Where has the increased power and torque come from in the newly launched 2.8L's.
Anything we can rob for our older engines
| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| What's The Difference http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37855 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mackruss [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | What's The Difference |
Where has the increased power and torque come from in the newly launched 2.8L's. Anything we can rob for our older engines
|
|
| Author: | CRDMiller [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's just a different tune. If you ask me, if they are using the same tranny and motor, it does not amount to a whole hell of alot, it could have 4503 ft*lb and the tranny would still dump it into heating the red stuff. |
|
| Author: | mackruss [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I haven't lifted the hood of the KK CRD but i'm wondering if the so called bean counters at DC budgeted for a Provent or similar and a lift pump with an improved fuel head on the new model. |
|
| Author: | ATXKJ [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar - mentioned new injectors (piezoelectric ?) - that can have more, faster, injection pulses so you can change the timing. |
|
| Author: | CRDMiller [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cool to know Atx, thanks. But still same trans and plastic tc = poo I hope they have better stuff so we can steal it. |
|
| Author: | MrMopar64 [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc. The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. |
|
| Author: | ATXKJ [ Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can we do an engine swap? I like "increased power density" |
|
| Author: | mackruss [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar64 wrote: No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc.
The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. Well that's positive to read so at least some of the negatives have been dealt with by DC in conjunction with VM Motori. Now i just need to get used the new shape of the KK Dodge Nitro Liberty / Cherokee look alike  and then decide on the manual or auto.
Then the Landy comes into the equation after the Tata buy out and the Pajero well what can i say. Tough call these days. |
|
| Author: | Uffe [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar64 wrote: No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc.
The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. Am I right in saying that the JK 2.8 CRD has more torque when used with an automatic than used with a manual? I think the figures were 410/460Nm with manual/auto. |
|
| Author: | Ranger1 [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar64 wrote: No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc.
The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. The increased power density is about 35 ft-lbs of torque apparently. In early 2005, VM Motori had the factory specifications on the R428 (original 2.8L) on their web site. The specifications were the original power levels before Chrysler detuned it for the US release of the 05-06 KJ's and the ratings were ~175hp (177cv)(130KW) and ~302 (410Nm) ft-lbs of torque. This was long before the F37 fiasco. That pdf document disapeared shortly after the release of the RA428 engine and is no longer available online. So we know the original R428, pre US release, was factory rated at higher power levels than it is now. The difference was most likely in the ECM tuning. The increased density of the RA428 appears to be the same hp and about 35 ft-lbs of torque over the original factory specifications of the R428. Question for MrMopar64 - Does the new RA428 still have wet liners and a tunnel crankshaft? |
|
| Author: | mackruss [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ranger1 wrote: MrMopar64 wrote: No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc. The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. The increased power density is about 35 ft-lbs of torque apparently. In early 2005, VM Motori had the factory specifications on the R428 (original 2.8L) on their web site. The specifications were the original power levels before Chrysler detuned it for the US release of the 05-06 KJ's and the ratings were ~175hp (177cv)(130KW) and ~302 (410Nm) ft-lbs of torque. This was long before the F37 fiasco. That pdf document disapeared shortly after the release of the RA428 engine and is no longer available online. So we know the original R428, pre US release, was factory rated at higher power levels than it is now. The difference was most likely in the ECM tuning. The increased density of the RA428 appears to be the same hp and about 35 ft-lbs of torque over the original factory specifications of the R428. Question for MrMopar64 - Does the new RA428 still have wet liners and a tunnel crankshaft? That's why i think the chip and flash guys are achieving good power gains without putting some serious strain on her. |
|
| Author: | mackruss [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ranger1 wrote: MrMopar64 wrote: No, the new engine is a totally new design from the block up that can handle the higher pressures that accompany increased power density. Different injection system all around, pre-supply pump in-tank, turbo, intake system, etc. etc. The only application that uses the 545RFE is the JK and even still it takes full torque of the engine (look in the advertising, it's greater than the engine in the KJ). The KA/KK use the W5A580 transmission which is a dream. The increased power density is about 35 ft-lbs of torque apparently. In early 2005, VM Motori had the factory specifications on the R428 (original 2.8L) on their web site. The specifications were the original power levels before Chrysler detuned it for the US release of the 05-06 KJ's and the ratings were ~175hp (177cv)(130KW) and ~302 (410Nm) ft-lbs of torque. This was long before the F37 fiasco. That pdf document disapeared shortly after the release of the RA428 engine and is no longer available online. So we know the original R428, pre US release, was factory rated at higher power levels than it is now. The difference was most likely in the ECM tuning. The increased density of the RA428 appears to be the same hp and about 35 ft-lbs of torque over the original factory specifications of the R428. Question for MrMopar64 - Does the new RA428 still have wet liners and a tunnel crankshaft? Perhaps that's why the chip or flash has produced some good results, unleashing some stored potential. Time perhaps to make her even more pleasurable to drive and spend some bucks on a chip for xmas. |
|
| Author: | MrMopar64 [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Uffe, You statement regarding the torque ratings is correct. The max allowable torque is of course limited by the box behind the engine. Mack, To answer your question (wet liner and tunnel block) safely - no. If you look at the animated images on the VM website, you'll see the new block which is not with liners and has a "conventional" bottom end. Additionally, if you look under a hood at the dealership underneath all the NVH treatments to minimize noise, you see the cam cover/intake manifold is different making servicability much easier. The new engine is by and far superior to the older engine. |
|
| Author: | Ranger1 [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar64 wrote: The new engine is by and far superior to the older engine. I think that depends on what you're looking for in the engine. If you want maximum rebuild capability, beyond overboring a couple of times, then lack of replaceable sleeves sounds more like cost efficiency than superior design. If you are looking for automotive serviceability, then the RA design is much easier to work in vehicle. |
|
| Author: | mackruss [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | For the powerchip guys.... |
These are the specs on a local SA chip installer Dieselteque, there before and after specs are below in metric, what do you think realistic 
Model Standard POWER BOX Cherokee 2.8 CRD 120kw / 400nm - Before 138kw / 470nm - After Wrangler 2.8 CRD 130kw / 410nm 149kw / 455nm Grand Cherokee 3.0 CRD 160kw / 510nm 184kw / 580nm Commander 3.0 CRD 160kw / 510nm 184kw / 580nm This is there website if you interested - http://www.dieseltorque.co.za/index.html - go to Jeep. [/img][/url] |
|
| Author: | Uffe [ Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MrMopar64 wrote: Uffe,
You statement regarding the torque ratings is correct. The max allowable torque is of course limited by the box behind the engine. Okay - so can the 545RFE handle those 460Nm of torque when it's in the JK? I seem to remember the KJ was detuned to 373Nm to keep the 545RFE TC alive. Next question is why doesn't the manual box take 460Nm? It does seem odd to me, it usually the other way around. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|