Why is it that the L134 gets poor economy? |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||
Oldpappy
Member Joined: 09 Apr. 2018 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 4812 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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!
|
||
wfopete
Member Joined: 27 Nov. 2020 Location: Dover, Arkansas Status: Offline Points: 301 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.) |
||
oldmansimek
Member Joined: 23 Apr. 2019 Location: CT Status: Offline Points: 177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If Its a toyota with a 22re then yes it will still be running!!
|
||
dasvis
Member Sponsor Member Joined: 07 Sep. 2019 Location: Salem, Oregon Status: Online Points: 1516 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
+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!! |
||
oldtime
Member Joined: 12 Sep. 2009 Location: Missouri Status: Online Points: 4132 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
[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 |
||
Oldpappy
Member Joined: 09 Apr. 2018 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 4812 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have never seen a F134 "flathead".
|
||
If you can't get there in a Jeep you don't need to be there!
|
||
OnlyOneDR
Member Joined: 05 July 2016 Location: R Status: Offline Points: 456 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
cpt logger
Member Joined: 23 Sep. 2012 Location: Western Colorad Status: Offline Points: 3022 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
Oldpappy
Member Joined: 09 Apr. 2018 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 4812 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"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!
|
||
Lee MN
Member Joined: 13 Aug. 2008 Location: Harris, MN Status: Offline Points: 4923 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
bight
Member Sponsor Member x 2 Joined: 20 Aug. 2020 Location: mid coast maine Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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) |
||
Stev
Member Sponsor Member Joined: 27 July 2016 Location: Cincinnati Status: Offline Points: 2383 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Bruce W
Member Joined: 29 July 2005 Location: Northeast Colorado Status: Offline Points: 9611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
Oldpappy
Member Joined: 09 Apr. 2018 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 4812 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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!
|
||
Lee MN
Member Joined: 13 Aug. 2008 Location: Harris, MN Status: Offline Points: 4923 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Lee MN
Member Joined: 13 Aug. 2008 Location: Harris, MN Status: Offline Points: 4923 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
bight
Member Sponsor Member x 2 Joined: 20 Aug. 2020 Location: mid coast maine Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"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) |
||
Bruce W
Member Joined: 29 July 2005 Location: Northeast Colorado Status: Offline Points: 9611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |