Forum Home Forum Home > CJ-2A Discussion Area > Tech Questions and Answers
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why is it that the L134 gets poor economy?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Why is it that the L134 gets poor economy?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
Oldpappy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Apr. 2018
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 4812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oldpappy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct. 2021 at 10:46pm
There were two typos, but who is counting ?

As said, fuel economy wasn't the priority in the 40s, but these engines do get reasonably good mileage when they are in good order, and driven as intended. 

They are small bore, long stroke engines, similar to tractor engines. They are not designed for extended high RPM runs. 

Sure you can get better mileage out of a modern fuel infected, computerized 4 cylinder, but will it still be running 75 years from now?
If you can't get there in a Jeep you don't need to be there!
Back to Top
wfopete View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 Nov. 2020
Location: Dover, Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 301
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wfopete Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct. 2021 at 10:49pm
For comparison sake the F134 kept the same B/S as the L134 but with a bump in compression (roughly a full point) and better flowing intake.  The peak torque and HP achieved remained at the same RPMs as the L134.  Too bad the F134 flathead can't easily be made to get compression up higher.  Wonder what kind of numbers it would produce if it could generate something like 9.5:1 compression.  Sorry for beating this dead horse as this subject is old news for many here.

Just kind of interesting how the B/S ratio, compression and head design can restrict a engine from making torque, HP and MPGs.  


Edited by wfopete - 26 Oct. 2021 at 5:53am
Suffer Fools, Gladly!
U.S. Army Iraq Veteran (ret.)
Back to Top
oldmansimek View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr. 2019
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldmansimek Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct. 2021 at 6:55am
Originally posted by Oldpappy Oldpappy wrote:

Sure you can get better mileage out of a modern fuel infected, computerized 4 cylinder, but will it still be running 75 years from now?

If Its a toyota with a 22re then yes it will still be running!!
Back to Top
dasvis View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Sponsor Member

Joined: 07 Sep. 2019
Location: Salem, Oregon
Status: Online
Points: 1516
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dasvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct. 2021 at 8:15am
Originally posted by oldmansimek oldmansimek wrote:

Originally posted by Oldpappy Oldpappy wrote:

Sure you can get better mileage out of a modern fuel infected, computerized 4 cylinder, but will it still be running 75 years from now?

If Its a toyota with a 22re then yes it will still be running!!

+1, my '93 4x4 Toyota pickup had 305,000 miles on the 22RE when I sold it.... never burned a drop of oil.
 Great rig- bought it new, had it 25 years as a daily driver.
1947 CJ2A #88659 "Rat Patrol"
1953 CJ3A #453-GB1 11266 "Black Beauty"
1964 Thunderbird convertible
..... & one of them moves under it's own power!!
Back to Top
oldtime View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Sep. 2009
Location: Missouri
Status: Online
Points: 4132
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldtime Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct. 2021 at 9:21am
[quote /]For comparison sake the F134 kept the same B/S as the L134 but with a bump in compression (roughly a full point) and better flowing intake.  The peak torque and HP achieved remained at the same RPMs as the L134.  Too bad the F134 flathead can't easily be made to get compression up higher. [quote]

Std L-134 compression is 6.48 with optional 7.1.
Std F-135 compression ranges anywhere from 6.9 to 7.1 to 7.5 depending on model and vintage and 7.8 CR head also was a high altitude option.
Std L-134 max torque output of 105 lb ft is at 2000 rpm. Hp is rated 60 at 4000 rpm.
Std F-134 max torque output of 114 lb ft is at 2000
Rpm. HP is tated 72 at 4000 rpm.


Edited by oldtime - 26 Oct. 2021 at 9:29am
Currently building my final F-134 powered 3B .
T98-A Rock Crawler using exclusive factory parts and Approved Special Equipment from the Willys Motors era (1953-1963)
Zero aftermarket parts

Back to Top
Oldpappy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Apr. 2018
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 4812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oldpappy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct. 2021 at 9:53am
I have never seen a F134 "flathead".
If you can't get there in a Jeep you don't need to be there!
Back to Top
OnlyOneDR View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 July 2016
Location: R
Status: Offline
Points: 456
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OnlyOneDR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct. 2021 at 10:37am
It might be running converted to a carburetor.  Hopefully someone can keep making replacement ECUs for them; they will not last 75 years.  Even the HEI module in the distributor in my Blazer needs replacement once in a while.  I have no doubt the 22R block will survive.

These old-school Willys engines survive because they are relatively simple and without electronics to eventually fail.

I would be curious to see how the fuel economy is on a fuel-injected L134.  The Jeep itself has the aerodynamics of a John Deere tractor so unless you keep the speed down below ~45mph it is just a losing battle against the wind to achieve reasonable fuel mileage.  An old Volkswagen Beetle could get mid to high 20's with even less HP because the vehicle was shaped much more aerodynamically.
Searching for time to put it all together...
1950 CJ-3A #37751 In Pieces
1969 Chevy Blazer Resto-Mod Waiting for its day...
2001 Nissan Frontier Crawler Adventure Rig
Back to Top
cpt logger View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Sep. 2012
Location: Western Colorad
Status: Offline
Points: 3022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cpt logger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 1:08am
Originally posted by OnlyOneDR OnlyOneDR wrote:

It might be running converted to a carburetor.  Hopefully someone can keep making replacement ECUs for them; they will not last 75 years.  Even the HEI module in the distributor in my Blazer needs replacement once in a while.  I have no doubt the 22R block will survive.

