Seeking additional info abour repairs to a Jeep

You forgot Ethyl:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog...Ethyl10-27.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Tomes wrote:
>
> Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words for
> the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or is
> it just an older Jeep thing?
> Tomes

LOL - how old is that?

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> You forgot Ethyl:
> http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog...Ethyl10-27.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> Tomes wrote:
> >
> > Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> > grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words
for
> > the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or
is
> > it just an older Jeep thing?
> > Tomes

You are right, we get the 87 too.

Try it on a highway run and compare. If you get better mileage, then
compare the amount like I did. On our 88 Cherokee 4.0, it shows no
benefit.

My owners manual even says to use high test when fully loaded or running
hard.

Mike

Tomes wrote:
>
> Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words for
> the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or is
> it just an older Jeep thing?
> Tomes
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ...
> > They are. Ours are some kind of average where 91 or 92 is high test, 89
> > regular.
> >
> > For me the performance boost is large and the cost per mile is a bit
> > better depending on how I am driving it. It costs 10% more almost and I
> > see more than a 20% mileage boost so....
> >
> > Alcohol mixes are bad news for my engine and the government is mandating
> > it. My owners manual even says not to any kind of alcohol mix except in
> > an emergency as performance may degrade.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Dave Milne wrote:
> > >
> > > I think your formulation and ours are different - we get 92 ron
> "Premium"
> > > and 98 ron "Super". I found that the 98 ron Super gave better mileage
> but
> > > worked out at the same cost per mile.
> > >
> > > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> > >
> > > "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I always burn the high octane, it makes almost 100 miles per tank
> better
> > > > mileage with it.
> > > >
> > > > It has to be the additive or maybe the alcohol. My engine runs the
> same
> > > > ****ty on petro canada gas with their super cleaner.
> > > >
> > > > Someone mentioned I might be running lean, so last carb kit, I went
> > > > slightly richer on the high speed metering rods and tried the Shell
> > > > gas. All that got me was a bog if I tromp it too fast.... At least I
> > > > can get at that from the top to set it back.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > "L.W.(ßill) Hughes III" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > Might put a pressure gauge on your fuel line and see what it is
> at
> > > > > full speed. I'm betting zero as it may now not be able to keep with
> the
> > > > > more gasoline your engine can burn with higher octane.
> > > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > > http://www.billhughes.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just tried a tank of that Shell 91 octane super crap on a trip
> and
> > > my
> > > > > > engine went insane!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what is in it, but my manually set up 258 would 'not'
> run
> > > > > > over 65 mph except on a down hill, I even had to gear down on a
> couple
> > > > > > long uphill runs, which is unheard of for my rig, even 3rd gear
> > > wouldn't
> > > > > > pass 65 mph! (normally 3rd pulls fast up to at least 75 mph)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also lost about 30% for gas mileage. It made for a long trip
> home
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I finally got it low enough and put in Esso gas and magically my
> > > engine
> > > > > > came back alive with it's normal tire chirp off a fast start and
> top
> > > end
> > > > > > power restored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Maybe I will then just to see. I was always afraid to feed it some in case
it decided to get used to it and then thumbed its nose at the regular Citgo
stuff I use (from Venezuela - not the arab regions). I suspect that I will
see a result similar to your 4.0.
Tomes

