From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Feb 20 09:05:01 2008 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, February 20 2008 Volume 01 : Number 3015 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: RE: I am strongly against this bill, please read to the bottom. (fwd) fsj: Re: the omega project (fwd) fsj: '76 J20 near Austin Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs fsj: Cubic inches to cost cubic money? RE: fsj: Cubic inches to cost cubic money? RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:18:17 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: RE: I am strongly against this bill, please read to the bottom. (fwd) looks like one of my friends emailed a bunch of reps and all but one said they were against it... PTL, it's dead... they all agreed it's a bad idea to penalize folks after the fact... dang, if I knew this was coming I would have put a 2.5L Mercedes Turbo Diesel into an XJ Cherokee... ;) john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mike senko Thank you for your support Steve. Kind Regards, Mike Senko "Hobbs, Sen. Steve" wrote: Michael - I can confirm that 6900 is dead. See my stock response below, and follow the link for bill information. This bill hasn't been active for weeks, had little support and wasn't ever a priority as far as I know. - - Steve Hobbs Thank you for taking the time to email me in regard to SB 6900, a bill that aimed to establish vehicle engine displacement and emissions fees. To be direct, I do not support this legislation. Further, this bill received very little support and died without a vote. SB 6900 is an attempt to encourage the drivers of Washington to be more conscious of their vehicle choice, not the vehicle^Rs price. Starting January 1, 2009 there would be a potential fee based on engine size. Starting January 1, 2012 the potential fee would change from being based on engine size to being based on emissions. I believe any potential tax should be fair in nature and not more punitive to some than to others. Just because I own a car or truck with a large engine does not mean that I am wasteful or not energy-conscious. For example, I own a 15-year-old truck that I rarely drive, but use on occasion for moving and other errands. Due to the size of the truck's engine, I would pay a large tax, despite the fact that I drive an energy efficient vehicle to and from work. The bill would also unfairly impact off-road enthusiasts and lower income families who have little choice in vehicle purchasing. This bill did not come before any of my committees, did not receive a public hearing, and is considered ^Sdead^T. Though protecting the environment is a concern, this bill provided more questions than answers, and I did not support it. Sincerely, Senator Steve Hobbs Washington State Senate 44th Legislative District - -----Original Message----- From: mercedesman1981-at-yahoo.com [mailto:mercedesman1981-at-yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:50 PM To: Hobbs, Sen. Steve Cc: Dunshee, Rep. Hans; Loomis, Rep. Liz Subject: I am strongly against this bill, please read to the bottom. HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE TO: Senator Steve Hobbs CC: Representative Hans Dunshee Representative Liz Loomis FROM: Mr. Michael Senko STREET ADDRESS: 1501 151st Pl SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 E-MAIL: mercedesman1981-at-yahoo.com PHONE: (425) 338 - 4959 BILL: 6900 (Against) SUBJECT: I am strongly against this bill, please read to the bottom. MESSAGE: Vehicle License Fee Bill SB6900 Hello, There is a bill that the Washington State Legislature is trying to pass in Olympia that, if successful, will directly add huge costs to our vehicle license fees. Everyone needs to know about so this situation so that you can contact your representatives and voice your objection. The bill is SB 6900 and it adds an "engine displacement" fee to the vehicle license tabs upon renewal. The fee has a varied amount depending on the size of the vehicle's engine: Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule Up to 1.9 $0 2.0 - 2.9 $70 3.0 - 3.9 $225 4.0 - 4.9 $275 5.0 - 5.9 $325 6.0 - 7.9 $400 8.0 or over $600 For each car & truck that you own, calculate the rate by matching the engine size in liters to the dollar amount. Add the amounts for each vehicle and you'll see that the average two car family will be paying $500+ every year in "displacement fees" on top of the normal license fees. If you have three vehicles, you'll be paying even more. The average family is already struggling with the high cost of gasoline, electricity, food and everything else, and our lawmakers want us to pay more, thinking we have unlimited deep pockets. This will do great damage to the budgets of retirees on fixed incomes as well. Now is the time to be very vocal against this bill. I have contacted all of our representatives, and I would encourage everyone reading this to do the same. Here's the web page for the bill where you can read the text: If we don't threaten mass rebellion over this, they'll pass this bill and we'll be paying huge fees every year on top of their increase in the gas tax. They have to know that we won't stand for any more taxes or increase in licensing fees. I've told my representatives that I will actively work to see that any lawmaker that supports this bill is replaced at election time. Please contact your legislators, then copy the text of this e mail, and forward it to as many people as possible that you know in Washington State, and encourage them to contact their representatives and strongly voice their objection to this bill. NOTE: We are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district RESPONSE REQUESTED: No response required by the sender. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:39:54 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: the omega project (fwd) pilot input... :) considering a Diesel swap in his plane I guess. :) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (wife) and I went to see a friend's new baby in Lake Havasu, AZ over the weekend. 465 miles each way. We went down in 2 hrs. 12 mins. and came back in 2 hrs 27 mins. Average speed down was 211 MPH. 190 MPH average on the way home. I burned 60.5 gallons. Let's see, that is 15.4 MPG...in a straight line too. It would be higher if I were to base it on road mileage. So I spent 4.7 hrs traveling at 15.4 MPG. to get there and back. Driving time is 11 hours each way for a total of 22 hours...now how good is the mileage on that 6.2 going to be ? :-) Continental (manufacturer of the engine in Cover Girl...aka, the airplane) announced they will make a diesel aircraft engine to replace their big sixes (520 and 550 cu. in.). Now I just need them to make one to replace my little 360 cu. in. engine. 