wrangler 4.0 o 2.5????

mauro · 07-09-2006, 13:05:31

amigos quiero comprarme un wrangler antiguo tipo año 2000que opinan de este jeep?? en cuanto a consumo como cuanto da el 2.5 y el 4.0 en ciudad???
los que han tenido estos jeep que me recomiendan???.
saludos
mauro
PD: tengo un jeep aro M461 en cuanto se podria vender, tiene direccion hidraulica, cervofreno neumas 31*10.5-15 en llantas de 8" blancas, butacas de honda CRV

3/4 BruGteK · 07-09-2006, 13:39:08

Nose que tan economico sea el 4.0 jaja pero si se que el 2.5 anda super bien. poco motor si, pero anda super bien. le puedes poner hasta neumaticos 33 y bueno hay algunos que lo han jeepeado con 35 y ningun drama. Yo prefiero 33 anda a toa raja.

Si podi comprarte un 4.0 dale por esa opcion. un buen motor influye su resto.

Saludos

Oscar Mejía · 15-09-2006, 02:02:56

Cita:

Empezado por mauro

amigos quiero comprarme un wrangler antiguo tipo año 2000que opinan de este jeep?? en cuanto a consumo como cuanto da el 2.5 y el 4.0 en ciudad???
los que han tenido estos jeep que me recomiendan???.
saludos
mauro
PD: tengo un jeep aro M461 en cuanto se podria vender, tiene direccion hidraulica, cervofreno neumas 31*10.5-15 en llantas de 8" blancas, butacas de honda CRV

Yo eh escuchado que gastan casi lo mismo en combustible.... y no hay comparacion del power de un 4.0 ......con ese motorcito se hacen maravillas.... y la performance...olvidalo... ojala le des por el 4.0 ...

Suerte y buena eleccion..... es un buen jeep ;-)
adios

OB1 · 15-09-2006, 12:15:21

Extraído de Novak Conversions:

Fuel Economy Misconceptions

"A small (typically four-cylinder) engine will give better economy than a larger V6 or V8 engine."

This is not really the case. A four-cylinder engine is not often well suited for the weight, tasks and aerodynamics of many Jeeps. The requirements of these Jeeps often cause the four-cylinder engine to overwork itself, which is completely counter to the engine's efficiency. Because the four-cylinder may not have the torque and horsepower required, the driver will tend to run the engine in a higher RPM range, or to lug the motor at a lower RPM range with the throttle depressed beyond the point where the engine has the power to maintain speed. The stronger V6 and V8 engines have a greater economy advantage in that they have broader horsepower and torque bands, and are more likely to be tasked in the engine's more efficient operating range. Additionally, these engines carry reserve power that the smart driver can opt to use when they need it, and keep their foot out of the pedal when they do not.

We get so many calls and complaints from customers running four-cylinders - that they don't have the power to overcome the wind resistance and mild highway climbs that Jeeps often see. The result of these motors is often poorer economy than other customers get from transplanted V6's and even some V8's.

-------------------

There are two popular misunderstandings about engine size that should be brought to light. The first mistake many make is in thinking that a small displacement engine will invariably give better gas mileage. This is only true if the small engine is in a lightweight, properly geared, and semi-aerodynamic vehicle. A small engine in a heavy vehicle with "tall" gears will perform poorly and give bad gas mileage. Any engine, when worked to the point where vacuum drops low enough to operate the power jets in the carburetor, or to lug, will give poor gas mileage. If too small an engine is used for the work to be done, it will operate at low vacuum for longer periods and use more gas than a larger engine that would not be working as hard. The added benefit of the larger engine is its reserve power.

The second most common error swappers make is to convert to an engine that is too large, from both size and displacement, for the vehicle. While a Small Block V8 is a great engine, there are sometimes better choices for smaller Jeeps, such as Buick and Chevrolet V6's, Ford 2000cc and 2300cc's, GM "Iron Duke" Fours and the like. Big Block V8's and heavy old I6's should hardly ever be considered in short wheelbase Jeeps! When planning a conversion into a CJ2A up through the CJ5's, remember that you are dealing with a 2500lb. vehicle. This, by all standards, is light, and that is one reason why these vehicles prove to be the most agile in the world. Adding an overburdening block of iron to smaller Jeeps will give disappointing results in terms of handling, braking and of course, breaking – of several components directly and indirectly between the block and the vehicle. Besides, fit into the engine bay is usually so poor that the work soon looks as poorly as it was thought out in such situations.

