Last post on Jul 05, 2013 at 9:31 AM
You are in the Toyota FJ Cruiser
What is this discussion about?
Toyota FJ Cruiser, Jeep Wrangler
#392 of 542 Re: They Just confirmed what I have said since I drove it [steenh]
Dec 21, 2006 (12:06 pm)
I don't know why they do this but they do!
Well on the other hand let's examine it a bit closer:
I have heard several people say that to bring a stock TJ up to RUBI it cost about $10K. So lets see if that makes sense. I'll be guessing on some of this so let me know if you have a line on a price
4.0:1.0 Ratio transfer case with fixed yokes - Replace with Atlas T case - $2200.00
Rear Dana 44 axle with limited slip and air locker - Replace with Currie Enterprise built 44 with air locker system and rear disc breaks - $3000.00 (includes air system)
Front Dana 44 axle with air locker - $2200
Five 16" Moab aluminum wheels - $1600.00
Five Good Year MTRs - $ 1200.00
Various rocker and other skid plates - $600.00
Bumper tow hooks: $50.00
Off Road fog lamps: $250.00
300 Watt amp, 7 speakers - $700.00 (Hey ya want loud trail tunes right?)
I come up with $11200! Not far off.
But Steehn you're hard presses to even get a Wrangler beater that runs for $2000.00 - If you want something that isn't a Flintstones floorboard special with a soft top that has a stereo thief installed sunroof - aka a big rip, you're gonna pay more - more like about $5000.00 So lets call it $16 200.00 now.
So now you're up to the same standards as a RUBICON TJ probably with a carburetor breathing 20 year old motor. Want a new fuel injected 4.0l? Add another $3000.00 - now you're at $19 200 (NOT INCLUDING LABOR)
But you have all the bells and whistles of a Rubi, good motor, good drive line and a body that still looks like crap. Basically $20 000.00 and all your time to do this.
Spend another $8 000.00, skip the skinned knuckles and the wife screaming at you because of your eyesore project and all the help she doesn't get because you're in the garage, and have a brand new Jeep that looks great with a warranty.
I can see why some people would spend the cash for the new Rubicon. But to be honest Steehn, I'm like you though, I take my '81 CJ-5 out to do the hard stuff. It's not as capable as the Rubi but I still have piles of fun.
#393 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [fourx4ever]
Dec 21, 2006 (2:47 pm)
I wonder if there is any bean counter behind the change as well. Is it somehow cheaper to make the V6 vs the I6? Smaller brands like BMW seem more immune to this kind of engineering by accountant, but not detroit.
Or, I wonder if the overall packaging is easier with a v6 for saftey reasons?
Either way seems silly to drop a proven winner and go with an unknown engine.
Of course it has been ages since Toyota did an I6, and their trucks are all V6 or V8, so I can see why they stayed the course.
#394 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [murphydog]
Dec 21, 2006 (3:22 pm)
I think you hit the nail on the head more than once here. Sadly, the fact seems to be that the bean counters rule these companies with few exceptions. I can just about guarantee, that the reason we didn't get a REAL FJ is mostly because of bean counters.
Probably (for Chrysler anyway) the other issue is that the I6 won't work in a minivan and since the 'bean counters' (yes again) want to cut cost so they put the pressure on development to 'streamline production' Why have 2 engines when you can have one. That kind of thinking - no matter that one of them doesn't do the job properly, bean counters don't care about that stuff.
- Do I come off as having a lot of contempt for bean counters and many automotive journalists? Oh yeah add the marketing department to my list of hated groups too -
I don't think there is much difference in the crash safety of an I6 or V6 when the engine is mounted longitudinally, in fact the slightly longer hood on an I6 vehicle could be an asset in this regard.
#395 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [murphydog]
Jan 02, 2007 (1:33 pm)
actually, the changed the engine because of new DOT regs...
Since the new jeep does not have a crumple point on the core frame in order to keeps its rigidity, they had to build a crushable front end. Having an engine that goes into the crush zone would not allow the vehicle to pass its front end crash tests. So they chose a short stocky engine. The next time you look at the new jeeps, look how much space there is between the engine and the radiator. Then look and the extended frame that is crushable.
I just bought the Unlimited X with rear lockers… It is a great off –roader.
#396 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [fourx4ever]
Jan 03, 2007 (12:40 am)
Four-By, what's with the obsession with the I-6? Yeah, my Cherokee has one, and it's a good motor. And I generally like them better than V-6's. But some of what you're saying isn't accurate. I haven't seen many automotive writers panning an I-6, unless they were talking about an old Chevy stovebolt motor. I've yet to see anything but praise for BMW's I-6, which is about the only one still in mass production. As far as torque, an I-6 isn't inherently any more torquey than a V-6. It's all in the tuning; oversquare vs undersquare design, cam and ignition timing, flywheel weight, etc. BMW's motors are wonderful, high revving engines, but they are not terribly torquey. An I-6 is inherently smoother, but that hardly matters in a Wrangler.
The motor you proposed would be nice, but it would also be very expensive, raising the Wranglers price considerably. And high-flow heads are for high RPM operation, which again is not really needed in a Wrangler.
Instead of carping about something DCX is never going to do (resurrect a discontinued engine), we should be petitioning them to drop in the new 4.0L V-6, which has much more horsepower AND torque than the old I-6 has. That would be easy for them to do, and much more likely to happen.
#397 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [wideglide]
Jan 03, 2007 (8:47 am)
I don't think you were paying attention to what I was saying in some cases.
I did not say the 4.0L necessarily had MORE torque, but it gets the torque where it is needed in an off-road vehicle (and trucks in general) - at a low RPM. True that most of this comes from the LONG stroke of the 4.0L engine, but then this long stroke is not really possible in a V-6 since the geometry of the engine does not allow for it.
I have seen so many auto journalists pan the 4.0L (and other I6 motors) just because they were an 'old' architecture - I wish I had a dollar every time. But about all they can come up with is the word 'old' to knock it.
About my 'dream' engine (because that's about all it will ever be): I disagree that it would be expensive; in the long run it would be a lot cheaper than what they (DCX) has now. Here is why I think this:
First, such an engine would be used in a very wide range of vehicles bringing economies of scale into play; right now DCX uses several engines to cover what could be done by 'my' motor.
Second, with the advances that I spoke, of emissions could be controlled with much more ease, meaning less catch-up foot ball and fewer major revisions over the ensuing years to just scrape by the ever tightening EPA requirements.
Third, such a motor could be made to get significantly better fuel economy AND better performance over all RPMs! The better fuel economy plays into reducing the fleet vehicle fuel consumption saving DCX even more money and/or reducing the ticket price of their products. While the both the better fuel economy and better performance are selling features which would help move more vehicle across the dealer floors.
Fourth, there is little argument that an I6 is more robust and durable than its V6 counterpart. (I can give numerous examples of this if you wish). With a main bearing on each side of every con-rod there is no doubt this engine would stand a lot more abuse or better yet, performance tweaking
This is why I think it would be in DCX’s best interest to invest in the development of such an engine rather than what they are doing now.
#398 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE [2climbbig]
Jan 03, 2007 (8:52 am)
Yeah I know this is one of the reasons we are given, but believe me, if you want a crush zone, then you shouldn't let the type of engine in the vehicle stop you. It would be a simple matter to maintain the collapsing frame rails and add motor/trany mounts that would 'break away' allowing the drive line assembly to submarine in a collision. It's just really not that complicated.
#399 of 542 Re: More I6 motors PLEASE
Jan 03, 2007 (12:54 pm)
Fourx, Sure you can put crumple points into the vehicle, but then you loose valuable stiffness. When designing a vehicle with crumple points, there needs to be two points. One between the firewall and radiator and the other just forward of the firewall... that ensures the front will crush and not affect the passenger compartment. The first hard jump or other forces as a result of off-road activity could result in a bent frame. I am sure there are other ways to meet DOT regs, but not sure if it is as economical.
#400 of 542 Crash energy management
Jan 03, 2007 (2:40 pm)
No need to do it the way that you are describing. The collapsible frame rails you see in the 2007 Wrangler could have been incorporated regardless of engine type. All I was saying is that mount(s) could be made to let the engine/transmission assembly break free during a front impact - further absorbing crash energy - this would in no way affect the chassis stiffness since loading due to frame flex is not transmitted through the drive-line.
If you want to get really carried away, you could add a collapsible frame element before the fire wall with an internal sleeve that would maintain rigidity and loading in shear, but collapse in compressive loading beyond the yield point of the element along the longitudinal frame axis.
#401 of 542 Re: Crash energy management [fourx4ever]
Jan 04, 2007 (11:49 am)
Your probably right... my background is in ship design so I am always thinking for the structure carrying the load. On a ship, I would be very nervous having any crumple points especially in high sea states..