Jeep Liberty

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: eljefino
There's a button one has to press to remove the ignition key. In hindsight I figure this design is meant for automatic transmissions and the button simply activates the gizmo that being in "park" otherwise would have done. They're trying to spin it as a convenience feature, but I don't believe it.


That's something that cars with manual transmissions used to have, but I didn't know they were still using them. My '07 Corolla (with a 5-speed) didn't have a button to remove the key. My dad's '92 Mustang did. I think my '95 Nissan truck did.


That's something that stopped in the last few years. My parents '08 wrangler didn't have one and my '11 Focus doesn't have the button (or a steering lock ...)

 

[zloveraz]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Miller88


The neon 2.4 is a polar opposite of the AMC 150 it replaced. The AMC150 had low end torque, but nothing up high. The Neon 2.4 has nothing down low, but a little up high.


Yeah, my 2.4 only makes about 220 ft-lbs of torque at 2300 rpm.

I think the Wrangler 2.4 really needed a turbocharger. It would have had 30 odd more horsepower and 10 or so more ft-lbs of torque than the 4.0


Spaz do you have the 05 or 06? I thought the 04 & 05 peaked at 4000 and the 06 at 2400? I agree I think all 4 cylinders should be turbocharged...

 

[PF52]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
When they first came out, Jeep enthusiasts moaned and cried that it wasn't a real Jeep because it had independent front suspension. Whatever.



The irony being, way back when the Liberty was introduced, the 4X4 enthusiast magazines all fretted over the "not a real Jeep" reputation but they all admitted that against those vehicles buyers would likely be comparing it with, the Liberty was far and away the best off pavement. Slam-dunk best. Not even close.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: zloveraz
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Miller88


The neon 2.4 is a polar opposite of the AMC 150 it replaced. The AMC150 had low end torque, but nothing up high. The Neon 2.4 has nothing down low, but a little up high.


Yeah, my 2.4 only makes about 220 ft-lbs of torque at 2300 rpm.

I think the Wrangler 2.4 really needed a turbocharger. It would have had 30 odd more horsepower and 10 or so more ft-lbs of torque than the 4.0


Spaz do you have the 05 or 06? I thought the 04 & 05 peaked at 4000 and the 06 at 2400? I agree I think all 4 cylinders should be turbocharged...


'05. 90% of torque is allegedly availiable at 2300 rpm. 245 ft-lbs is the rated torque peak though I've seen more than one stock dyno chart that indicates that Chrysler sandbagged that figure. The 220bhp is probably more like 250 and the torque at the crank is probably more like 265 ft-lbs

I just like the idea of the SRT/4-PT GT 2.4 in a Jeep Wrangler. At 2300 rpm you would be within a few ft-lbs of the venerable 4.0's torque peak at 3000 rpm and at 4000 rpm the turbo 4 would be flat outgunning the 4.0

The only thing better would be that Italian VM Motori diesel that they put in a few Liberties that had something like 300ft-lbs of torque. I think overseas Wranglers got the Italian made diesel. I've never seen one here.

 

[GenSan]

All makes and models have their problems; some more than others.

LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3
LINK 4
LINK 5