World Encyclopedia of Cars
The best old cars, news and reviews about old cars. Stay in touch!

Jeep CJ-3A

All Jeep Photos

Jeep CJ-3A - information: Jeep CJ-3A is a very good car, that was released by "Jeep" company. We collected the best 9 photos of Jeep CJ-3A on this page.

Brand Name Jeep
Model Jeep CJ-3A
Number of views 116873 views
Model's Rate 7.3 out of 10
Number of images 9 images
Interesting News
  • Ford B-MAX Tita nium 1.5 TDCi.

    While Ford has been busy replacing most of its MPV range, with all-new S-MAX and Galaxy models, as well a substantial facelift to the C-MAX, the baby B-MAX has soldiered on. It’s the only model, apart from the Ka, not to have adopted Ford’s wide mouthed, Aston Martinesque grille, though it only has to be a matter of time before a facelifted version arrives. In the meantime, Ford has replaced its 1.6-litre TDCi engine with a downsized, identically powered 1.5-litre unit that manages to be 3.7mpg more economical, with CO2 emissions that are 6g/km less and with an acceleration to 62mph time that is just under a second faster. And the price for all of these improvements, a modest Ј130. At its launch, the B-MAX won plaudits for its interesting sliding rear doors that leave a pillarless space when both front and rear doors are open. It makes loading little’uns into the child seats in the back a breeze, especially in tightly proportioned car parks. That combined with generous head and legroom both front and rear, this is one seriously spacious car, despite its modest footprint. The dashboard is attractively styled with all of the controls logically arranged, though we think it’s a shame that there are so many tiny buttons on the audio system. The optional navigation system is hindered by a small screen, albeit with excellent colourful graphics, we just wish there was more of it. Still, it’s neatly positioned just within your eye line. The dashboard materials are made out of decent plastics and feel well appointed, though it’s a disappointment that the door tops are made out of hard materials. The driving position is best described as command, with a good view out along the bonnet. In fact, all round vision is pretty good, thanks to deep windows, except for the super wide central door pillars. Boot space is smaller than most of its immediate rivals, but thanks to a low sill and wide opening, you can make good use of the available room. There’s extra underfloor storage and the seats fold down totally flat. With just 94bhp on tap, you’re not likely to win any traffic light Grand Prix, and it’s surprising that Ford doesn’t offer the more powerful 118bhp edition of this engine for extra zip. It’s a quiet unit, though, and is only really noticeable at higher revs, though at motorway speeds it’s barely audible. Besides, the sound is drowned out by the excessive road noise and fluttering of the wind around the windscreen. As you would expect from a Blue Oval-badged car, it’s the driving experience that really excels, with communicative, agile steering and while there’s some lean when cornering, on account of its tall sides, everything is kept well in check, with generous amounts of grip. But it’s the ride comfort that is at odds with the high degree of comfort that the B-MAX otherwise delivers, with a firm edge to the suspension that results in too many of the road imperfections being transmitted into the cabin. The slick, smooth five-speed manual gearbox is a delight to use and has a light clutch as a companion. Gear ratios are well thought out, allowing you to make reasonable progress even considering the modest power and size of the engine.
  • MIDSIZE ROLE PLAYER.

    The naked standard motorcycle category appears to have finally taken hold in the US, due in large part to the sales success of Yamaha’s bombshell FZ-09. After Suzuki’s challenge to the Yamaha triple (“Budget Blasters,” October/November 2015), now Kawasaki is jumping into the middleweight standard fray by bringing its Z800 ABS to the US market for 2016. Well, 49 states for now; California residents unfortunately won’t get the bike yet due to the added emissions requirements. Available since 2013 in other markets, the Z800 is powered by a liquidcooled, DOHC, 806cc inline-four that is basically a bored-out, upgraded version of the old Z750 engine. A 2.6mm-larger bore with 10-percent-lighter pistons getting cooled by larger oil jets, revised intake/exhaust ports, longer intake manifolds, and a staggered intake funnel setup along with 2mm-larger throttle bodies (now 34mm) boosts peak horsepower by a claimed 6 hp to a 111 hp peak in European tune (Kawasaki USA wasn’t listing power figures). Longer exhaust header pipes with equalizer tubes between cylinders and an exhaust valve in the under-engine chamber help midrange power. The European press has had plenty of good things to say about the Z800’s engine, and after a day spent riding in the streets of Palm Springs and up in the canyons of the San Jacinto mountain range, we’d heartily agree. There’s plenty of responsive low-end and midrange acceleration, aided in part by the change to a two-teeth-larger rear sprocket. While not quite up to the sprightly FZ-09 as far as overall power in the bottom half of the rev range, the Kawasaki towers over the GSX-S750 when it comes to response from the engine room. Power continues to build as rpm rises into the five-digit zone before tapering off slightly as the Z800’s engine approaches its rev limiter around 12,000 rpm, but there’s enough top-end power to be had without revving it that far, and wheelies are but a clutch-snap away. The Z750’s steel backbone frame was revised with two bolt-on aluminum subframe sections that allow the Z800’s front engine mounts to be positioned behind the cylinders. While Kawasaki says this allows the vibration from the inline-four to be isolated more effectively, some vibes can definitely be felt through the handlebar and footpegs above 7,500 rpm. Nonetheless, the Z800 has a nice, neutral yet fairly agile feel in the corners, with only a little effort required to fl ick the bike into a corner. Line changes in midcorner are easily accomplished with zero drama, and the stock Dunlop OEM-spec D214 Sportmax tires display good grip and light steering characteristics. There’s plenty of ground clearance, and the standard KYB suspension components on the Kawasaki-a 43mm inverted fork (adjustable for spring preload on one side and rebound damping on the other) and single rear shock (also adjustable for spring preload and rebound damping)-provide good wheel and chassis control even when the pace heats up. The ride is a little firm for pothole-ridden urban tarmac and highway superslab but nothing drastic. Despite the budget-looking standard-mount two-piece Nissin calipers, the brakes work well. Response is a little fl at, but power and feel are surprisingly good, with the 310mm discs likely helping by providing good leverage for the calipers. And the standard Nissin ABS works well too, with a fairly high intervention point and transparent action overall. Probably a good thing, as those brakes need to slow down around 509 pounds with a full fuel tank; even though it carries that weight well, the Z800’s heft is our only real gripe with the Kawasaki. Ergos are average standard bike fare, with a slight sporty cant to your upper torso offsetting the windblast. At $8,399, the Kawasaki Z800 ABS is a touch more expensive than the non-ABS-equipped Yamaha FZ-09 ($8,190) or the Suzuki GSX-S750 ($7,999 for the base model). But its solid performance definitely makes it worth a look in the middleweight standard category.
  • BIG BIKE VS. SMALL BIKE.