These old-school Willys engines survive because they are relatively simple and without electronics to eventually fail.

I would be curious to see how the fuel economy is on a fuel-injected L134.  The Jeep itself has the aerodynamics of a John Deere tractor so unless you keep the speed down below ~45mph it is just a losing battle against the wind to achieve reasonable fuel mileage.  An old Volkswagen Beetle could get mid to high 20's with even less HP because the vehicle was shaped much more aerodynamically.


Bolding mine.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. All of the John Deere tractors that I have seen have much better aerodynamics than a CJ does. Even the two cylinder "Johnny Poppers". Now if we were talking about the barn that the John Deere resides in, then yes, the barn shares the aerodynamics of a CJ.

BTW, My '64 VW Baja with about 44 HP got 32-36 MPG consistently. If it fell below 30 MPG, I tuned it until it was better. Now when I put in the Porsche engine that changed.
Back to Top
Oldpappy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Apr. 2018
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 4812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oldpappy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 8:03am
"Now if we were talking about the barn that the John Deere resides in, then yes, the barn shares the aerodynamics of a CJ."

Very true, and I got a good chuckle out of that analogy.

They were not designed for speed, nor was fuel economy a priority. I think they do the job they were designed for very well.  

The comparison to tractors is a fair one, especially when you consider that the Ford GPA actually had a slightly modified version of the engine used in the 9N and 8N tractors. The government went with the Willys engine because it had better performance, and as someone above pointed out, the Willys automobiles that engine came from were indeed the "economy cars" of that time. 

I saw an "Empire" tractor at the Willys reunion in Fulton, and even it was more aerodynamic than a CJ.  




Edited by Oldpappy - 29 Oct. 2021 at 8:12am
If you can't get there in a Jeep you don't need to be there!
Back to Top
Lee MN View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 Aug. 2008
Location: Harris, MN
Status: Offline
Points: 4923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lee MN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 8:58am
Aerodynamics play a part indeed it does, but very little, as stated several times it’s engine speed that plays the biggest part, again as the engine speed passes it’s peak of the torque curve fuel economy goes out the window!…..

If you think fuel economy was not an issue in the 40’s and 50’s your only fooling yourself! the working people of that era struggled through a depression and a world war and every penny was counted!, yes gas may have been .05-.10 a gallon that by today’s standards that seems free but in that time was big money!….. Another thing, roads of that era were of low travel speed and in most cases not as well maintained so it limited speed to that 45 mph or less where a Go-Devil shines

Lee😉
               LEE
44 GPW-The Perfected Willys
49 2A
“If you wait, you only get older”
67 M715
American Made Rolling History
Back to Top
bight View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Sponsor Member x 2

Joined: 20 Aug. 2020
Location: mid coast maine
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 10:35am
I am with Lee on this one and have a few thoughts to ponder to add to the well spirited conversation.

Though the U.S. may have had what was considered "ample" fuel supply during the conflict, moving men and materiel and fuel supply was certainly of great logistical concern. There has forever been discourse to claim that engineers knew how to make far more efficient power plants (some manufacturers including Bantam actually did) but that some cabal existed to support oil companies and the greater consumption of oil. So it is curious to consider why more was not done to improve the MPG. What MPG was the German Kubelwagen getting with the VW engine? The Germans had significant fuel supply issues.

"The Kübel’s fuel economy was lots better, delivering typical high-teens mpg in the field versus the jeep’s 10-11 mpg. On-highway, the Jeep’s 20 mpg at the standard military 45 mph gave it a 300-mile range to a dry tank on 15 gallons. The Kübel could go 285 miles on its 7.9 gallons for 35 mpg." (https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/129-1208-1944-pkw-type-82-kubelwagen/)

I would posit this: do you think these guys (below) were not concerned regarding fuel consumption and range? Granted they were Brits but "Allied Forces" none the less. And the first built units went to lend-lease (Brits and Russians) who did not have those ample fuel supplies to waste. Not to mention the gross vehicle weight issues of carrying jerry cans and heavy armament with rounds (look at the stuffed wheel well). These guys may have certainly been pushing payload capacity to the limits and beyond (800 lbs.). Which is why "extra" metal was removed, etc. This then affects max speed, acceleration... kinda need to get in and out quickly when you were doing what these guys were.

The vast majority of those concerned and involved in this matter are no longer with us. So we may never really know the facts. What do I know? There are probably guys over on G503 that know much more about this. I would be interested in more facts.






