disappointing dauntless

well I think the axle ratios are the biggest difference here
I have had nothing but 5:38s; wouldn't change for any reason!
pulling the loaded Bantam down the highway at any speed is easy, no strain
even on the steepest grades, only once in while do I have to shift out of overdrive
Colorado elevation can slow me down, but that is to be expected

JK, the tranny swaps you mention won't gain a thing for highway driving; only a granny low would be gained

ljspop: no paddles, just cross grooved farm implements on 15" wide wheels, run them at about 5-6 psi (tube type). I didn't say I would be the first/fastest one to the top of the dune! flotation is the name of the game when you don't have 500hp!

 

no need

 

To answer Andy's question, everything I remember or have read is that the 3.73's were standard with the Dauntless V6 with 4.88's as an option. I also think that the three speed manual tranny was a compromise to attract more customers by being more user freindly for the sporty crowd as opposed to the low range grunts.

My quest is to explore more modern transmission options that might yield a lower crawl ratio, and get better use of the performance range of the engine. However, if jpflat2a is correct, I'll keep the T86 and be happy. I have a long way to go in developing my CJ5 to suit my tastes, but as far as the Dauntless goes, I am real happy.

JK

 

I'm happy with the performance of a stock :v6:. My :v6: is bone stock with 139,000 miles and with points; no HEI yet. Around town it has good power, but I'll have to admit, on the highway it seems to run out of breath. I drive slow though, usually around 50-55, 60 tops. While on some drives in the foothills this past summer, many of the highway climbs slowed me down more than I'd like, but I've somewhat gotten used to it. I do think it's time to do a compression test, but I'm afraid of what I might find.

P.S.-This is with 3.73's, a T-18, and 31's.

 

I know a lot of guys that do stuff the big v-8 motors in them and love it till they get in mud on the trails and start breaking things, because they end up over powering them with motor and bounce around on the trails. I'm a big fan of the 225 and live in washington I'm going to be getting another 225 in the next couple of months so if you are going to be selling yours ....... I'd be glad to meet with you....Just keep it in mind
Take care and good luck.

 

guys, perhaps we're overlooking something here. the guy said he took his jeep out to the beach and was disapointed there. . . well, nothing sucks up horsepower like sand and a CJ5 isn't exactly a lightweight vehicle. perhaps the owner isn't familiar with the charactisics of sand and its ability to sober up even owners of V8s.

My 231 runs out of breath trying to merge onto a freeway at 50 MPH - kind of a disappointing revelation, but I think I'll now have the carb/ignition checked out as many of you suggested.

oh, a long time ago a friend had a nearly new CJ5 with a V8 and regularly put the front end in the sky in our employer's parking lot after work.

 

Yeah it would seem 373's in sand would cause a lack of performance. 5:38's would make a huge diff.

 

according to the books w/out full hardtop, should weigh about 2500#'s. Flatfenders weigh less about 2100#'s

 

I went through one of those weigh stations once and came up with nearly 3500 lbs. Of course I have two gas tanks and both were full of gas.

I've learned that in the sand, especially when you're stuck, NOTHING is lightweight!

 

I was thinking the same thing. Both my CJ's combined, don't weigh as much as my F350.

 

(2) 15 gallon tanks of fuel are only about 195lbs, But what kind of tires/rims compared to factory, tire carrier, bumpers, tools, and anything added from the factory original. When I last weighed my jeep it was around 2700lbs with 31" tires and 2 1/2" lift and that was the only modification. I will say this though modern vehicles are far heavier than there predecessor's, my dad 1 ton Chevy was more than a 1000lbs heavier than 1 my uncle bought 16 years earlier, plastic and all the eletrical doo-dads adds up quick.

 

It does have a heavier frame Sparky but the frame is negliable when all else is compared maybe 75lbs tops. Look at a Wrangler then compared to a our cj's, there heavier but use massive amounts of Aluminum in place of iron that ways a 1/3 more, there frame is boxed, most use smaller rear axles, smaller wheels on some models, 4 cylinders vs 6 and 8's yet they still weigh alot more, door panels and plastic dash components add up quick, the plastic bumpers we mold for Mercedes are heavier than there metal counterpart for all the reinforcements and such they add. The wiring harness in a modern vehicle has 5x the weight of one just 20 years ago plus all the computerized stuff. Really think about what is added to a newer car that is just weight or luxury stuff, and the list will add up very very quickly, some stuff is needed but alot is just cup holders and doo-dads or luxury items. The public market is what drives most of this but it still adds up. My Dodge Stratus weighed more than my v8 powered Duster w/pb, Air, ps, and it had the same axle in it that my Dakota has and was considered the weak drivetrain link in the day it was built. Today that same axle is considered bullet proof.

 

Let's not forget new vehicles have an "average" of 120 lbs. of wiring in them. And unless we ever have fully multiplexed 42V systems, the wiring isn't likely to decrease anytime soon.

 

Sorry!!! Must have missed McRuff's last post...