Modified XJ Cherokee Tech XJ (84-01)
All modified tech questions. If it modifies your XJ beyond stock parts ask it here.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

SEMA Edelbrock aluminum head

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 11, 2014 | 10:04 PM
  #16  
Strmtrooper70's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by andrewmp6
A while back someone posted about them needed a jeep to test the head on.
I wish I would have known this Edlebrock is down the street from me. :/
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 02:08 AM
  #17  
andrewmp6's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,014
Likes: 17
From: Louisville,KY
Model: Cherokee
Default

They wanted a 2006 with 50k or less http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/misc/test-vehicles/
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 02:13 AM
  #18  
Strmtrooper70's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by andrewmp6
Oh Damn never mind lol, I believe they don't even let you keep the parts for free they just give you a huge discount on the parts. Unless they're different.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 02:19 AM
  #19  
andrewmp6's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,014
Likes: 17
From: Louisville,KY
Model: Cherokee
Default

Would be one of the last tj made everything else the 4.0 was gone from.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 09:08 AM
  #20  
Fred/N0AZZ's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 17
From: Monett, MO.
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by s346k
looks like another edelbrock letdown. $1000+ for a head that is hardly more capable than a stock casting? no flow numbers, valve angle, or compression information? what a joke.

At least they saw the need for one and made it happen when no one else has. At least with that head you can do a lot more than a cast iron one as far as rework and flow numbers.

My machine work porting and polishing always cost more than my Dart, AFR, Brodix heads did. Same with my Dart blocks and intakes machine work is where the extra HP is at.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 10:02 AM
  #21  
Strmtrooper70's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Also it's aluminum so cooling would be better and I'm sure they fixed the cracking head issue. I wonder if the combustion chamber is the same way as stock or smaller
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 08:41 PM
  #22  
s346k's Avatar
CF Veteran
Premium Member
10 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 18
From: central IN
Year: 1997
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by Fred/N0AZZ
...machine work is where the extra HP is at.
I agree. but starting with an inherently poor head design...how's that saying go, " you can polish a turd, but it's still..."??
Originally Posted by Strmtrooper70
Also it's aluminum so cooling would be better and I'm sure they fixed the cracking head issue. I wonder if the combustion chamber is the same way as stock or smaller
bear in mind the cooling problems everyone has with these engines. now put an AL head in the mix.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2014 | 11:16 PM
  #23  
Strmtrooper70's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by s346k
I agree. but starting with an inherently poor head design...how's that saying go, " you can polish a turd, but it's still..."??bear in mind the cooling problems everyone has with these engines. now put an AL head in the mix.
I was reading more about this and I do believe I read that the combustion chamber is of a ᤾"modern design" most people's overheating issues are due to lack of maintenance. I doubt those people would be trying to get a "performance head" I also forgot another slight benefit the weight savings! Lol a stock head weighs a lot.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2014 | 10:03 AM
  #24  
ih8cornnuts's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 220
Likes: 1
From: Greensboring, NC
Year: 1998
Model: Cherokee
Default

I think it goes something along the lines of

"You cant polish a turd, if you try you just get $hit all over your hands"
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 11:27 AM
  #25  
AMXJ's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 345
Likes: 1
From: So. California
Year: 1991
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

This is the first one to be installed in a vehicle!







Dennis
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 12:54 PM
  #26  
s14unimog's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 2
Model: Cherokee
Default

Originally Posted by AMXJ
This is the first one to be installed in a vehicle!
Dennis
Go on....
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 01:27 PM
  #27  
vank's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Denver
Year: 1994
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
Default

First one installed in a vehicle and they didn't upgrade to the "horseshoe" type intake manifold? What's the point in improving flow in the head if you're going to still limit it at the intake???
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 01:30 PM
  #28  
XJEvo's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 169
Likes: 1
From: Long Island, NY
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Default

Ooo shiny!
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 02:27 PM
  #29  
AMXJ's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 345
Likes: 1
From: So. California
Year: 1991
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by vank
First one installed in a vehicle and they didn't upgrade to the "horseshoe" type intake manifold? What's the point in improving flow in the head if you're going to still limit it at the intake???

WOW, LOL!

First off, this installation is for creating the installation instructions and for drivability comparison testing, not performance testing! The install was done on my 91 XJ so for that simple reason we installed the head with the stock intake as it was before. Performance testing is being done on our engine dyno. During the dyno testing (among other things) we did compare the early and the late ("upgrade") intakes against each other, and surprisingly the earlier intake (like in the pictires) actually worked a little better (on the stock head and on our head on a stock engine) than the later 4.0L curved intake. Who knows, maybe we'll have to make an intake to go with our Cyl. head!!!!

I only have about 150 miles on the head so far and it seems to work well on my basicly stock engine. My Jeep seems to pull a little harder going up the on ramp I use in the morning, and it feels to have a bit more power when passing.

We are still looking for an 2006 Wrangler for emissions testing if anyone is interested!

Dennis
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2014 | 02:31 PM
  #30  
Tony_SS's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 3
From: Washington, MO
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by AMXJ
WOW, LOL!

First off, this installation is for creating the installation instructions and for drivability comparison testing, not performance testing! The install was done on my 91 XJ so for that simple reason we installed the head with the stock intake as it was before. Performance testing is being done on our engine dyno. During the dyno testing (among other things) we did compare the early and the late ("upgrade") intakes against each other, and surprisingly the earlier intake (like in the pictires) actually worked a little better (on the stock head and on our head on a stock engine) than the later 4.0L curved intake. Who knows, maybe we'll have to make an intake to go with our Cyl. head!!!!

I only have about 150 miles on the head so far and it seems to work well on my basicly stock engine. My Jeep seems to pull a little harder going up the on ramp I use in the morning, and it feels to have a bit more power when passing.

We are still looking for an 2006 Wrangler for emissions testing if anyone is interested!

Dennis
I'm glad you guys are putting out products for our XJ's. If you were to do an improved intake that would awesome. Isn't that what you're know for?
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.