"Mike Romain" > wrote in message
...
> You are right, we get the 87 too.
>
> Try it on a highway run and compare. If you get better mileage, then
> compare the amount like I did. On our 88 Cherokee 4.0, it shows no
> benefit.
>
> My owners manual even says to use high test when fully loaded or running
> hard.
>
> Mike
>
> Tomes wrote:
> >
> > Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> > grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words
for
> > the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or
is
> > it just an older Jeep thing?
> > Tomes
> >
> > "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > They are. Ours are some kind of average where 91 or 92 is high test,
89
> > > regular.
> > >
> > > For me the performance boost is large and the cost per mile is a bit
> > > better depending on how I am driving it. It costs 10% more almost and
I
> > > see more than a 20% mileage boost so....
> > >
> > > Alcohol mixes are bad news for my engine and the government is
mandating
> > > it. My owners manual even says not to any kind of alcohol mix except
in
> > > an emergency as performance may degrade.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > Dave Milne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think your formulation and ours are different - we get 92 ron
> > "Premium"
> > > > and 98 ron "Super". I found that the 98 ron Super gave better
mileage
> > but
> > > > worked out at the same cost per mile.
> > > >
> > > > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I always burn the high octane, it makes almost 100 miles per tank
> > better
> > > > > mileage with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has to be the additive or maybe the alcohol. My engine runs
the
> > same
> > > > > ****ty on petro canada gas with their super cleaner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone mentioned I might be running lean, so last carb kit, I
went
> > > > > slightly richer on the high speed metering rods and tried the
Shell
> > > > > gas. All that got me was a bog if I tromp it too fast.... At
least I
> > > > > can get at that from the top to set it back.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > "L.W.(ßill) Hughes III" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > Might put a pressure gauge on your fuel line and see what
it is
> > at
> > > > > > full speed. I'm betting zero as it may now not be able to keep
with
> > the
> > > > > > more gasoline your engine can burn with higher octane.
> > > > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > > > http://www.billhughes.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just tried a tank of that Shell 91 octane super crap on a
trip
> > and
> > > > my
> > > > > > > engine went insane!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know what is in it, but my manually set up 258 would
'not'
> > run
> > > > > > > over 65 mph except on a down hill, I even had to gear down on
a
> > couple
> > > > > > > long uphill runs, which is unheard of for my rig, even 3rd
gear
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > pass 65 mph! (normally 3rd pulls fast up to at least 75 mph)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also lost about 30% for gas mileage. It made for a long
trip
> > home
> > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I finally got it low enough and put in Esso gas and magically
my
> > > > engine
> > > > > > > came back alive with it's normal tire chirp off a fast start
and
> > top
> > > > end
> > > > > > > power restored.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > > > > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

In some states and/or some retailers will add the alcohol to the higher
octance blends. I talked to a retailer, the alcohol blends have the same
cost for higher octane. One local dicount place has 87, 89, and 91
octane, 89 and 91 are the same price.

Downside is that you get appreciably lower mileage. I just did a cross
country trip, I get almost 2 miles per gallon better (about 7%) on
straight gas over the locally mandated 10 alcohol.

Tomes wrote:
> Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words for
> the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or is
> it just an older Jeep thing?
> Tomes
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They are. Ours are some kind of average where 91 or 92 is high test, 89
>>regular.
>>
>>For me the performance boost is large and the cost per mile is a bit
>>better depending on how I am driving it. It costs 10% more almost and I
>>see more than a 20% mileage boost so....
>>
>>Alcohol mixes are bad news for my engine and the government is mandating
>>it. My owners manual even says not to any kind of alcohol mix except in
>>an emergency as performance may degrade.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>>>I think your formulation and ours are different - we get 92 ron
>
> "Premium"
>
>>>and 98 ron "Super". I found that the 98 ron Super gave better mileage
>
> but
>
>>>worked out at the same cost per mile.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>I always burn the high octane, it makes almost 100 miles per tank
>
> better
>
>>>>mileage with it.
>>>>
>>>>It has to be the additive or maybe the alcohol. My engine runs the
>
> same
>
>>>>****ty on petro canada gas with their super cleaner.
>>>>
>>>>Someone mentioned I might be running lean, so last carb kit, I went
>>>>slightly richer on the high speed metering rods and tried the Shell
>>>>gas. All that got me was a bog if I tromp it too fast.... At least I
>>>>can get at that from the top to set it back.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>"L.W.(ßill) Hughes III" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Mike,
>>>>> Might put a pressure gauge on your fuel line and see what it is
>
> at
>
>>>>>full speed. I'm betting zero as it may now not be able to keep with
>
> the
>
>>>>>more gasoline your engine can burn with higher octane.
>>>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Romain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I just tried a tank of that Shell 91 octane super crap on a trip
>
> and
>
>>>my
>>>
>>>>>>engine went insane!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know what is in it, but my manually set up 258 would 'not'
>
> run
>
>>>>>>over 65 mph except on a down hill, I even had to gear down on a
>
> couple
>
>>>>>>long uphill runs, which is unheard of for my rig, even 3rd gear
>>>
>>>wouldn't
>>>
>>>>>>pass 65 mph! (normally 3rd pulls fast up to at least 75 mph)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also lost about 30% for gas mileage. It made for a long trip
>
> home
>
>>>>>>too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I finally got it low enough and put in Esso gas and magically my
>>>
>>>engine
>>>
>>>>>>came back alive with it's normal tire chirp off a fast start and
>
> top
>
>>>end
>>>
>>>>>>power restored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike
>>>>>>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
>>>>>>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
>
>

