From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Feb 20 21:22:16 2008 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Thursday, February 21 2008 Volume 01 : Number 3016 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs fsj: where are the real Jeeps? :) RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs 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: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:04:34 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin Part timer conversions like my '73 J4000 came with hubs. Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:18:58 -0800 > From: kevin-at-mordred.punk.net > To: john-at-wagoneers.com > CC: landon.tesar-at-freescale.com; fsj-at-digest.net > 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 > > # _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail.-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:03:06 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs yeah, that extra 2 quarts of oil will really tax those springs. ;) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jim Blair wrote: # 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:39:48 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: where are the real Jeeps? :) yeah, but the new Grand Cherokee (WK) isn't a real jeep... doesn't even have a Jeep designator: WK is not jeep... where's the J??? What were they thinking? It's some dodge /chrysler mutant with a jeep badge... independent front suspension without a solid axle is just so wrong... and the visibility is worse than on the WJ. thanx, but real Jeeps are built, not bought. :) However, it may be a suitable driveline donor once we figure out how to mate it to real axles. ;) and bypass all the computer security that probably ties that engine to the wheel covers and cupholders... ...my '99 WJs have been excellent vehicles, but some of the computer security has made things more complex then needed... my '99 WJ with the 4.7L V8 is a superb vehicle, only gripe really is the lack of forward visibility. Very reliable, smooth, fast, and powerful. I'd be driving it if my wife hadn't swiped it from me. ;) So I HAD to build my own Diesel powered Jeep.... trying to figure out how to get time to work on it now... want to take thurs or (and?) friday off to work on it... :) busy at work though.... later, john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Brian Knowles wrote: # I have the new issue of "Diesel Power" here, they have an article on # improvments to the new Jeep Grand Cherokee, that comes stock with "the 3.0 # Mercedes diesel", which I would guess is the V6. # # You don't have to make 'em in you back yard anymore, you can go to the store # an buy 'em now.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:00:10 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: RE: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs And the bigger rad, and extra coolant, heavier trans, etc. It adds up! (we'll see when you get it to the scale. Someone on a GM forum about 3 years ago said his big block and diesel GM pickups were about 400lbs apart) Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:03:06 -0800 > From: john-at-wagoneers.com > To: carnuck-at-hotmail.com > CC: 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 > > yeah, that extra 2 quarts of oil will really tax those springs. ;) > > ----- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jim Blair wrote: > > # 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 _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:42:16 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: Re: fsj: '76 J20 near Austin Unless someone special ordered it with the older d20 and hubs setup (factory adapter was weak ) or retroed it, then QT was possible, but not with hubs. (J20 got some stuff others didn't) If it's a Selectrac hub, I'll be selling the ones from my '73 J4000 (even the king pins are in good shape on it's front axle still!) I'd even make a deal on the whole axle once the snow is gone enough for me to part the truck out. (5 lug, with replacement drums and brakes 2 years ago) I sold the semi-float D60 a long time ago and went to full float from a J20 (bolted right in and with a rear shackle flip done with an engine hoist and prybar, it cleared the 33/12.50/16.5 tires) I should've put angle shims in to fix the driveline angle long ago, but since the truck was loaded with stuff 95% of the time, it was okay. That axle is going into my '82 J10 longbed (maybe the springs too) along with the front outers (knuckles, rotors and pads) onto the current axle (till I find another Ford D44 I can swap the internals into) I already have the AW4 in place and have new cooling lines to put in so I can drive it. The 304 is going into the '77 shortbox with an AW4 (I suspect the J20 axles in it are -at-4.56 geared and I plan to highway drive the rig so I need O/D) and Dodge NP208 plus the 33" tires will go on it from the J4000. The current white spoked 6 lug rims on the '82 J10 will be for sale (I'm going to put the 33/10.50/15 tires on my '87 MJ unless I can swap them complete for a set of 33/9.50/15s as I don't have $520 I can spare for new tires right now) Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 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 _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:44:15 -0800 From: Jim Blair Subject: Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs Too bad you didn't measure from the ground to under the frame before starting the swap! Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 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 -- _________________________________________________________________ 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 21:21:23 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: 640lbs vs. 675lbs yeah, well, that's what outsourcing will do for ya. ;) nothing like doing the job yourself, if you have the time and space to do it... :( regardless, project is on track and progressing... I'm still leaning toward the 2" kit with larger bump stops and remote filter setup. don't want to mess with brake lines, relocating panhard bars or using a stepladder... the latter is the biggest issue, it's already at the right height, just need a bit more spring action... thinking of using my overload coils on the front until I can get the springs in... problem is I don't know if I can extend the current springs far enough to insert them :) ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jim Blair wrote: # Too bad you didn't measure from the ground to under the frame before starting # the swap! # # Jim Blair, Lynnwood, WA '87 Comanche, '83 Jeep J10, '84 Jeep J10 # 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 # -- # # _________________________________________________________________ # 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 # ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #3016 **************************