The trick is to match engine size to the load, then only use the reserve power when needed. Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke. (An under-square engine has a bore that's smaller than its stroke.) Many swappers and engine enthusiasts prefer the challenge of running an optimum V6 to the power levels of V8's, and then reaping the weight and fit benefits both on and off-road.

"A fuel-efficient engine cannot be a powerful engine"

Blatantly incorrect. A fuel-efficient engine is nearly by definition, a powerful engine. An engine that best uses an optimum fuel/air mixture to the greatest power advantage is powerful. The rest of the equation is whether the engine is scaled right for the job at hand.

We'll use the 400 horsepower C6 Corvette as a shining example here. Its LS2, 6.0L engine achieves 23 MPG (city/freeway combined - cruising MPG's is at 29!) while other sports cars of its class fare more poorly in power vs. economy. It beats out the Viper, the Porsches, and the Ferraris, achieving as much as 50% greater efficiency when comparing horsepower vs. mileage.

There is a bigger difference between the engineering of engines than most would assume.

Injected vs. Carbureted
This question has been at the forefront of the conversion world for a while now. There is something great about a simple, clean, unencumbered carburetor and simple ignition system. However, there is something excellent about a modern, self-adjusting, efficient, operate-at-any-camber fuel and spark delivery system.

No doubt that many individuals are in their comfort zone with the earlier hardware, but distill it down to the basics and it is the same essential thing that was going on in 1903; getting fuel and spark into the cylinders with the right mix and timing. There is no way around the conclusion that fuel injection systems do this better and in a broader range of conditions. Old iron is really cool, but this author has lived squarely during both carbureted and injected eras, an I see fewer breakdowns than ever, and have been in the bays and at the wheels of enough injected vehicles to know that they use less fuel to generate more power and in a cleaner, more reliable manner than their predecessors.

We get an occasional call from customers that have found a beautiful Vortec V8 and ask if they can put a "simpler" carburetor on it. This has every distinct disadvantage that we can think of: increased parts cost, decreased efficiency, driveability and reliability. Don't even think about it. Fuel injection (especially GM fuel injection) is much easier to work with than too many people think.

Saludos,
OB1

V A M P I R O · 15-09-2006, 12:22:22

El 4.0 a ojos cerrados, el 2.5 o 2.4 andan bien, pero el 4.0 es otra cosa, sobre todo si es el sahara mecanico.

Sobre consumos, el fds pasado me fui a ritoque en el grancho v8 5.2 y llegue aya sin que la aguja del estanque bajara

, Pero jeepeando tooodo el dia y a la vuelta me vine a 120 crucero y llegue arriba de un cuarto de estanque. y lo mejor.. es que las hice todas cagao de la risa... asi que.. QUIERO UN V8 INYECTADO! :smile:

mauro · 15-09-2006, 15:10:24

[QUOTE=V A M P I R O]El 4.0 a ojos cerrados, el 2.5 o 2.4 andan bien, pero el 4.0 es otra cosa, sobre todo si es el sahara mecanico.

Sobre consumos, el fds pasado me fui a ritoque en el grancho v8 5.2 y llegue aya sin que la aguja del estanque bajara

, Pero jeepeando tooodo el dia y a la vuelta me vine a 120 crucero y llegue arriba de un cuarto de estanque. y lo mejor.. es que las hice todas cagao de la risa... asi que.. QUIERO UN V8 INYECTADO! :smile:[/QUOTE
no es un buen parametro si no dices cuantos litros hace ese estanque, si son 120 litros gastaste como 90 litros que son como 56 lucas o no. en todo caso eme estaria de quedando con el 4.0.
saludos
gracias.

