From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Sat Jun 10 10:55:41 2000 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Saturday, June 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 885 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: just another test fsj: Re: just another test fsj: Post-Production J20s fsj: last test (beta version) fsj: Re: Post-Production J20s fsj: J truck production info Re: fsj: we b back... fsj: 16.02 mpg... fsj: looking at a rare one tomorrow... fsj: Re: 16.02 mpg... fsj: Re: 16.02 mpg... fsj: what's the worse that could happen? fsj: fwd, 83 258 TSM info Re: fsj: looking at a rare one tomorrow... 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: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Carnuck-at-webtv.net (James Blair) Subject: fsj: just another test If this were my real sig, how would it look on your screen? ************************************* JimBlair, Seattle,WA '83 Cher 4dr, '84 J10 http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:11:40 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: Re: just another test At 11:58 AM 6/9/00 -0700, James Blair wrote: >If this were my real sig, how would it look on your screen? > >************************************* >JimBlair, Seattle,WA '83 Cher 4dr, '84 J10 >http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html much better. you might even try to put those little stars at the bottom too... much cleaner... john - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:08:50 -0500 From: "Dave Read" Subject: fsj: Post-Production J20s I have an 1988 J20. It was built September 97, and has a 1988 VIN. I looked at another 88 J20 that was originally purchased by a school district for a snow plow truck. The owner had the original window sticker and owners manual, both said 1988. I have come across several adds for 88 J10s and J20s for sale in the last couple of years. I have no idea how may 88 J trucks were built, or what happened to the last one. If anyone has any information on 88 J Trucks, please let us know. Is there anyone on the lists who worked for AMC in late 1987? Dave Read Chicago John wrote: Hey, wasn't the last Wagoneer, pictured on page 3, really the fourth of four 1992's? :) Four Wheeler wrote an article on this and I'm pretty sure that was what happened. I've also heard similar rumors of post-production issues of J20's. There is supposedly around 80 or so made the year after the end of production! Since all were supposedly in the NorthEast somewhere it's possible that the Motor Vehicle department in that (or those) states licensed them differently... who knows for sure... after all, these are Jeeps. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Carnuck-at-webtv.net (James Blair) Subject: fsj: last test (beta version) ************************************* JimBlair, Seattle,WA '83 Cher 4dr, '84 J10 http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html ************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:33:51 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: Re: Post-Production J20s please email me a picture or two... this deserves a place on http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/rigs/1988-J20 (where you'll find this email right now... ;) john At 02:08 PM 6/9/00 -0500, Dave Read wrote: > >I have an 1988 J20. It was built September 97, and has a 1988 VIN. I looked at >another 88 J20 that was originally purchased by a school district for a snow >plow truck. The owner had the original window sticker and owners manual, both >said 1988. > >I have come across several adds for 88 J10s and J20s for sale in the last couple >of years. > >I have no idea how may 88 J trucks were built, or what happened to the last one. >If anyone has any information on 88 J Trucks, please let us know. Is there >anyone on the lists who worked for AMC in late 1987? > >Dave Read >Chicago > >John wrote: >Hey, wasn't the last Wagoneer, pictured on page 3, really the fourth of four >1992's? :) >Four Wheeler wrote an article on this and I'm pretty >sure that was what happened. I've also heard similar rumors of post-production >issues of J20's. There is supposedly around 80 or so made the year after the >end of production! Since all were supposedly in the NorthEast somewhere it's >possible that the Motor Vehicle department in that (or those) states licensed >them >differently... who knows for sure... after all, these are Jeeps. :) > > - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:35:25 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: J truck production info http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/rigs/J-truck-production.html - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:33:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Seevers Subject: Re: fsj: we b back... > what, ya gonna move to Fab6? ;) I think Fab6 just shut down. There is another fab down there and they are building yet another. But I don't work in the fabs anyway. I guess I could learn though if thats what it takes to get some good weather! :) - -brad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:32:47 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: 16.02 mpg... Superdawg is fluctuating between 14 and 16.3 average is in the high 15's. Still haven't gotten the amsoil air filter installed yet... got the timing set so it just barely pings under load, if I downshift it's fine... so I figure I'm right on the edge of advance... :) Maybe mr. carb will be able to touch it tomorrow and make it all better. :) john - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:23:48 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: looking at a rare one tomorrow... someone on the list found an 86 J20 with only 9,000 miles on it in Snohomish... I told my wife and she said why don't you buy it... ;) Well, for one thing, I don't know it's really worth $13,000 plus dollars. Second, it's a 3/4 ton with a V8 and a long bed... But, I'm gonna go and look anyway. :) The guy didn't seem bothered by the fact that I just wanted to see it and take some pictures of it. :) Who knows... I might fall in love with it, sell superdawg and live happily ever after... ;) Not likely, but hey, I didn't know I was gonna meet my wife when I did... :) john - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:35:03 -0500 From: "TLynn" Subject: fsj: Re: 16.02 mpg... John, How do you compare the amsoil filter to the K&N? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "john" To: Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 23:32 Subject: fsj: 16.02 mpg... Superdawg is fluctuating between 14 and 16.3 average is in the high 15's. Still haven't gotten the amsoil air filter installed yet... got the timing set so it just barely pings under load, if I downshift it's fine... so I figure I'm right on the edge of advance... :) Maybe mr. carb will be able to touch it tomorrow and make it all better. :) john - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:22:52 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: Re: 16.02 mpg... At 12:35 AM 6/10/00 -0500, TL wrote: > >>Superdawg is fluctuating between 14 and 16.3 >>average is in the high 15's. Still haven't gotten the >>amsoil air filter installed yet... > >John, >How do you compare the amsoil filter to the K&N? let's see... how would you compare a spaghetti strainer to a fine cheese cloth? One will let certainly let much more pass through it... Question is, do you really want to let more pass through than your engine is capable of ingesting anyway? :) (k&n has some incredible cfm specs... until the filter is placed in service, then it drops off pretty rapidly as it clogs up, almost as quickly as a paper filter...) When I make this comparison I'm thinking about what kind of dust, particles and other abrasive items that are allowed to pass through the oil-wetted gauze that k&n uses. amsoil uses an oil-soaked foam. I've got a video where an independent lab tested the three types of filters. The flow rates are shown in the URL just below... but what isn't shown in the chart is what passed through the filters. The amsoil had nothing, the paper a little bit... while the k&n passed all kinds of stuff... You can see through the gauze material quite easily, and if you clean it improperly, which is easy to do, you can loose a lot of protection. The amsoil foam is denser, yet doesn't clog up, holds much more and flows more air longer. See the chart below for a relative comparison. http://www.wagoneers.com/john/AMSOIL/air-filters-chart.jpg (this is an old chart, I've got a newer one around somewhere, but the basic comparison is still valid. I think all the filters compared have been improved, except maybe the paper one...) The k&n claims some incredible CFM numbers, more than the amsoil, when the filter is fresh. But as the k&n, and paper, filters gather material they drastically reduce their flow, while the amsoil filter continues to flow. The reason for this is simple, the amsoil foam has more avenues for air, and more capacity to hold dirt. Regardless of what the specs might show, it does not restrict air flow to the point where it would make a difference. Do the math on cfm sometimes... it'll point out two things, most engines are way over carb'd and your air filter ain't gonna slow you down much... ;) Problem is I don't know of ANY engine, short of something you'd see on a Boeing produced item with wings, that would draw the air/cfm flows k&n specs anyway. An amsoil filter will flow more than adequately for any engine out there... and if it does become a limiting factor you could modify your air intake to stack more than one on top of each other. :) Or, if you really want unlimited flow, ditch the air filter all together. :) (which isn't too far away from what happens when you run a k&n any how... ;) The bottom line is that when all the factors are considered the Amsoil filter is by far the best value, filters the best, breathes the best over the entire service period, is orders of magnitude easier to clean, and protects your engine. To clean, you use soap and water and basically wring it out, place tack oil or regular engine oil on it, put it back on the metal cage and reinstall... no special cleaners, no worries about using air or a garden hose on it... it's durable and replaced without the slightest hassle if you do somehow manage to damage it! (I've done it once... ;) Paper is the next best for engine protection. The problem is, as shown in the chart, it clogs up pretty quick and then quits flowing. Then you have to throw it away... :( bad for your wallet and not good for the landfill. On most engines changing the paper element will increase your fuel economy. I've been running amsoil filters since 1983, the reason I decided to become a dealer, and while I tend to neglect my vehicles a bit, you know like not bothering to clean the air filter on my olds diesel for three years because the stupid thing was supposed to have died already... ;) and when I finally did remove the bugs, weeds and all the crudded on dust, it didn't make a bit of difference