Thread: 4bd1 into 1995 defender..should I ?

Originally Posted by jakeslouw

Doesn't seem available over here.

I can get a 4JX1 but I have no idea what THAT is apart from it being a 3.0L and supposedly 4 cyls.............117kW?
But a bit exy at around $3000 plus some change.

I think that's the unit injector engine.

Went like stink, but was a problem child.

I remember driving the BIL's new Jackaroo (Trooper) into Sydney to the Royal and taking off a bit quick and wheelspinning in second gear

Originally Posted by rick130

I think that's the unit injector engine.

Went like stink, but was a problem child.

I remember driving the BIL's new Jackaroo (Trooper) into Sydney to the Royal and taking off a bit quick and wheelspinning in second gear

Yes stay away from it, had/ has lots of problems with fuel system, especially old ones.

JC

BTW, I'm a bit shocked at how heavy the 4JJ1T is, at least in industrial spec.

The spec sheet states 320kg

That's only 20-30kg lighter than the 4BD1T.

Originally Posted by rick130

BTW, I'm a bit shocked at how heavy the 4JJ1T is, at least in industrial spec.

The spec sheet states 320kg

That's only 20-30kg lighter than the 4BD1T.

30% of that would be the flywheel

jc

Originally Posted by justinc

There are also studies to confirm that the closer people are to the ground, the denser the atmosphere is, so they get more oxygen, which causes higher than average neuron/ brain development....


JC

The Stature Handicapped Osmotic Respirated Total Atmospheric Sample Sequestation tests proved that people classed as Melon Insufficiently Distanced Growth Effects Terminated tended to be more susceptible to being Found Uniformly Lacking Lattitude Observational Facilities Situated Hopelessly In Tallness.

Similar studies also found that due to the the increased pressure differential of atmosphere on the skin that the osmotic absorption of airborne pollutants increased.

As finely atomized effluent particulate matter settles down lower due to a relatively high mass this naturally increases the density of airborne matter within a given atmospheric sample at lower heights.

the end result of this is an exponentially increased rate of absorbsion of effluential matter as you get deeper into a given gravity well

When the group conducting the study were questioned on their findings and instructed that additional proof may be required they replied with a 10 word document that simply read.

"Are you Kidding? You've seen Australias latest Prime ministers, Right?"

No further proof was required.

Great anachronisms there Dave! 10/10 for those


Weird thing is they almost make sense


JC

Bloody hell Dave, what have u been eating/smoking?

Originally Posted by Bearman

Bloody hell Dave, what have u been eating/smoking?

... I was too polite to ask that Question Brian, but now that YOU have , I'll just sit back and wait for an explanation from Blackus Knightus


JC