 XJ auto with 3.55s and 31s, my B2 weighs more than his jeep and the Jeep 4.0 has 30 more HP...

I like I6s but I just don't see the advantage in this situation, The jeep 4.0 is long, a pain to work on and doesn't really offer anything more than the Ford 4.0 does unless you want to stroke it.

 

[James86]

JP magazine had a naturally aspirated Stroker 4.6(?) in an XJ with about 270hp at the rear wheels. I doubt you could get that out of either an OHV 4.0 or SOHC 4.0 cologne. If you have the engine lying around, go for it. They made something like 5 million 4.0 inlines so its not hard to find parts.

 

[TheOne]

yea if u spent all the money they did u could have a nice v8 with way more power

i remember reading that article i think they spent around 3 grand? thats a decent amount of money.

 

[James86]

They cheated and went out and bought a Golen crate engine though, they didn't build it up themselves really. A Golen Stroker engine is a couple grand and comes with warranties and such.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I helped rebuild my friends 258 in his 1979 J10, and have a 4.7L stroker project, along with another 4.0L and another 258.

How one justifies that these engines are a pain to work on are beyond me. I thought they were among the easiest! Everything was just right there, nothing underneath, or behind something, but exposed.

 

[James86]

I know, but I just hated that back plug. Its like they wrapped the cherokee firewall around the head or something. everything else was easy though. I thought it was kinda amusing having something that new (1999) with a cap and rotor distributor.

 

[rockwerks]

I know, but I just hated that back plug. Its like they wrapped the cherokee firewall around the head or something. everything else was easy though. I thought it was kinda amusing having something that new (1999) with a cap and rotor distributor.

a ujoint on the ratchet extension make it a non issue.