budwisr

I guess I should change my avatar. :laughin:

Care to elaborate? I believe the popularity of the HO builds are due to their abundance and not to any real technical advantage.Read up on the head design of the renix vs HO engines.Yes the HO heads flow better. But higher flow doesn't generally improve low end torque, which is the purpose of a stroker motor. What's so much better about the rest of the HO engine? Are you sure we're all after low end when we stroke? My stroker makes its power above 3k rpm and regularly revs to around 5k. If you like your Renix, that's awesome, but saying that airflow has nothing to do with power is ,at best, mistaken. I never said flow doesn't make power, it just doesn't have much of an affect on low end power. A stoker is an undersquare engine so by design it is more suited for making low end torque rather then top end horsepower. And actually I like all the 4.0 sixes I just don't see the updated versions as being much better than the originals. (Then again I still like the old 4.2s)

Care to elaborate? I believe the popularity of the HO builds are due to their abundance and not to any real technical advantage. Read up on the head design of the renix vs HO engines. Yes the HO heads flow better. But higher flow doesn't generally improve low end torque, which is the purpose of a stroker motor. What's so much better about the rest of the HO engine?

Care to elaborate? I believe the popularity of the HO builds are due to their abundance and not to any real technical advantage.

As Lee lets me know every time I stop in. :yes: Are you from Birmingham? :thumbsup:

I don't consider an additional 13 horsepower to be pretty amazing. Hard to say if AMC could have managed the same feat in three additional years or not. They did develop the motor itself in just over two years. The 13 additional HP isn't amazing by itself, but when you consider the much better flow characteristics and the 100% reliability improvement over AMC's cobbled together Renix kludge system, that's amazing. The Renix system was highly regarded at the time. Hesco developed the mutiport fuel injection for Chrysler and most likely would have developed it for AMC as Hesco had a long standing previous business relationship with AMC.

I don't consider an additional 13 horsepower to be pretty amazing. Hard to say if AMC could have managed the same feat in three additional years or not. They did develop the motor itself in just over two years. From a 1965 model year design. So it was first put down on paper in 60-61? They sure had plenty of time to develop it but it remained basically the same from then until 1986. The 4.0 was based on the AMC I4 2.5L which was first available in 1983. The 4.0 became available in 87 and remained basically the same until 2006.

I don't consider an additional 13 horsepower to be pretty amazing. Hard to say if AMC could have managed the same feat in three additional years or not. They did develop the motor itself in just over two years.

I still have an old flathead 4 banger off of my Willys wagon sitting in my garage. lol I think even ChryCo gave Jeep something good. I DO love my 4.0HO equipped ZJ, after all. Both the 4.0 and XJ were AMC designs. If it weren't for the "merger" the XJ would have been available sooner. Chrysler delayed the introduction in order to introduce the redesigned minivans.

I thought the same thing when they were DaimlerChrysler AG.

I picked up one today at a local yard for $20. It does need a little work, but not too much.Coincidentally the truck I pulled it from had a "tag"

Cool. :thumbsup: Gotta find one now. Let me know if you ever want to sell

Nice!