FrankTheDog Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm aware of that. I'm also aware thay the base design for the ZJ was done by AMC. What Chrysler did to the 4.0 by giving it 190hp was pretty amazing at the time. Remember that during those same years, the 5.2 in the Ram was only putting out 170hp. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm aware of that. I'm also aware thay the base design for the ZJ was done by AMC. What Chrysler did to the 4.0 by giving it 190hp was pretty amazing at the time. Remember that during those same years, the 5.2 in the Ram was only putting out 170hp. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big66440 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Renix are not that bad, I like em :chillin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budwisr Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm aware of that. I'm also aware thay the base design for the ZJ was done by AMC. What Chrysler did to the 4.0 by giving it 190hp was pretty amazing at the time. Remember that during those same years, the 5.2 in the Ram was only putting out 170hp.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budwisr Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm aware of that. I'm also aware thay the base design for the ZJ was done by AMC. What Chrysler did to the 4.0 by giving it 190hp was pretty amazing at the time. Remember that during those same years, the 5.2 in the Ram was only putting out 170hp. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 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. As Lee lets me know every time I stop in. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budwisr Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 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. As Lee lets me know every time I stop in. :yes: Are you from Birmingham? :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankTheDog Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 If you look at some of the gaskets for the 4.0 you'll see that they fit all the way back to 1965. It may be developed from the 2.5 but all that was basically a 232 with the center cylinders taken out. Maybe not exactly but close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 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. As Lee lets me know every time I stop in. :yes: Are you from Birmingham? :thumbsup: No, just up north a bit in Marshall county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 HO myth buster Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference. HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this? The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold. Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it. HO stands for Highly Overrated. __________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 And BTW, VM engines are not pieces of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorcharge Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed on the HO. Never had a problem with my Renix era Jeeps. 88 is the perfect year to me. Highly disagree on the VM engines. You couldn't pay me enough to put one in something. Not getting the new Cummins (the sole thing Ram has had going for it for 20 years) to use a VM diesel was the stupidest thing Fiat could have possibly done with the brand. Even if the new VM diesel is a good motor it's sure as $#!& not a Cummins and the name doesn't carry the weight or selling power that Cummins does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 HO myth buster Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference. HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this? The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold. Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it. HO stands for Highly Overrated. __________________ You must have posted that same old drivel 472 times now..................... :shake: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 HO myth buster Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference. HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this? The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold. Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it. HO stands for Highly Overrated. __________________ You must have posted that same old drivel 472 times now..................... :shake: Yep. Accurate info deserves good distribution and dissemination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed on the HO. Never had a problem with my Renix era Jeeps. 88 is the perfect year to me. Highly disagree on the VM engines. You couldn't pay me enough to put one in something. Not getting the new Cummins (the sole thing Ram has had going for it for 20 years) to use a VM diesel was the stupidest thing Fiat could have possibly done with the brand. Even if the new VM diesel is a good motor it's sure as $#!& not a Cummins and the name doesn't carry the weight or selling power that Cummins does. Who said Cummins was being discontinued in the bigger trucks? The vM is going into 1/2 ton trucks and Grand Cherokees. See what Gale Banks thinks of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Image Not Found Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorcharge Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed on the HO. Never had a problem with my Renix era Jeeps. 88 is the perfect year to me. Highly disagree on the VM engines. You couldn't pay me enough to put one in something. Not getting the new Cummins (the sole thing Ram has had going for it for 20 years) to use a VM diesel was the stupidest thing Fiat could have possibly done with the brand. Even if the new VM diesel is a good motor it's sure as $#!& not a Cummins and the name doesn't carry the weight or selling power that Cummins does. Who said Cummins was being discontinued in the bigger trucks? The vM is going into 1/2 ton trucks and Grand Cherokees. See what Gale Banks thinks of them. I didn't say it was being discontinued. I said they're not getting the NEW Cummins and they're losing exclusive use of it since Nissan is getting the new one in the Titans. I can slap a nice header on a piece of $#!&, it's still going to be a piece of $#!&. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed on the HO. Never had a problem with my Renix era Jeeps. 88 is the perfect year to me. Highly disagree on the VM engines. You couldn't pay me enough to put one in something. Not getting the new Cummins (the sole thing Ram has had going for it for 20 years) to use a VM diesel was the stupidest thing Fiat could have possibly done with the brand. Even if the new VM diesel is a good motor it's sure as $#!& not a Cummins and the name doesn't carry the weight or selling power that Cummins does. Who said Cummins was being discontinued in the bigger trucks? The vM is going into 1/2 ton trucks and Grand Cherokees. See what Gale Banks thinks of them. I didn't say it was being discontinued. I said they're not getting the NEW Cummins and they're losing exclusive use of it since Nissan is getting the new one in the Titans. I can slap a nice header on a piece of $#!&, it's still going to be a piece of $#!&. You shoulda heard all the negativism about the XJ from the Jeep purists when it came out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91Pioneer Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Image Not FoundOh no you didn't LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjy_26 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 HO myth buster Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference. HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this? The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold. Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it. HO stands for Highly Overrated. __________________ Is the Renix 4.0 a good engine? Undoubtedly. Maybe in stock form the 4.0HO didn't blow the Renix version out of the water, BUT the power potential of the HO engines, from what I've seen, outclasses the old Renix mills. There's a reason why pretty much everyone who makes a stroker either uses a HO engine or ends up with the HO top end (head, TB, and later HO intake manifold). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser54 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Image Not FoundOh no you didn't LOL That cartoon was given to me by the guys at JeepTech when I worked as Service Manager at a Jeep dealer. I sent a copy to Hornbrod. Hornbrod changed the sign wording though. It originally said "Chrysler Jeep/Eagle School for the Gifted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 That cartoon was given to me by the guys at JeepTech when I worked as Service Manager at a Jeep dealer. I sent a copy to Hornbrod. Hornbrod changed the sign wording though. It originally said "Chrysler Jeep/Eagle School for the Gifted." LIES! Anyone who believes that must drive a Renix. :D :yes: Jeep dealerships loved the Renix models because they generated so much extra revenue in the dealer's service department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budwisr Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Is the Renix 4.0 a good engine? Undoubtedly. Maybe in stock form the 4.0HO didn't blow the Renix version out of the water, BUT the power potential of the HO engines, from what I've seen, outclasses the old Renix mills. There's a reason why pretty much everyone who makes a stroker either uses a HO engine or ends up with the HO top end (head, TB, and later HO intake manifold). Care to elaborate? I believe the popularity of the HO builds are due to their abundance and not to any real technical advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjy_26 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Is the Renix 4.0 a good engine? Undoubtedly. Maybe in stock form the 4.0HO didn't blow the Renix version out of the water, BUT the power potential of the HO engines, from what I've seen, outclasses the old Renix mills. There's a reason why pretty much everyone who makes a stroker either uses a HO engine or ends up with the HO top end (head, TB, and later HO intake manifold). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budwisr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Is the Renix 4.0 a good engine? Undoubtedly. Maybe in stock form the 4.0HO didn't blow the Renix version out of the water, BUT the power potential of the HO engines, from what I've seen, outclasses the old Renix mills. There's a reason why pretty much everyone who makes a stroker either uses a HO engine or ends up with the HO top end (head, TB, and later HO intake manifold).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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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