230 HP would be perfect. Then I can burn JET-A. And we'd probably ante-up the 50 grand to do the conversion if they do make one for ours. A 230 HP diesel with FADEC (full authority digital engine control) should be light years better in reliability and efficiency over the 1930's design 220 HP gas engine installed now. M ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:00:40 -0700 From: "Tesar Landon" Subject: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin http://austin.craigslist.org/car/565440615.html so what are we looking at here? Is this a Quadratrac TH400? Are used/replacement hubs easily available? Thanks. Landon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:07:27 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin it may have a Dana 20. if it has quadratrac it wouldn't have had hubs... I can check the shop manual later to see if that was on option on the J20, pretty sure it would have been... hubs easy to replace and available... paid $65 for the last set I bought, might be more now, probably less than $150 installed... john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Tesar Landon wrote: # http://austin.craigslist.org/car/565440615.html # # so what are we looking at here? Is this a Quadratrac TH400? # Are used/replacement hubs easily available? # # Thanks. Landon # ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:18:58 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin If it's a 76 and automatic, it's quadratrac. The fact that it has hubs means one of four things: - the owner is an idiot and the transfercase is toast - the owner swapped in something else - part time conversion - the owner kept fulltime, but unlocks the hubs and runs e-drive on the street to save wear on the clutches. Dana 20 was only an option if you bought a clutch, assuming the jeep is stock. On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:07:27PM -0800, john wrote: > it may have a Dana 20. if it has quadratrac it wouldn't have had hubs... > > I can check the shop manual later to see if that was on option on the J20, pretty > sure it would have been... > > hubs easy to replace and available... paid $65 for the last set I bought, might > be more now, probably less than $150 installed... > > john > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Tesar Landon wrote: > > # http://austin.craigslist.org/car/565440615.html > # > # so what are we looking at here? Is this a Quadratrac TH400? > # Are used/replacement hubs easily available? > # > # Thanks. Landon > # ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: (no funny comments about the oil please) http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) found some interesting specs on line, 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, which appeared just as this new engine debuted. Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 injection pump anyway. Typical Specifications Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 Compression Ratio: 21.3 Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 Aspiration: Natural Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:45:37 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs actually, found another site that claims dry weight of the 6.2 as 650lbs, only 10lbs more than the AMC. http://www.tpub.com/content/automotiveenginemechanics/TM-9-2815-237-34/css/TM-9-2815-237-34_13.htm ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, john wrote: # springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: # http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg # # springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: # (no funny comments about the oil please) # http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg # # so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so # a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) # # 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... # # Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote # filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... # maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) # # # found some interesting specs on line, # # 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 # The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light # truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison # (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at # about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same # mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy # to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest # dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three # quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, # which appeared just as this new engine debuted. # # Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest # power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the # over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). # The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 # applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful # fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due # to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo # option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to # remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on # a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the # maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the # maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a # long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 # injection pump anyway. # # Typical Specifications # Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) # Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches # HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 # Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 # Compression Ratio: 21.3 # Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 # Aspiration: Natural # Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* # # from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp # # john # ----- # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold # http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:42:31 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: fsj: Cubic inches to cost cubic money? Coming to WA state soon and then YOUR town next! Subject: Car Tabs Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vehicle License Fee Bill SB6900 Hello, There is a bill that the Washington State Legislature is trying to pass