proclaimed:

> I have been quoted some prices on some potential repairs to my 95 Jeep
> Wrangler, but being a non-technical owner (I just drive the thing, I
> don't know how it works) I have a hard time understanding these
> problems, guaging how important they really are, and guessing whether
> or not I am getting a decent price.
>
> I do trust this particular mechanic, and they are not presenting these
> problems to me as high-importance must-fix-for-safe-operation problems,
> but I would still appreciate it if some of you knowledgable jeep-people
> could offer your opinions on these:
>
> 1) What is a "Rear Main Seal". How important is a leak in one? Is it
> worth over $400 to fix?

It is what shops that don't first check the valve cover for leaking
will change rather than replacing the valve cover.
>
> 2) What is the transmissions "Transfer Case Seal"? How important is a
> leak in it? Is it worth over $300 to fix?

IF your valve cover has been replace by someone who knows how to tell
the difference between a genuine rear seal leak and a valve cover
leak, and you then would need to replace the rear seal, might as
well get this one done at the same time.
>
> 3) What is an "Induction Flush" how important is it? Is it worth approx
> $150 to have done?
>
"Injection cleaner ? If it has never been done *and* you have
a preoblem indicating a possibly dirty injector, it could be
worth doing. Otherwise it is a really good profit center for
the shop.

Mike Romain proclaimed:

> Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>>"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>>3) What is an "Induction Flush" how important is it? Is it worth approx
>>>>$150 to have done?
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is a giant bottle of snake oil. You can buy a few small bottles of
>>>snake oil at the auto parts store and pour one in with every fill up for the
>>>next several weeks.
>>
>>Or just use Chevron gasoline... Shell gas also has
>>the high-tech additives in it now. This is one service
>>you don't need... major boondoggle.
>>__
>>Steve
>>.
>
>
> I just tried a tank of that Shell 91 octane super crap on a trip and my
> engine went insane!

Since Bush Gas, I haven't been able to run Texaco, Chevron, or Shell
regular in a 95 4.0 without mild ping. Recently the local Valero
station ran out of midgrade, and it seems that their regular will
actually run without ping.

In my old drag racing days we had to double the size of the jets to
run straight alcohol. So it stands to reason to effectively use an
alcohol blend like ARCO uses out here in Kalifornia, we would need to
use more product to compensate, or it would run like it was lean.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

RoyJ wrote:
>
> In some states and/or some retailers will add the alcohol to the higher
> octance blends. I talked to a retailer, the alcohol blends have the same
> cost for higher octane. One local dicount place has 87, 89, and 91
> octane, 89 and 91 are the same price.
>
> Downside is that you get appreciably lower mileage. I just did a cross
> country trip, I get almost 2 miles per gallon better (about 7%) on
> straight gas over the locally mandated 10 alcohol.

I can show records for multiple vehicles over the last 15 years or so
that show a consistent 10% drop in mileage for the 6 months or so we
are required to use the blended stuff here. That's a composite of
long highway miles and local puddle jumping. In the short term, the
same figures seem to hold true when I fill up with the blend in
Colorado to drive to Texas. I get a consistent 10% decrease no matter
which octane level I choose in my 88 4.0. Funy part is that going
south and east the prevailing winds are out of the NNW so I'm going
downhil with a tailwind on the way down while on the return I have a
headwind going uphill - and still get better mileage!