in performance or mileage... which is remarkable considering how drastic the performance was btwn paper and the amsoil! When you consider the cost of the filters it makes sense to go with an amsoil filter too. First off they're lifetime guaranteed (not only a million miles... ;) and then they cost about half of what a k&n costs. Prices vary on the various sizes, but if memory serves me correctly (which I don't trust very much... ;) it seems that one filter I looked into was about $10 for a paper, $25 for the amsoil and about $45 for the k&n. I ran across a situation once with a Mercedes where the cheapest, lowlife brand of paper filters I could find was about $45, while the amsoil filter was $20 or $25!!! k&n didn't have one for that application. I've been forced to buy a k&n once because there wasn't an amsoil one... after cleaning it one time I fixed my problem by taking some amsoil filter material and wrapping the k&n. ;) Superdawg came with a k&n filter on the holley... first thing I did was fabricate an amsoil filter to go over the top of it. :) Absolutely no change in performance or mileage by placing that "restrictive" material over the k&n... ;) I'm sorry to have gone so long on the reply... but I'm kind of passionate about the air filter thing. I truly believe it's the best value in the auto parts world. It filters the best, flows the best over the entire service period, is easy to care for and is affordable to buy. Oh yeah, the performance issue, the amsoil filter improved my 0 to 60mph time tests in that olds Diesel I mentioned before from 26 seconds to 19 seconds!!! A 5.7L Diesel tends to draw in a lot of air... I've not experienced such a gain in any other vehicle gas or diesel... but that SOLD me on the amsoil filters so much that I signed up as a Dealer and I've had an amsoil filter on almost every car I've owned since then... :) You know, I think I may still have the air filter from that olds... :) I finally killed that olds in 96... 230,000 miles on it... and they say the 5.7L diesel wasn't any good... it'd still be running if I hadn't "fixed" the transmission... rofl... I found out that Diesels don't like going from drive to first at 65 mph... oops... I guess I put that little fork thing on the wrong side of that one little part... drat... hey, for grins, here's the formula for CFM, CFM = (rpm x displacement)/3456 for example, the maximum torque of an AMC 360 is around 1,700 rpm, so let's run the numbers at that RPM... (1700 x 360)/3456 = 177.0833 CFM say, what? so you mean to tell me that the 290 cfm carb that came stock on the 81 Wagoneer was adequate??? ;) still, that seems kind of low... so let's bump the number up to say 5,000 rpm... (don't try this at home kids) (5000 x 360)/3456 = 520.833333333333333333333333333333 CFM Of course, you'd probably design your setup for your maximum torque because that's where you'd have the best volumetric efficiency... (well, that's what this book I've got here says ;) Now, if you look at the k&n specs, you might see a cfm rating of maybe 900 to 1000cfm... and they'll claim that the amsoil filter only flows at 700cfm or something like that... and a paper element at 400 cfm or thereabouts (again, those numbers are from memory and from a k&n catalog... I really don't care about the exact numbers because, as you can see by doing the math, it doesn't matter...) Anyway, my point is we don't need that much steekin' cfm no how. ok, one more... (can't help myself) the 4.0L has peak torque at 2,500 rpm... (2500 x 242)/3456 = 175.057870370370 cfm no, wait... one more... (gotta check superdawg out) stock 4.2L for 83, max torque at 1,800 rpm (1800 x 258)/3456 = 134.375 cfm... (see why a 500 cfm holley on that puppy was a bad idea? and why my mileage went from about 11 to 16? :) I really don't care if you buy an amsoil filter from me or not. I just hate to see friends pay so much for so little in a k&n. The k&n is way overpriced for what they are, and if you live where there is dust you may actually be shortening the life of your engine... the amsoil oil-soaked foam breathes plenty, much more than paper, and that's what the guys that designed the engine used in the first place... I hate to idea of throwing the paper elements away and not being able to clean and reuse... and I really don't like cleaning the k&n filters... sure, they seem to work ok... seems like the guys that have a k&n like 'em (except me)... but most of 'em have never had an amsoil filter either... (if ignorance is bliss, then some of us must be in paradise... ;) (the formula came out of the auto math handbook by hp books) later, john - ----------------------------------------------------- john-at-wagoneers.com http://www.wagoneers.com/ http://www.wagoneers.com/AMSOIL/Filter_INFORMATION/air_filter-1.jpg http://www.wagoneers.com/AMSOIL/Filter_INFORMATION/air_filter-2.jpg Snohomish, WA, where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:31:58 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: what's the worse that could happen? What's the worse that could happen if I install shocks designed to work with a 2.5" lift and I haven't installed the lift yet? :) If I compress the shock too hard I'd guess it would damage it or bust off a shock mount... but I just can't see that happening on the street... right? I ordered the 9000s for my J10... got the ones for 2.5" of lift since I made the mistake of having too short of shocks on Old Blue... :) So, let me know if it's a really bad idea, I'll wait until I can rebuild the spring packs... thanx, john - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:49:18 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: fwd, 83 258 TSM info passing this along from jim >From the AMC-list MShumaker mshumaker-at-uswest.net Yesterday, I offered to scan the appropriate 1983 TSM pages for the peculiar method of setting the timing on the 1983 (and probably later) 258 engines. I got enough requests to warrant posting it. (Besides, I'll be away for a while after surgery in the morning.) Rather than scan it, the text that follows is transcribed from the 1983 TSM Supplement. Note that the text refers to some supproting devices in the engine management system, like the 4 inch Hg switch. If you're not familiar with them, go to this link for an excellent illustrated primer. http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/258bbd/main.htm=20 I have the text available as an attachment in WordPerfect 6.1 format on request, but be prepared to wait a while. Matt in AZ.=20 The TSM Supplement text:=20 =A0=A0Ignition timing -- Six Cylinder Engine=20 Primary Timing Procedure=20 1. Set parking brake. Shift automatic transmission to Park, manual transmission to Neutral.=20 2. Start engine and allow to attain normal operating temperature. Ensure that A/C is turned Off (if equipped).=20 3. With ignition switch off, connect ignition timing light and properly calibrated tachometer.=20 NOTE: If the timing light has an adjustable advance control feature,=20 turn the control to the OFF position.=20 4. Disconnect vacuum switch assembly wire connector.=20 5. Disconnect and plug distributor vacuum advance hose.=20 WARNING: Use extreme caution when engine is operating. Do not stand in=20 direct line with fan. Do not put hands near pulleys, belts, or fan. Do not wear loose clothing.=20 6. Start engine.=20 7. Increase engine speed to 1600 rpm and check timing. If necessary, adjust timing to specification listed on emission control information label.=20 8. Tighten distributor holddown clamp and verify that ignition timing is correct.=20 9. Turn off engine and remove timing light and tachometer. Connect No. 1 spark plug wire, if disconnected. Connect hose to distributor vacuum advance mechanism. Connect wire connector to vacuum switch assembly.=20 Alternate Timing Procedure=20 This procedure does not require the engine speed to be increased to 1600 rpm.=20 1. Set parking brake. Shift automatic transmission to Park, manual transmission to Neutral.=20 2. Start engine and allow to attain normal operating temperature.=20 3. With ignition switch off, connect ignition timing light and properly calibrated tachometer.=20 NOTE: If the timing light has an adjustable advance control feature,=20 turn the control to the OFF position.=20 4. Disconnect the 4 in. Hg vacuum switch hose and plug opening.=20 NOTE: The 4 in. Hg vacuum switch has black and red wires connected to=20 it.=20 5. Disconnect distributor vacuum hose and connect hose to 4 in. Hg vacuum switch.=20 6. Disconnect knock sensor wire connector and connect wire to cylinder block (ground) with jumper wire.=20 NOTE: Grounding the knock sensor wire prevents electromagnetic=20 interference (EMI) from causing erroneous reactions by the microprocessor unit (MCU).=20 7. Start engine.=20 WARNING: Use extreme caution when engine is operating. Do not stand in=20 direct line with fan. Do not put hands near pulleys, belts, or fan. Do not wear loose clothing.=20 8. With engine at idle speed check timing. If necessary adjust timing one (1) degree higher than specification listed on emission control information label.=20 NOTE: With the alternate timing procedure the basic timing must be one=20 (1) engine degree higher than the specification listed on the emission control information label. For example, if the timing specification is listed as 6 deg. +/- 2 deg. at 1600 rpm, the alternate timing procedure requires 7 deg. +/- 2 deg. at idle speed.=20 *************************************=20 JimBlair, Seattle,WA '83 Cher 4dr, '84 J10 http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html=20 ************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:15:10 -0500 From: JeepNut Subject: Re: fsj: looking at a rare one tomorrow... Oh, man, PLEASE don't make me want this vehicle. I've always REALLY wanted a J truck... and with only 9K?!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!! Me so broke there ain't no way... or is there???,,,, Lessee, Wife or J truck?.... ..... ...... ......... JeepNut john wrote: > someone on the list found an 86 J20 with only 9,000 miles on it > in Snohomish... I told my wife and she said why don't you buy it... ;) > > Well, for one thing, I don't know it's really worth $13,000 plus dollars. > Second, it's a 3/4 ton with a V8 and a long bed... > > But, I'm gonna go and look anyway. :) The guy didn't seem bothered > by the fact that I just wanted to see it and take some pictures of it. :) > > Who knows... I might fall in love with it, sell superdawg and live happily > ever after... ;) Not likely, but hey, I didn't know I was gonna meet > my wife when I did... :) > > john > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ > ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! > Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... > ------------------------------------------------------- - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- '87 Street Comanche #24/100 '88 Grand Wagoneer ...and they say there's only one... '92 Cherokee - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #885 *************************