Difference between high output an reg 4.0?
04-01-2015, 05:28 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Difference between high output an reg 4.0?
Was behind an xj coming home from work today an it had the 4.0 badge an then another with 4.0 high output what's the differences??
04-01-2015, 05:43 PM
#2
CF Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Andover, VT
Posts: 2,969
Received 224 Likes
on
174 Posts
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0 L
After the renix era of XJs they redesigned the head to put out more power, hence, "high output."
04-01-2015, 06:33 PM
#4
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 3,353
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: Golen 4.6 Stroker, AFE Headers, 62mm TB, 24 LB Injectors, Brown Dog kit, HF Cat, 3" Exhaust
87 Renix- 173HP/220TQ
88-90 Renix-177HP/224TQ
91-99 HO- 190HP/225TQ
2000+ HO- 193HP-231TQ
It is worth noting that the Renix made both of those at lower RPMs than the HO. Also worth noting the HO was more efficient and gained a couple MPGs.
some other XJ motors-
2.8 V6- 115HP/145 TQ
2.5 turbo diesel- 114HP/221 TQ
2.5L I4(Renix era)- 121HP/141 TQ
2.5L I4 (Chrysler)- 130HP/149 TQ
88-90 Renix-177HP/224TQ
91-99 HO- 190HP/225TQ
2000+ HO- 193HP-231TQ
It is worth noting that the Renix made both of those at lower RPMs than the HO. Also worth noting the HO was more efficient and gained a couple MPGs.
some other XJ motors-
2.8 V6- 115HP/145 TQ
2.5 turbo diesel- 114HP/221 TQ
2.5L I4(Renix era)- 121HP/141 TQ
2.5L I4 (Chrysler)- 130HP/149 TQ
Last edited by Ianf406; 04-02-2015 at 09:13 AM.
04-01-2015, 07:08 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
87 Renix- 173HP/220TQ Renix-177HP/224TQ 91-99 HO- 190HP/225TQ 2000+ HO- 193HP-231TQ It is worth noting that the Renix made both of those at lower RPMs than the HO. Also worth noting the HO was more efficient and gained a couple MPGs. some other XJ motors- 2.8 V6- 115HP/145 TQ 2.5 turbo diesel- 114HP/221 TQ 2.5L I4(Renix era)- 121HP/141 TQ 2.5L I4 (Chrysler)- 130HP/149 TQ
Thank you guys for the info an I didn't know these came with anything other than a straight 6 that's pretty cool did they release the turbo diesel version in the us??
04-01-2015, 08:01 PM
#6
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 3,353
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: Golen 4.6 Stroker, AFE Headers, 62mm TB, 24 LB Injectors, Brown Dog kit, HF Cat, 3" Exhaust
85-87 a 2.1L turbo diesel was released in North America. (didn't put it on my list) I'm not sure if the 2.5L ever was but I don't think so.
Last edited by Ianf406; 04-01-2015 at 08:04 PM.
04-01-2015, 08:06 PM
#7
CF Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Andover, VT
Posts: 2,969
Received 224 Likes
on
174 Posts
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0 L
87 Renix- 173HP/220TQ Renix-177HP/224TQ 91-99 HO- 190HP/225TQ 2000+ HO- 193HP-231TQ It is worth noting that the Renix made both of those at lower RPMs than the HO. Also worth noting the HO was more efficient and gained a couple MPGs. some other XJ motors- 2.8 V6- 115HP/145 TQ 2.5 turbo diesel- 114HP/221 TQ 2.5L I4(Renix era)- 121HP/141 TQ 2.5L I4 (Chrysler)- 130HP/149 TQ
Trending Topics
04-02-2015, 09:36 AM
#9
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,857
Received 1,521 Likes
on
1,234 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
Here ya go.
HO myth buster
Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference.
HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this?
The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold.
Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it.
HO stands for Highly Overrated.
__________________
HO myth buster
Renix in 90 made 182 HP. HO in 91 made 190 HP. That's 8 HP difference.
HO only made more HP than Renix at higher RPMs and not a bit more torque. HO had 58 mm throttle body versus a 52 mm throttle body on a Renix and also had a better design header. See where I'm going with this?
The whole 8HP was not mostly from the head, but from the bigger TB and better exhaust manifold.
Put a 60mm TB from www.strokedjeep.com on your present head, eliminate the "crush" in your headpipe with proper re-routing, and go for it.
HO stands for Highly Overrated.
__________________
04-02-2015, 09:50 AM
#10
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 3,353
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: Golen 4.6 Stroker, AFE Headers, 62mm TB, 24 LB Injectors, Brown Dog kit, HF Cat, 3" Exhaust
Ive had a couple of both and definitely prefer the HO. Part of that Is I hate the vacuum system but the HOs have always felt quicker. Cruiser obviously likes the Renix era 
Heres my question that ive never really been able to find an answer too.... Are those RWHP or straight off the engine?
Just curious as my stroker made 272HP/334TQ on an engine dyno with stock components but I'm sure the RWHP even with all the aftermarket I did is much less.
Heres my question that ive never really been able to find an answer too.... Are those RWHP or straight off the engine?
Just curious as my stroker made 272HP/334TQ on an engine dyno with stock components but I'm sure the RWHP even with all the aftermarket I did is much less.
Last edited by Ianf406; 04-02-2015 at 09:52 AM.
04-02-2015, 09:52 AM
#11
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 3,353
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: Golen 4.6 Stroker, AFE Headers, 62mm TB, 24 LB Injectors, Brown Dog kit, HF Cat, 3" Exhaust
Nvm... I found my answer- lol Straight off the engine is significantly less than 190.
https://www.cherokeeforum.com/f67/dyno-results-178788/
https://www.cherokeeforum.com/f67/dyno-results-178788/
04-03-2015, 02:10 AM
#12
CF Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hudson, FL
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L Inline 6
Chrysler called it the "High Output" just so they could put a shiny new badge on the back of the tailgate and use it as a marketing ploy. Same engine, small mods to breathing system.
04-03-2015, 08:53 AM
#13
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,857
Received 1,521 Likes
on
1,234 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
Egotistical Chrysler engineers insisting on making some change so they could act like they improved it. Yep.
04-03-2015, 07:19 PM
#14
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oroville, CA
Posts: 12,367
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 1995
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 with all of the noise and clatter
The 1992 Mustang with the 302 was rated at 205 horsepower. So an inline six putting out 190 in 1992 was pretty darn good.
04-03-2015, 07:23 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 28 Likes
on
23 Posts
Year: 1997
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Agree. Had a 95 GTS before I took over the 97 XJ. Very similar feel performance wise stock and part of the reason it was an easy transition for me.
