Stroker motor?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Apr 16, 2011 | 08:22 PM

#61

dev_daddy

CF Veteran

Joined: Dec 2010

Posts: 2,366

Likes: 0

From: Spanish Fork, Utah

Year: 1989

Model: Cherokee

Engine: Renix 4.0L

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolzabee

the 4.0 has pretty low power, dont kid yourself. 3.0L nissan engines (the NA engines obviously, not turbo) made the same HP and only 20 ft. lbs less in 1996 than the 1996 jeep 4.0. Its an archaic engine design that doesnt do much for maximizing power. Pushrod engine, etc. blah blah. Basically, the engine in my 2002 maxima makes 15 more FT lbs and 63 more HP at the wheels than my jeep makes at the crank. And before you ask, yes it does make more tq than my jeep at 2k RPM...at the wheels

I love my jeep, but efficiency of this engine is lacking. It lasts a long time though! Though not as long as most import engines of its time do

/americancarcompaniesrodeagoodthingwaytoolong rant

Well lets see that same nissan engine power something with 40" tires, the rest of beefy drivetrain, 4,000+ pound vehicle, and hit trails and rocks and water and mud and sand for miles and miles and years and years... yeah. Your nissan would cry.

Apr 16, 2011 | 09:29 PM

#62

nijburt

Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 78

Likes: 0

From: Pinehurst, NC

Year: 1996 4dr

Model: Cherokee

Engine: 4.0L

Thanks to dukie564 for post#11 on page 1. For a while I wasn't even sure if this was a stroker related thread.

Apr 16, 2011 | 09:37 PM

#63

Gee oh Dee

CF Veteran

Joined: Sep 2010

Posts: 21,168

Likes: 5

From: Milwaukee, WI

Year: 1987

Engine: Check

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev_daddy

Dude, he's not bashing the Jeep motor.

Apr 17, 2011 | 02:25 AM

#64

lolzabee

Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2011

Posts: 39

Likes: 0

Model: Cherokee

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev_daddy

Basically the exact same engine is in pathfinders. And xterras. Those engines dont seem to fall apart in poor conditions. You're pretty ignorant if you understand that I was just saying it's an old technology engine and doesn't really match up to good 1996 technology.

PS, if it made any sense I would swap that engine into the jeep in a heartbeat. It's been great to me no matter what I did to it. Including make over 200 wheel tq at 2000 rpm and still make good power and tq at 7k. I'm not ripping on the 4.0, just saying it's not a real great design, just the same ole same ole that Chrysler was putting out since the 60s basically (they added electronic ignition and fuel injection, besides that it's the same tech that my 69 chevelle engine had). My maxima would definitely cry if I took it through mud and rocks and water, its a street car. Engine would be just fine though.

Cliff notes? It's a good engine, but with a little tech it could be a lot more

Apr 17, 2011 | 09:37 AM

#65

98fourdoor

Seasoned Member

Joined: Dec 2010

Posts: 352

Likes: 0

Model: Cherokee

I think everyone got off topic with this one. The OP was just asking for pros/cons of a stroker 4.0 and wanted to stay away from an engine swap. But I do think a good 4.6 striker with a mild cam and some head work would make a great DD and not cause any computer issues. Maybe just swap in some 704/784 injectors at the same time and enjoy your new found power.

Apr 18, 2011 | 12:16 AM

#66

No4x4Yet

Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 997

Likes: 1

From: Long Island NY

Year: 2000

Model: Cherokee

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolzabee

PS, if it made any sense I would swap that engine into the jeep in a heartbeat. It's been great to me no matter what I did to it. Including make over 200 wheel tq at 2000 rpm and still make good power and tq at 7k. I'm not ripping on the 4.0, just saying it's not a real great design, just the same ole same ole that Chrysler was putting out since the 60s basically (they added electronic ignition and fuel injection, besides that it's the same tech that my 69 chevelle engine had). My maxima would definitely cry if I took it through mud and rocks and water, its a street car. Engine would be just fine though.

Cliff notes? It's a good engine, but with a little tech it could be a lot more

The biggest thing hurthing these engines is the low compression, i believe its 8.8:1! kick that up to 10.0:1 and you'll have have quite a good gain in power. Thats part of the reason the stoker works so well.