Edited by bight - 29 Oct. 2021 at 12:05pm
CJ-2A 72586 tan (stock)
CJ-2A 197624 green (resto-mod)
the wife abides (def: to bear patiently; TOLERATE)
Back to Top
Stev View Drop Down
Member
Member

Sponsor Member

Joined: 27 July 2016
Location: Cincinnati
Status: Offline
Points: 2383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 11:58am
If someone was serious about improving the gas mileage of a Cj2A - they could change the gearing in the axles, add lockout hubs, drive with the windshield down, add an overdrive and get rid of any extra weight that might been added (winches, heavy bumpers, PTOs, spare tire, tool rolls, tire chains, extra fluids, passenger seat, tailgate - go on a diet if the driver need it).  Also, put an electric fan on and get rid of the water pump mounted fan.  Tune the engine, move to a low back pressure exhaust, move to oversized cartage style air filter.  Balance the drive shafts, have the engine speed balanced, put on street style tires, look at moving to some kind of low viscosity oils and so on.

Things could be done.


Edited by Stev - 29 Oct. 2021 at 11:59am
Stev
1946 CJ2A Trail Jeep (The Saint), 1948 CJ2A Lefty Restored
Back to Top
Bruce W View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 July 2005
Location: Northeast Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 9611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 12:06pm
Oldpappy said:
  “ the Ford GPA actually had a slightly modified version of the engine used in the 9N and 8N tractors.”

  The GP used a version of the 9N engine, the 2N (1942) and 8N (1947) did not exist yet. The Ford GPA used a Studebaker Champion six-cylinder engine. 
BW 
It is NOT a Jeep Willys! It is a Willys jeep.

Happy Trails! Good-bye, Good Luck, and May the Good Lord Take a Likin' to You!

We Have Miles to Jeep, Before We Sleep.
Back to Top
Oldpappy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Apr. 2018
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 4812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Oldpappy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 12:25pm
Thanks Bruce, I didn't know about the Studebaker engine in the GPA, I like learning more about the history of these things. 

I had just noticed that the engine in an early Ford "Jeep" I saw once at a tractor show meet was the flat head tractor engine used in the 9N. I have only seen that one, and just assumed it was the GPA. 

The 2N was a wartime version of the same tractor, war time shortages mandated several changes including cleated steel wheels due to the rubber shortage caused by Burma falling to the Japanese. 

I knew the 9N came out in 1939, and the 8N was a post war tractor, all three tractors had the same, or close to the same engine.  
If you can't get there in a Jeep you don't need to be there!
Back to Top
Lee MN View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 Aug. 2008
Location: Harris, MN
Status: Offline
Points: 4923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lee MN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Bruce W Bruce W wrote:

Oldpappy said:
  “<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; : rgb248, 248, 252;"> the Ford GPA actually had a slightly modified version of the engine used in the 9N and 8N tractors.”</span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; : rgb248, 248, 252;">
</span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; : rgb248, 248, 252;">  The GP used a version of the 9N engine, the 2N (1942) and 8N (1947) did not exist yet. The Ford GPA used a Studebaker Champion six-cylinder engine. </span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; : rgb248, 248, 252;">BW </span>


Negatory there Bruce, the GPA had a Ford built Go-Devil same as a GPW (Gods Perfected Willys)

Lee
               LEE
44 GPW-The Perfected Willys
49 2A
“If you wait, you only get older”
67 M715
American Made Rolling History
Back to Top
Lee MN View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 Aug. 2008
Location: Harris, MN
Status: Offline
Points: 4923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lee MN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by Stev Stev wrote:

If someone was serious about improving the gas mileage of a Cj2A - they could change the gearing in the axles, add lockout hubs, drive with the windshield down, add an overdrive and get rid of any extra weight that might been added (winches, heavy bumpers, PTOs, spare tire, tool rolls, tire chains, extra fluids, passenger seat, tailgate - go on a diet if the driver need it).  Also, put an electric fan on and get rid of the water pump mounted fan.  Tune the engine, move to a low back pressure exhaust, move to oversized cartage style air filter.  Balance the drive shafts, have the engine speed balanced, put on street style tires, look at moving to some kind of low viscosity oils and so on.

Things could be done.




If you take away all that, then what is the purpose of the vehicle ??? They were built and Engineered to produce the best fuel economy for the purposes they were designed for, Farming, Ranching and industrial application, Correct ?…

Lee

Edited by Lee MN - 29 Oct. 2021 at 1:07pm
               LEE
44 GPW-The Perfected Willys
49 2A
“If you wait, you only get older”
67 M715
American Made Rolling History
Back to Top
bight View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Sponsor Member x 2

Joined: 20 Aug. 2020
Location: mid coast maine
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 1:22pm
"these little rascals were engineered to run on dirt roads for a few months then get blown to bits." 

Jim Fischer 2009
CJ-2A 72586 tan (stock)
CJ-2A 197624 green (resto-mod)
the wife abides (def: to bear patiently; TOLERATE)
Back to Top
Bruce W View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 July 2005
Location: Northeast Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 9611
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce W Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct. 2021 at 1:26pm
  Embarrassed You are correct Lee, and I apologize to Pappy. I was thinking of the Weasel. 
BW 
It is NOT a Jeep Willys! It is a Willys jeep.

Happy Trails! Good-bye, Good Luck, and May the Good Lord Take a Likin' to You!

We Have Miles to Jeep, Before We Sleep.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd.