Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Calendar
Monthly
Weekly
Agenda
Archive
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
General Discussion
JK's with the 3.8L's??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jimbo92" data-source="post: 426978" data-attributes="member: 3449"><p>Did those Jeeps have 35 inch tires?</p><p></p><p>Also you NEVER see a landcruiser with a 2f and dual cases with 529s. The 2f made its torque a 1k rpm lower than the 4.0. 210ft lbs at 1800 while the 4.0 made a little more with 222 at 2800 rpm. The 2f makes more torque down low. </p><p></p><p>I have had a 78 fj40 with 35s, a 99 tj with a 4.0 and 35s, and now a 3.8 jk with 35s. The 2f was a very linear motor. It never really made more power then it did right off idle. The 4.0 had to have more rpms to keep them turning. </p><p></p><p>2F averaged 15mpg. The TJ averaged 12-14. And the JK averages 16-18 MPG. </p><p></p><p>Not saying the 3.8 is great because its not, just saying its not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Also saying the 4.0 isnt as great as everyone made them out to be. Same with a overrated ford 300ci. It felt torquey because it had a manual with a 7:1 first, anything would feel like it had some guts off the line with that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jimbo92, post: 426978, member: 3449"] Did those Jeeps have 35 inch tires? Also you NEVER see a landcruiser with a 2f and dual cases with 529s. The 2f made its torque a 1k rpm lower than the 4.0. 210ft lbs at 1800 while the 4.0 made a little more with 222 at 2800 rpm. The 2f makes more torque down low. I have had a 78 fj40 with 35s, a 99 tj with a 4.0 and 35s, and now a 3.8 jk with 35s. The 2f was a very linear motor. It never really made more power then it did right off idle. The 4.0 had to have more rpms to keep them turning. 2F averaged 15mpg. The TJ averaged 12-14. And the JK averages 16-18 MPG. Not saying the 3.8 is great because its not, just saying its not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Also saying the 4.0 isnt as great as everyone made them out to be. Same with a overrated ford 300ci. It felt torquey because it had a manual with a 7:1 first, anything would feel like it had some guts off the line with that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Latest posts
Pickett State Park/Blackhouse Mountian 1-23-2016
Latest: ridered3
Friday at 3:12 PM
Trail Rides & Competitions
Daves Offroad Supply
Latest: Daves Offroad Supply
Wednesday at 10:52 AM
Vendors
B
For Sale
Artec Back-bone truss for 14 bolt
Latest: Bebop
Tuesday at 7:19 PM
Off Road 4x4 Parts For Sale
P
YouTube of the day
Latest: paradisepwoffrd
Monday at 8:21 AM
General Discussion
Cash LeCroy Illness
Latest: ridered3
May 26, 2024
General Discussion
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
General Discussion
JK's with the 3.8L's??
Top