07-09-2006, 13:05:31	#1
mauro Member Top 100 Fecha de Ingreso: Apr 2003 Ubicación: santiago Mensajes: 494	wrangler 4.0 o 2.5???? amigos quiero comprarme un wrangler antiguo tipo año 2000que opinan de este jeep?? en cuanto a consumo como cuanto da el 2.5 y el 4.0 en ciudad??? los que han tenido estos jeep que me recomiendan???. saludos mauro PD: tengo un jeep aro M461 en cuanto se podria vender, tiene direccion hidraulica, cervofreno neumas 31*10.5-15 en llantas de 8" blancas, butacas de honda CRV

07-09-2006, 13:39:08	#2
3/4 BruGteK Member Top 100 Fecha de Ingreso: May 2003 Ubicación: Santiago, Chile Edad: 43 Mensajes: 146	Nose que tan economico sea el 4.0 jaja pero si se que el 2.5 anda super bien. poco motor si, pero anda super bien. le puedes poner hasta neumaticos 33 y bueno hay algunos que lo han jeepeado con 35 y ningun drama. Yo prefiero 33 anda a toa raja. Si podi comprarte un 4.0 dale por esa opcion. un buen motor influye su resto. Saludos

15-09-2006, 12:15:21	#4
OB1 Senior Member Top 1000 Fecha de Ingreso: Jan 2003 Ubicación: Vitacura Edad: 66 Mensajes: 2.365	Extraído de Novak Conversions: Fuel Economy Misconceptions "A small (typically four-cylinder) engine will give better economy than a larger V6 or V8 engine." This is not really the case. A four-cylinder engine is not often well suited for the weight, tasks and aerodynamics of many Jeeps. The requirements of these Jeeps often cause the four-cylinder engine to overwork itself, which is completely counter to the engine's efficiency. Because the four-cylinder may not have the torque and horsepower required, the driver will tend to run the engine in a higher RPM range, or to lug the motor at a lower RPM range with the throttle depressed beyond the point where the engine has the power to maintain speed. The stronger V6 and V8 engines have a greater economy advantage in that they have broader horsepower and torque bands, and are more likely to be tasked in the engine's more efficient operating range. Additionally, these engines carry reserve power that the smart driver can opt to use when they need it, and keep their foot out of the pedal when they do not. We get so many calls and complaints from customers running four-cylinders - that they don't have the power to overcome the wind resistance and mild highway climbs that Jeeps often see. The result of these motors is often poorer economy than other customers get from transplanted V6's and even some V8's. ------------------- There are two popular misunderstandings about engine size that should be brought to light. The first mistake many make is in thinking that a small displacement engine will invariably give better gas mileage. This is only true if the small engine is in a lightweight, properly geared, and semi-aerodynamic vehicle. A small engine in a heavy vehicle with "tall" gears will perform poorly and give bad gas mileage. Any engine, when worked to the point where vacuum drops low enough to operate the power jets in the carburetor, or to lug, will give poor gas mileage. If too small an engine is used for the work to be done, it will operate at low vacuum for longer periods and use more gas than a larger engine that would not be working as hard. The added benefit of the larger engine is its reserve power. The second most common error swappers make is to convert to an engine that is too large, from both size and displacement, for the vehicle. While a Small Block V8 is a great engine, there are sometimes better choices for smaller Jeeps, such as Buick and Chevrolet V6's, Ford 2000cc and 2300cc's, GM "Iron Duke" Fours and the like. Big Block V8's and heavy old I6's should hardly ever be considered in short wheelbase Jeeps! When planning a conversion into a CJ2A up through the CJ5's, remember that you are dealing with a 2500lb. vehicle. This, by all standards, is light, and that is one reason why these vehicles prove to be the most agile in the world. Adding an overburdening block of iron to smaller Jeeps will give disappointing results in terms of handling, braking and of course, breaking – of several components directly and indirectly between the block and the vehicle. Besides, fit into the engine bay is usually so poor that the work soon looks as poorly as it was thought out in such situations. The trick is to match engine size to the load, then only use the reserve power when needed. Engine torque output is essentially related to cubic inch displacement of any engine. The RPM that maximum torque is produced at is related to the length of the stroke of any engine. A 230 c.i.d. "under-square" engine will make about the same torque as a 230 c.i.d. "over-square" engine but will do so at lower RPM due to its longer stroke. (An under-square engine has a bore that's smaller than its stroke.) Many swappers and engine enthusiasts prefer the challenge of running an optimum V6 to the power levels of V8's, and then reaping the weight and fit benefits both on and off-road. "A fuel-efficient engine cannot be a powerful engine" Blatantly incorrect. A fuel-efficient engine is nearly by definition, a powerful engine. An engine that best uses an optimum fuel/air mixture to the greatest power advantage is powerful. The rest of the equation is whether the engine is scaled right for the job at hand. We'll use the 400 horsepower C6 Corvette as a shining example here. Its LS2, 6.0L engine achieves 23 MPG (city/freeway combined - cruising MPG's is at 29!) while other sports cars of its class fare more poorly in power vs. economy. It beats out the Viper, the Porsches, and the Ferraris, achieving as much as 50% greater efficiency when comparing horsepower vs. mileage. There is a bigger difference between the engineering of engines than most would assume. Injected vs. Carbureted This question has been at the forefront of the conversion world for a while now. There is something great about a simple, clean, unencumbered carburetor and simple ignition system. However, there is something excellent about a modern, self-adjusting, efficient, operate-at-any-camber fuel and spark delivery system. No doubt that many individuals are in their comfort zone with the earlier hardware, but distill it down to the basics and it is the same essential thing that was going on in 1903; getting fuel and spark into the cylinders with the right mix and timing. There is no way around the conclusion that fuel injection systems do this better and in a broader range of conditions. Old iron is really cool, but this author has lived squarely during both carbureted and injected eras, an I see fewer breakdowns than ever, and have been in the bays and at the wheels of enough injected vehicles to know that they use less fuel to generate more power and in a cleaner, more reliable manner than their predecessors. We get an occasional call from customers that have found a beautiful Vortec V8 and ask if they can put a "simpler" carburetor on it. This has every distinct disadvantage that we can think of: increased parts cost, decreased efficiency, driveability and reliability. Don't even think about it. Fuel injection (especially GM fuel injection) is much easier to work with than too many people think. Saludos, OB1