in Olympia that, if successful, will directly add huge costs to our vehicle license fees. Everyone needs to know about so this situation so that you can contact your representatives and voice your objection. The bill is SB 6900 and it adds an "engine displacement" fee to the vehicle license tabs upon renewal. The fee has a varied amount depending on the size of the vehicle's engine: Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule Up to 1.9 $0 2.0 - 2.9 $70 3.0 - 3.9 $225 4.0 - 4.9 $275 5.0 - 5.9 $325 6.0 - 7.9 $400 8.0 or over $600 For each car & truck that you own, calculate the rate by matching the engine size in liters to the dollar amount. Add the amounts for each vehicle and you'll see that the average two car family will be paying $500+ every year in "displacement fees" on top of the normal license fees. If you have three vehicles, you'll be paying even more. The average family is already struggling with the high cost of gasoline, electricity, food and everything else, and our lawmakers want us to pay more, thinking we have unlimited deep pockets. This will do great damage to the budgets of retirees on fixed incomes as well. Now is the time to be very vocal against this bill. I have contacted all of our representatives, and I would encourage everyone reading this to do the same. Here's the web page for the bill where you can read the text: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6900&year=2007 Here's the link for contacting your representatives: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx If we don't threaten mass rebellion over this, they'll pass this bill and we'll be paying huge fees every year on top of their increase in the gas tax. They have to know that we won't stand for any more taxes or increase in licensing fees. I've told my representatives that I will actively work to see that any lawmaker that supports this bill is replaced at election time. Please contact your legislators, then copy the text of this e mail, and forward it to as many people as possible that you know in Washington State, and encourage them to contact their representatives and strongly voice their objection to this bill. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:58:35 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: Cubic inches to cost cubic money? nevermind. It appears that it died a week ago, but I'd still keep vigilant! _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:01:10 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs dry weight of the block doesn't account for the added weight of the liquids needed to operate it. Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:45:37 -0800 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: fsj-at-digest.net; diesel-benz-at-digest.net; DZAshby-at-verizon.net; timothy.fisher7-at-us.army.mil > Subject: Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs > > actually, found another site that claims dry weight of the 6.2 as 650lbs, > only 10lbs more than the AMC. > > http://www.tpub.com/content/automotiveenginemechanics/TM-9-2815-237-34/css/TM - -9-2815-237-34_13.htm > > ----- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, john wrote: > > # springs before, with 640lb AMC 360 5.9L V8: > # http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/91GW_950/P1060837.jpg > # > # springs after, with 675lb Detroit Diesel 379 cu in 6.2L Diesel: > # (no funny comments about the oil please) > # http://wagoneers.com/fotos/2008/02-Feb-17-Omega-oil-mountains/P1150559.jpg > # > # so, my springs aren't really sagging more than they were before... so > # a 2" lift that netted 3" for a friend should work for me... :) > # > # 35 lbs isn't that much... and one extra battery... and an extra tank... > # > # Will confirm the weight in comparison to my '89 as soon as I get the remote > # filter setup installed, and the exhaust manifold bolt fixed in the '89... > # maybe thursday, friday or saturday... :) > # > # > # found some interesting specs on line, > # > # 1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8 > # The GM 6.2L V8 diesel of 1982 was the first major entry into what would become the light > # truck "Diesel Wars". Dimensionally, it was designed by Detroit Diesel Allison > # (then a subsidiary of GM) to be comparable with the GM big block V8. In fact, at > # about 675 pounds, it.s the lightest V8 diesel commonly available. It used the same > # mounting system, bellhousing and engine mounts as the other GM V8s, so it was easy > # to integrate into the existing truck lines. Because of its light weight and modest > # dimensions, it was used in half-ton trucks and SUVs (Blazer/Sub), as well as three > # quarter and one tons. The 6.2L was also used in the first generation military Humvee, > # which appeared just as this new engine debuted. > # > # Designed for a GVW of no more than 10,000 pounds, the first units had very modest > # power outputs; 135 hp and 240 lbs-ft. Towards the end of production in .93, the > # over 8,600 GVW non-emissions units cranked out a bit more (148 hp in certain applications). > # The 6.2L could deliver high 20s highway fuel economy in some of the lighter 4x4 > # applications, and 30 mpg is reported in some of the stripped down 4x2s. This wonderful > # fuel economy is one of the trademark characteristics of the 6.2L, and is reportedly due > # to its very efficient Ricardo V combustion chamber design. A rare dealer installed turbo > # option was available from '89-on in the form of a Banks Sidewinder kit. One thing to > # remember about the 6.2L is that it.s not a heavy-duty diesel. Because it.s built on > # a lighter foundation than the industrial engine based Ford and Cummins Dodge, the > # maximum power output is more limited. If you consider 250 hp and 450 lbs-ft the > # maximum safe power level, your 6.2L will be a trusty and efficient engine on a > # long-term basis. That's about all the reliable power available from the stock DB-2 > # injection pump anyway. > # > # Typical Specifications > # Displacement: 6.2L (379ci) > # Bore & Stroke: 3.98x3.80 inches > # HP -at- RPM: 135 -at- 3600 > # Torque -at- RPM: 240 -at- 2000 > # Compression Ratio: 21.3 > # Injection: Indirect, Mechanical, Stanadyne Rotary DB-2 > # Aspiration: Natural > # Max EGT: 1100max/900 sustained* > # > # from: http://www.oramagazine.com/archive/2004/08-august/0103-tech-finesse-2.asp > # > # john > # ----- > # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > # http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** > # ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > # _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #3015 **************************