Corn likker is for drinking, not driving.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:53:16 UTC RoyJ > wrote:

> In some states and/or some retailers will add the alcohol to the higher
> octance blends. I talked to a retailer, the alcohol blends have the same
> cost for higher octane. One local dicount place has 87, 89, and 91
> octane, 89 and 91 are the same price.
>
> Downside is that you get appreciably lower mileage. I just did a cross
> country trip, I get almost 2 miles per gallon better (about 7%) on
> straight gas over the locally mandated 10 alcohol.
>
> Tomes wrote:
> > Here in the states (NJ anyway) we get the averaged 87 for reg, 89 middle
> > grade and 92 or 93 (depending on brand) for premium or super [2 words for
> > the same level]. Would I see better mileage in my 2002 TJ with a 4.0 or is
> > it just an older Jeep thing?
> > Tomes
> >
> > "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>They are. Ours are some kind of average where 91 or 92 is high test, 89
> >>regular.
> >>
> >>For me the performance boost is large and the cost per mile is a bit
> >>better depending on how I am driving it. It costs 10% more almost and I
> >>see more than a 20% mileage boost so....
> >>
> >>Alcohol mixes are bad news for my engine and the government is mandating
> >>it. My owners manual even says not to any kind of alcohol mix except in
> >>an emergency as performance may degrade.
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>Dave Milne wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think your formulation and ours are different - we get 92 ron
> >
> > "Premium"
> >
> >>>and 98 ron "Super". I found that the 98 ron Super gave better mileage
> >
> > but
> >
> >>>worked out at the same cost per mile.
> >>>
> >>>Dave Milne, Scotland
> >>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >>>
> >>>"Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>I always burn the high octane, it makes almost 100 miles per tank
> >
> > better
> >
> >>>>mileage with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>It has to be the additive or maybe the alcohol. My engine runs the
> >
> > same
> >
> >>>>****ty on petro canada gas with their super cleaner.
> >>>>
> >>>>Someone mentioned I might be running lean, so last carb kit, I went
> >>>>slightly richer on the high speed metering rods and tried the Shell
> >>>>gas. All that got me was a bog if I tromp it too fast.... At least I
> >>>>can get at that from the top to set it back.
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>"L.W.(ßill) Hughes III" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi Mike,
> >>>>> Might put a pressure gauge on your fuel line and see what it is
> >
> > at
> >
> >>>>>full speed. I'm betting zero as it may now not be able to keep with
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>>more gasoline your engine can burn with higher octane.
> >>>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mike Romain wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I just tried a tank of that Shell 91 octane super crap on a trip
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>my
> >>>
> >>>>>>engine went insane!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I don't know what is in it, but my manually set up 258 would 'not'
> >
> > run
> >
> >>>>>>over 65 mph except on a down hill, I even had to gear down on a
> >
> > couple
> >
> >>>>>>long uphill runs, which is unheard of for my rig, even 3rd gear
> >>>
> >>>wouldn't
> >>>
> >>>>>>pass 65 mph! (normally 3rd pulls fast up to at least 75 mph)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I also lost about 30% for gas mileage. It made for a long trip
> >
> > home
> >
> >>>>>>too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I finally got it low enough and put in Esso gas and magically my
> >>>
> >>>engine
> >>>
> >>>>>>came back alive with it's normal tire chirp off a fast start and
> >
> > top
> >
> >>>end
> >>>
> >>>>>>power restored.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Mike
> >>>>>>86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> >>>>>>88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> >
> >


--
Will Honea

I'll drink to that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Will Honea wrote:
>
> I can show records for multiple vehicles over the last 15 years or so
> that show a consistent 10% drop in mileage for the 6 months or so we
> are required to use the blended stuff here. That's a composite of
> long highway miles and local puddle jumping. In the short term, the
> same figures seem to hold true when I fill up with the blend in
> Colorado to drive to Texas. I get a consistent 10% decrease no matter
> which octane level I choose in my 88 4.0. Funy part is that going
> south and east the prevailing winds are out of the NNW so I'm going
> downhil with a tailwind on the way down while on the return I have a
> headwind going uphill - and still get better mileage!
>
> Corn likker is for drinking, not driving.
> --
> Will Honea