Ace-Garageguy

Very interesting. I didn't know that existed.

I likes 'em all.

Some people like Monet. Some think smearing cat-vomit on a canvas is just as valid an artistic endeavor.

You are absolutely correct.

^^^ I would definitely let that stay if it followed me home.

I don't know. The only reason I'm somewhat knowledgeable about the recent 4.2 GM L6 is because I've looked at them extensively, first from the standpoint of swapping one into my old Jag XJ6 (and then after wondering why such a GOOD engine design was shelved early). The pre-1948-designed Jag engine is severely limited as far as delivering modern levels of streetable power due to its long stroke (though it was able to meet emissions standards through 1987 with electronic engine management and cam timing and compression ratio tinkering...and cats) but with polished cam covers and Webers it's gorgeous in a hot-rod, and can be scary-fast in a light car. The GM 4.2 L6 makes close to a hundred HP more than the Jag in stock trim, is plenty torquey to drag a heavy car around...and it's much lighter than the massive cast-iron blocked Jag. As I've already done a 700R-4 gearbox swap to replace the old Borg-Warner 35 3-speed auto box, a modern engine that easily fits the engine bay is the next logical step in my Jag's development (I had a modular 4-cam Ford V8 slated to go in the hole, but it's a difficult swap, and the engine was stolen during a move). Owners of the 4.2 DOHC GM 6 are reporting over 200,000 miles of relatively trouble-free service too, with minimal maintenance. The big Jag engine needs religious care to stay in tune...not that I mind that in a sports car or a hot-rod, but in a big saloon I'd prefer to twist the key and go. The trans swap made it an entirely different car, with the additional gear and lockup torque-converter working well with the engine's relatively low RPM torque curve, but an additional 100HP (without sacrificing idle quality) would make it go like a decades newer car...especially as the chassis and handling are on a par with (or better than) just about any large new vehicle. Sorry for the digression. I know almost nothing about the 4.0 engine in the Jeep.

I had a coupon for Wendy's...

I think somebody did, and it would explain a LOT.

see: Dunning-Kruger Effect

Yes, it's steep looked at that way. But the fact it's durable and can be masked and cleared is a game-changer. It will be interesting to find out what the coverage is for that little 1oz. Considering the apparent high-performance of the product, the cost may be significantly less than sending things out for vacuum-metallization that achieves similar results. One thing's for certain...that little bottle, airbrushed, will do a LOT of bumpers.

Pure class.

I bought Archer's rivets to do this specific Freightliner kit, as well as the tub of a D-type Jag.

Yeah, it's hard to accomplish much when you're dead, or feel so bad most of the time you may as well be.

Man, really nice. What's the little Plymouth-looking loco behind Tiny?

Pete, thanks. Will do, as soon as I have the stuff in-hand to work with. In the interim, I've been looking at online videos. This one is the most convincing, and demonstrates the durability and maskability.

Thanks, Rob. That's the most convincing, well thought argument I've seen so far. Well done.

Again, I'm curious. If the tooling exists (as it well may), and if the engineering and design data are still available, what possible difference does a "decade" make? Engine designs don't get crusty, rusty, and crumble, or get flat tires, or rot.

To you, perhaps. Development cost of an entirely new engine design is heavily resource and capital-intensive. Starting with a well-designed, proven platform that's a "modern" engine in every sense of the word could save a company tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Jeep (AMC) bought in GM's odd-fire V6 eons ago...and eventually, GM bought it back...for pretty much the reasons I cited in both cases.

You may note in my first post RE: I said "if the tooling still exists". Meeting emissions standards for a relatively recent engine design is primarily a matter of subtle tweaking of combustion chamber dynamics, valve event timing, and engine management peripherals and software.

What, exactly, makes it "obsolete"? It's a solid platform, uses the most advanced aluminum casting technology, already had variable exhaust cam timing, and is easily adapted to current engine management peripherals. Again, what's the "obsolete" part? The engine wasn't phased out because there was anything wrong with it...GM just moved away from building vehicles that could package an inline 6. It's doubtful that starting from a clean sheet would produce a superior block, head, or mechanical internals.

Interesting. Guess I'll be needing one of these too. I've been in the market for a real one for a while, but they're beginning to become "fashionable", and the prices are starting the climb into stupid territory...like the gen1 Broncos.

FCA ought to look seriously at licensing GM's 4.2 Vortec inline-six...if the tooling still exists. Would save tons of development dollars, and it wouldn't be the first time a GM engine ended up in a Jeep. AND...it was developed specifically for 4WD applications, with a front axle passthrough in the sump.

Very nice.

I use a lot of light...the equivalent of four 100-watt bulbs over the bench, and a well-lighted room behind me.

Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft and owner of the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks and NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers has died at 65 from complications of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Besides all that, he was the major player behind the Stratolaunch aircraft (built by Scaled Composites, who is also building the vehicles for Virgin Galactic's private space ventures), and an avid warbird enthusiast.