15-09-2006, 12:22:22	#5
V A M P I R O Senior Member Top 5000 Fecha de Ingreso: Feb 2003 Ubicación: Transilvania, Rumania Mensajes: 6.705	El 4.0 a ojos cerrados, el 2.5 o 2.4 andan bien, pero el 4.0 es otra cosa, sobre todo si es el sahara mecanico. Sobre consumos, el fds pasado me fui a ritoque en el grancho v8 5.2 y llegue aya sin que la aguja del estanque bajara , Pero jeepeando tooodo el dia y a la vuelta me vine a 120 crucero y llegue arriba de un cuarto de estanque. y lo mejor.. es que las hice todas cagao de la risa... asi que.. QUIERO UN V8 INYECTADO! :smile:

15-09-2006, 15:10:24	#6
mauro Member Top 100 Fecha de Ingreso: Apr 2003 Ubicación: santiago Mensajes: 494	[QUOTE=V A M P I R O]El 4.0 a ojos cerrados, el 2.5 o 2.4 andan bien, pero el 4.0 es otra cosa, sobre todo si es el sahara mecanico. Sobre consumos, el fds pasado me fui a ritoque en el grancho v8 5.2 y llegue aya sin que la aguja del estanque bajara , Pero jeepeando tooodo el dia y a la vuelta me vine a 120 crucero y llegue arriba de un cuarto de estanque. y lo mejor.. es que las hice todas cagao de la risa... asi que.. QUIERO UN V8 INYECTADO! :smile:[/QUOTE no es un buen parametro si no dices cuantos litros hace ese estanque, si son 120 litros gastaste como 90 litros que son como 56 lucas o no. en todo caso eme estaria de quedando con el 4.0. saludos gracias.