    We see it quite often at the racetrack, especially in club races where classes are mixed: Rider on small bike passes rider on big bike in seemingly every corner, only to be passed back right away on the next straight. Even if the power difference is not that great between the two bikes, the contrast between corner speed and straightaway speed of the two bikes becomes magnified as each bike is ridden to maximize its advantages. The reality of the situation is that the outright maximum cornering speed between any two bikes is not that significantly different, provided both are on similar tires. If the tires are similar, both bikes should be capable of the same lateral acceleration (limited by the friction coefficient of the tires) and corner speed. Why do we see such a contrast in how the bikes are ridden? On an underpowered bike, the quickest way around the track is to maximize corner speed, in turn getting onto each straight with as much speed as possible. This is accomplished by completing the corner with as large an arc as possible, which converts lateral acceleration into maximum corner speed. For a typical single-radius corner, this means entering as wide as possible to maximize entry speed, turning in to the apex with little trail- braking, and keeping the bike at maximum lean with a constant radius until the very exit of the corner. In contrast, the quickest lap times on a more powerful bike are usually found by maximizing acceleration onto each straight and taking advantage of that power; this is achieved by sacrificing some corner speed to pick the bike up and apply the throttle earlier at the exit. For that same single-radius corner, this means a tighter entry, more trail-braking to a slightly later apex, with a tighter arc and less corner speed to get the bike up off the side of the tire as quickly as possible. As we found out in our displacement test last year where we compared the Yamaha YZF-R6, Suzuki GSX-R750, and Kawasaki ZX-10R, it’s not so much that the smaller bikes have a handling advantage over the bigger bikes but rather it’s how each bike is ridden to play to its strength or weakness in the power department. Using data from our AiM Solo GPS lap timer, we could see differences in line and cornering speeds between the three bikes, just as you would expect given the horsepower of each. While a few horsepower here or there might not seem like it should impact line choice signifi- cantly, in practice even a small difference can significantly change how a particular corner or series of corners is negotiated. And the contrast between a lightweight bike and a literbike can be astonishing: We’ve encountered certain corners where the entry line is several feet different on an SV650 than it is on a 1000, for an example. Finding the optimum line to match the power of your bike does require some experimentation. The wide radius and high corner speed that less powerful bikes require typically brings with it a higher risk of a high-side crash in the middle of the corner just as the throttle is opened, and the safer option is to start with the tighter entry and lower corner speed of the big-bike line and work from there, adding more corner speed and a wider entry with practice. If you are looking at sector times on data, don’t forget to factor in any time gained or lost on the succeeding straight, which may or may not offset time saved in the corner itself. Given the contrast in lines between different bikes, the key point to remember is that the optimum line for your bike may be very different from the bike in front of you, and it’s quite often a mistake to blindly follow another rider at the track. Even if you are riding the same model of bike, the power difference may be enough that you can take advantage of a different line to be quicker, and that line may work to a further advantage when it comes time to make a pass. When you ride at the track, what bike you are on will at least in part determine what lines you should be taking, and you should try different options with that in mind. And if you change bikes and move to a more or less powerful machine- or even make modifications to the same bike for more power-know that the lines you had been using for years might need to be altered appropriately.
Top Jeep models
Popular Searches
World Encyclopedia of Cars
Copyright 2015. All rights under protection.