a1awind Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 has anyone ever come across an MJ with the fuel miser package? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Heard of them but have never seen one. I think it was basically a detuned 2.5L four. What an anemic ball of fire those models must have been. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1awind Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 2.5ltr 4 cyl detuned to 100hp 4spd manual and i believe 3.31's and no tailgate same for the 4x4 save for the lack of spare tire and mount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Yeah, I think the main method of saving fuel was that it just sat in the garage because you couldn't stand driving it. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOrnbrod Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 :jump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comancheman Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 no tailgate?!?!? but mythbusters proved it doesnt make a difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1awind Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 yeah but this was the 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEThomas Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 no tailgate?!?!? but mythbusters proved it doesnt make a difference! That is funny, I have had 6 pick-up's in my life and I have went with and w/o a tailgate on all of them. Some like my 1st Ranger, S-10 and F-150 did not make a difference and then I would have some like my 96 Ram that would make a difference of 3-4mpg :nuts: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahooSteeler Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I was doing some quick research today to see what the HP rating was when the 4.0 came out in 87 compared to 88 and up. I had read that in 87 the 4.0 was 150hp, 88-90 177hp, and 91-92 190hp. Various info on that w/no confirmation, because I also found new info that basically said the 87 had 173hp and after a few tweaks in 88 it went to 177, w/torque also rising slightly. Anyhoo, I also saw that when AMC replaced the GM 2.5 w/their own, which was after they were bought by Chrysler if I am correct, that Chrysler also had a 2.5 rated at 100hp. I did not read the piece word for word from there to the end but I'd say it's a fair guess that's your fuel miser engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 As far as I know, the 2.5L we know and love/hate was always an AMC design. You're thinking of the older Iron Duke which was a different engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahooSteeler Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Iron Duke was the GM version, correct? This is supposedly a chrysler 2.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I don't think they are "versions", but rather 2 different engines that happen to have the same displacement. I'm hardly an expert though. Hopefully someone with more experience will chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 You know...my 2.5 runs a lot better now that the hose clamps on the fuel filter are tight.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahooSteeler Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 By "version", I meant just that, i.e. was THEIR 2.5 engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1awind Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 if the gm 2.5 and amc 2.5 are the same engine they they should have interchangable parts right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnj92131 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 if the gm 2.5 and amc 2.5 are the same engine they they should have interchangable parts right ? These are NOT the same engine! Here is a link to the Iron Duke information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Iron_Duke_engine The AMC engine is a cut down version of the 4.0 litre 6 cylinder. They are two different engines that have about the same displacement. Iron Duke has a 3 inch stroke and a 4 inch bore. check this link: http://www.jeeptech.com/engine/gm151.html ;The AMC 2.5 litre engine has a 3.88 bore and a 3.19 stroke. See the following link: http://www.jeeptech.com/engine/amc150.html Hope this helps you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahooSteeler Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 ...........and then a third 2.5L built by Chrsler, also with different specs. I still think this is the engine that was in the Fuel Miser MJ because about that time Chrysler had the Omni Miser and I think a K car Miser pkg; point being that it would make sense to use the same engine in similar marketing rather than have to de-tune and AMC 2.5L. I could be completely wrong, because this was when Chrysler was struggling to survive and apparently didn't have the brightest bulbs in the house when it came to mgt at that time, but logic would suggest it makes sense, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I realize this may just be semantics, but the '91+ 2.5L was redesigned/modified by Chrysler (electronics, head, etc.) but they kept the major dimensions/specs of the block. I'm told any 91+ XJ/TJ 2.5L block can be swapped pretty much directly into the older MJs. I'd bet the 2.5L in a Dakota would work the same way. :brows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemsee Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 :yeah that: ...........and then a third 2.5L built by Chrsler, also with different specs. I still think this is the engine that was in the Fuel Miser MJ because about that time Chrysler had the Omni Miser and I think a K car Miser pkg; point being that it would make sense to use the same engine in similar marketing rather than have to de-tune and AMC 2.5L. I could be completely wrong, because this was when Chrysler was struggling to survive and apparently didn't have the brightest bulbs in the house when it came to mgt at that time, but logic would suggest it makes sense, IMO. The 2.5 Chryco engine was derived from the 2.2. An OHC engine. Never in a Jeep. Dakota used both the OHC Chrysler engine, and also the AMC 2.5. AND, the 2.5 AMC engine came out BEFORE the 4.0L did. 1984 for the AMC 2.5 and 1987 for the 4.0L. These were both derived from the AMC 258/232. 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