1. Registration trouble? Please use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom right corner of the page and your issue will be resolved.
    Dismiss Notice

Buick V6 or 304 V8?

Discussion in 'Early CJ5 and CJ6 Tech' started by Brent74cj5, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. Oct 17, 2007
    JeepTherapy

    JeepTherapy Sponsor

    Negaunee, Michigan
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    695

    Understand and agree with what you are saying Tim. The 304 dropped almost 30% in 72. If the V6 were to drop that same percentage it would leave that motor at only 105HP. I can agree that it is possible that is all the power that motor made.

    So I have to concede that one.

    I have also never owned a jeep with a V6. Would sure like to one day. It was always my impression that the V6 was a great motor for the smaller 71 down jeeps.
     
  2. Oct 17, 2007
    timgr

    timgr We stand on the shoulders of giants. 2022 Sponsor

    Medford Mass USA
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    23,596
    Sparky, insult? I'm certainly not offended. :beer:

    Permit me to elaborate.

    I've heard this rather general assertion repeated in several forms here: that the intermediate Jeeps are a lot heavier than the early CJs, or that the AMC engines are weak compared to the Buicks, or that the performance of the V6 is somehow extraordinary compared to engines of the era with similar displacement. I don't think that any of them are true, and I felt I should speak up. Also, I countered your statement because I was interested, and wanted to test my understanding against the response of you and others on the board.

    My feeling is that, all other factors being equal, factory-tuned engines from a specific era and aimed at the same market will have power outputs in proportion to their displacements. There's a lot of truth to the popular saying "there's no replacement for displacement." All the major manufacturers had access to the same technology, shared the same market, and built their engines according to both.

    With regard to the weight difference, I think a similarly equipped CJ from '71 and '72 will be within, say 250# of each other. The V6 (414#) is lighter than either the inline 6 (500#) or the 304 (540#) but all three are lighter than a SBC (575#) and certainly lighter than the F134 (600#? a guess). So, guessing high, a 258 CJ has maybe an extra 150# of metal in the body and frame, and 86# more engine. Everything else is accessories, which both the '71 and '72 would be equally penalized by. I can't see a reason for a big weight difference.
     
  3. Oct 17, 2007
    Glenn

    Glenn Kinda grumpy old man Staff Member

    Apopka, Fl
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    12,379
    Just a FWIW, the F-head weighs around 475lbs. I believe. :)
     
  4. Oct 17, 2007
    groomer_guy

    groomer_guy Member

    Western...
    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    233
    Just to set things straight...No matter what anyone says about the 225 vs. 304 I will not be offended. I have driven the 304, 225 and a 231 and my 2 cents is keep the :v6: it is a good motor. It is very tourqy and does fairly good on gas. Also the 231 was oddfire for a while then went to evenfire. Can't remeber if someone said the 231 was evenfire in this thread. :? Oh well. keep both jeeps if you can but if you can't sell the 74' to someone who wants it and keep the 71' Just my thoughts :rofl:

    1971 CJ5 :v6: w/HEI
    1994 Tucker Sno-Cat T1000
    2005 GMC 2500HD duramax diesel

    "Things are looking up." Brekshire Brewing Company :beer:
     
  5. Oct 17, 2007
    mb82

    mb82 I feel great!

    Charlottesville Va
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    One thing to think about is those HP numbers are from the factory paperwork. I would dare say they are not exact, manufacturers fudge the numbers one way or another to get the disired effect; more HP then reality more people wanting Insurance hating it, less HP then reality fewer people wanting it but insurance not knowing any better.
     
  6. Oct 17, 2007
    Boyink

    Boyink Super Moderator Staff Member

    Tulsa, OK
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,197
    ...thinking what we need here is an ECJ5 version of Pinks...V6 on one side and V8 on the other...R)
     
  7. Oct 17, 2007
    Patrick

    Patrick Super Moderator Staff Member

    Los Alamos, NM
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Messages:
    8,360
    This was the era when they went from crankshaft HP to rear wheel HP......
     
  8. Oct 17, 2007
    mb82

    mb82 I feel great!

    Charlottesville Va
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Patrick what I ment was these were factory published numbers which I rarely believe.

    Heads up, motor to motor. Or should the V-8 get one stage of NOS :twisted: J/K
     
  9. Oct 18, 2007
    JeepTherapy

    JeepTherapy Sponsor

    Negaunee, Michigan
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    695
    I thought it was still crankshaft horsepower only with all the engine accessories added in. Also with factory manifolds, carburetion ect...
     
  10. Oct 18, 2007
    Mike C

    Mike C Member

    Austin, TX
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    HP was never measured at rear wheels. SAE gross in the 60's was the motor. SAE net circa '72 was the motor as intsalled in the vehicle: alternator, air cleaner, exhaust, etc. From 70-71 most "high performance" engines lost a full point of compression ratio if not more. Trucks and jeeps not so much since they didn't have 10 or 11:1 compression to begin with.

    IMO, the V6 is superior in an ECJ5 because of packaging. For most applications offroad, power output is not near as important as gearing. (mud racing and sand drags the exception!) If you need more power it's most likely for highway duty.
     
  11. Oct 18, 2007
    Huntman

    Huntman HIGH ROLLER

    Apex, NC
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    271
    if you want more power keep the v6 and do some moderate building to it and youll be impressed with the power it has
     
  12. Oct 18, 2007
    sixtyfive5

    sixtyfive5 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    83
    I love my chevy 350 swap. But in your situation, I'd keep the V6. Leave the 304 where it is and spend the time/money you would have in the swap and invest it in the V6.
     
New Posts