No more Renix talk
12-10-2012 | 09:27 PM
#152
CF Veteran
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 15
From: Fauquier County, Virginia
Year: 1991
Model: Cherokee
Engine: I-6 4.0 HO
Originally Posted by cruiser54
It wasn't OBD-1 that did it. It was Chrysler fuel injection, without EGR, and with retarded cam timing that did it.
You have to understand something. The guys at Chrysler, especially engineers, were really down on Jeep. The funny thing is the new Dodge ended up using Cherokee front suspension and the Dakota got the Jeep 2.5!! Kinda like peeing in their Cheerios.
12-10-2012 | 09:30 PM
#154
::CF Moderator::
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 43,971
Likes: 1,565
From: Prescott, Az
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
Same cam as a Renix. But it was retarded in timing instead of using EGR to pull some of the exhaust gasses back in under the intake stroke. Simpler. So, they decided to name it HO because they picked up 8 horsepower at the higher RPM ranges. What a marketing scam it was.
12-10-2012 | 10:22 PM
#158
CF Veteran
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 1
From: Southern Oregon
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
So I understand this is just a junk thread and I didn't really feel like reading through all the posts to see if anyone has asked this but... how is the OEM tech?
12-11-2012 | 12:01 AM
#159
Herp Derp Jerp
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 18,251
Likes: 13
From: Parham, ON
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L OBD-II
Crap Harnesses Run by Yokels that Sometimes Let Electronics Run
Man. All you've got to do is rewrite the ECU's output to tell you things in the form of PONG or even PACMAN
12-11-2012 | 12:03 AM
#160
CF Veteran
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,302
Likes: 21
From: Wisconsin
Model: Cherokee
The AMC engineers were very good at what they did..IMHO their talents are what saved Chrysler. Not that the Chrysler staff didn't try to sabotage some of their efforts.
If you haven't read Common Sense Not Required, by Evan Boberg, I highly suggest it.
12-11-2012 | 12:21 AM
#161
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: whittier, ca
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 6 cyl
This my first post on this site so.....so sorry if i screwup. Been looking at many threads for awhile to fix my 89 xj. picked it from a buddy who was going to junk it for $150. I've read a ton of stuff from cruiser54, you rock dude, and this thing is running pretty good now. out here in so. cal. there are a ton of renix driving around so this aint gonna go away!!!!
12-11-2012 | 01:23 AM
#162
CF Veteran
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 17
Year: 1988
Model: Cherokee
Engine: AMC242
if you think OBD-I sucked, stay far away from the 88-93 Volvos, Mecedees, and BMW's!!!!
Over the years I must have collected over 200 different data link connectors and software components just to watch them sink off in despair as OBD II began to rise from the depths of the Auto Manufacturers around the world. Truth is, the reason every manufacturer had their own was because up until the Government stepped in around 1992 and decided that "ALL" vehicles in the US have uniformed and understandable data formats by 1996....which in turn would allow for tighter Smog/Emissions Control as well.
Over the years I must have collected over 200 different data link connectors and software components just to watch them sink off in despair as OBD II began to rise from the depths of the Auto Manufacturers around the world. Truth is, the reason every manufacturer had their own was because up until the Government stepped in around 1992 and decided that "ALL" vehicles in the US have uniformed and understandable data formats by 1996....which in turn would allow for tighter Smog/Emissions Control as well.
However, I think the reason that OBD-II makes more sense is the government wanted to tighten up the specs, the manufacturers started, then SAE stepped in and said "Do it this way!" - which meant industrywide standards.
Which is what should have happened with OBD-I.
I was an industrial mechanic for a few years - Class 4 & up heavy trucks, industrial equipment, OHVs, man lifts, hydraulic gear - I have tools that I can't even remember what they were for when I got them! (Spline drives, double-squares, five-sided wrenches, ...)
Commercial maintenance netted me more weird stuff - you know those "one-way" screws you see in commercial bathroom partitions? I've got the tools to remove those easily...
12-11-2012 | 01:24 AM
#163
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 758
Likes: 1
From: Tampa, FL & DC/MD infrequently
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L I6
Originally Posted by cruiser54
Same cam as a Renix. But it was retarded in timing instead of using EGR to pull some of the exhaust gasses back in under the intake stroke. Simpler. So, they decided to name it HO because they picked up 8 horsepower at the higher RPM ranges. What a marketing scam it was.
I am sure there is a good thread that talks about the horsepower issues and torque power issues in regards to rock crawling versus mud bogging, versus snow wheeling, etc. I myself haven't looked yet, but keep thinking about it.
12-11-2012 | 06:05 AM
#164
::CF Moderator::
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 43,971
Likes: 1,565
From: Prescott, Az
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
Yup, simple HP rating is nothing...gotta look at the entire power band. This was a bigpart of the discussion I was having about the Dodge Intrepid. Looking at the two 3.5L engines (ES versus R/T and SXT). Only three HP between the two, but a much wider power band.
I am sure there is a good thread that talks about the horsepower issues and torque power issues in regards to rock crawling versus mud bogging, versus snow wheeling, etc. I myself haven't looked yet, but keep thinking about it.
I am sure there is a good thread that talks about the horsepower issues and torque power issues in regards to rock crawling versus mud bogging, versus snow wheeling, etc. I myself haven't looked yet, but keep thinking about it.
12-11-2012 | 07:56 AM
#165
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Modesto, CA
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Don't get me started...
However, I think the reason that OBD-II makes more sense is the government wanted to tighten up the specs, the manufacturers started, then SAE stepped in and said "Do it this way!" - which meant industrywide standards.
Which is what should have happened with OBD-I.
I was an industrial mechanic for a few years - Class 4 & up heavy trucks, industrial equipment, OHVs, man lifts, hydraulic gear - I have tools that I can't even remember what they were for when I got them! (Spline drives, double-squares, five-sided wrenches, ...)
Commercial maintenance netted me more weird stuff - you know those "one-way" screws you see in commercial bathroom partitions? I've got the tools to remove those easily...
However, I think the reason that OBD-II makes more sense is the government wanted to tighten up the specs, the manufacturers started, then SAE stepped in and said "Do it this way!" - which meant industrywide standards.
Which is what should have happened with OBD-I.
I was an industrial mechanic for a few years - Class 4 & up heavy trucks, industrial equipment, OHVs, man lifts, hydraulic gear - I have tools that I can't even remember what they were for when I got them! (Spline drives, double-squares, five-sided wrenches, ...)
Commercial maintenance netted me more weird stuff - you know those "one-way" screws you see in commercial bathroom partitions? I've got the tools to remove those easily...
