Alexia Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I guess this happens after ordering over one thousand dollars of parts for a Comanche. :P
JeepnDale Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Wow, kinda cool. Kinda scary. I hate those ads that target you because someone is tracking your evey internet move.....
neohic Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder if they're still sending out the magnets with Brent's truck?
terrawombat Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Actually, I believe that's the same MJ that made it into their October newsletter: http://www.rockauto.com/Newsletter/index.html (This link will probably take you to the November newsletter after today). I don't recognize that MJ being a member's rig.
ComancheKid45 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I noticed that a few days ago....just was feeling too lazy to make a topic about it, lol
gogmorgo Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder how that Cummins 3.3 would compare to the VW 1.9 diesel people have been mentioning lately. The guy's claiming 34 mpg.
terrawombat Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage. I have an '02 VW TDI Golf with the 1.9L and can squeak out 46-48MPG with all highway driving. Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve. I'm currently in the process of weighing all diesel engine options to transplant into my aging 4.0L in my 1992 since I'm making a lot of trips between MD and NJ (300 miles round trip). The VW 1.9L ranks up in the top 3 for diesel engine choices.
Alexia Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 Wow, kinda cool. Kinda scary. I hate those ads that target you because someone is tracking your evey internet move..... That is not a targeted advertisement. They update the email header once a month with a new vehicle and it is static for everyone.
mvusse Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I have about 10 of their newsletters in my trash folder, they all show that same banner. They must change the file but keeping the file name the same.
fiatslug87 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I ordered from them two weeks ago and saw that on my receipt, thought it was specific to the vehicle I was ordering parts for. Nice.
Automan2164 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 It helps having Brent pushing the way with his super nice MJ... Now they can't get enough of them. Rob
HOrnbrod Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage. Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve. Put one of these babies on an MJ. 50MPG no sweat.
mpace6a Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage. I have an '02 VW TDI Golf with the 1.9L and can squeak out 46-48MPG with all highway driving. Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve. I'm currently in the process of weighing all diesel engine options to transplant into my aging 4.0L in my 1992 since I'm making a lot of trips between MD and NJ (300 miles round trip). The VW 1.9L ranks up in the top 3 for diesel engine choices. Is the 200hp, 300ft/lbs of torque true about the 1.9?
terrawombat Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Is the 200hp, 300ft/lbs of torque true about the 1.9? Not without serious engine, turbo, fuel, and engine management modifications. Stock is 90hp, 155ft/lbs of torque. You can get to 150hp, 275ft/lbs of torque pretty easily (and not be in over your head budget-wise) and that would be wayyyy more than enough. Don't let the low horsepower numbers scare you off. HP isn't everything and torque is way more fun!
huck731 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I just had a big thing written up with a good bit of info but my internet freaked and refreshed...dammit. summary of what I was saying. mk1 rabbit (golf) w/ 1.6l idi naturally apsirated at 1471 gross lbs gets a good solid 42 mpg (at least mine did and I drove the piss out of it. 91 4wd(I think) comanche w/ i6 engine at 2898 gross lbs and the mk1 rabbit is as much of a brick as the comanche, the coefficient drag of the rabbit is .42, so basically a brick, not sure of the comanche as I cannot find it. all in all, the current or anything past 04 vw tdi would rock the socks off a comanche or fuel mileage imho.
terrawombat Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 I just had a big thing written up with a good bit of info but my internet freaked and refreshed...dammit. summary of what I was saying. mk1 rabbit (golf) w/ 1.6l idi naturally apsirated at 1471 gross lbs gets a good solid 42 mpg (at least mine did and I drove the piss out of it. 91 4wd(I think) comanche w/ i6 engine at 2898 gross lbs and the mk1 rabbit is as much of a brick as the comanche, the coefficient drag of the rabbit is .42, so basically a brick, not sure of the comanche as I cannot find it. all in all, the current or anything past 04 vw tdi would rock the socks off a comanche or fuel mileage imho. I think your weights are a little on the low side. 2,900 may be in the ballpark for a shortbed 2WD w/2.5L, but pretty sure the 4WD's are a couple hundo more. Either way, the a 1.9L VW TDI would be a good fit, although I'd personally stay away from the '04 and newer ones as they had to make changes to the engine for new US diesel emissions which hurt the MPGs. '99-'03 1.9L TDI (ALH is the code) would be your best bet. The availability and price of the 1.9L VW TDI is going to be a lot more attractive than, say, a 3.9L Cummins 4BT and 2.8L VM Motori, but the latter two engines will be more adaptable to the MJ/XJ engine bay.
huck731 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 did you see the link to hpa motorsports I posted in another thread? they took a 91 wrangler and put a vw 1.9l pd code tdi in it mated to the stock ax-5 transmission. http://www.hpamotorsport.com/tdijeep.htm
terrawombat Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Nah, what other thread are you posting in? Probably more appropriate than this one. Neat read, though. The biggest issue and expense is mating a transmission to the 1.9L VW TDI since it's normally a transversely-mounted engine. That CNC'ed piece that HPA motorsports made looks like some serious $$$.
huck731 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 double post: I just emailed hpa about looking into an mj conversion. unhijacking thread now: I missed the comanche header, now it is a 71+ vw microbus
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now