New Member With Many Questions

[jimoshel]

A well maintained engine, oil changes, tune ups,etc, etc, runs just fine in the mountains. I've had mine, '87 MJ, 2.5, 4 speed over Tennessee pass, Monarch Pass and up Pikes Peak as well as a couple 'other' places with no problems.

[Steven Gregory 89 MJ]

The road up to Pikes Peak isn't horrible, worst part is, is the fear of rolling of!

[shelbyluvv]

It's paved all the way to the top now. Not any worse than a scenic drive.

[Klutch]

Considering how underpowered my truck is at 6,500 feet, where I live, I just didn't think it would do very well at a higher altitude. But Maybe I'll give it a try.

 

I picked up a 2000 XJ yesterday. I'm thinking my Comanche 4WD is much better than the Cherokee 4WD system.

[gogmorgo]

:???: Yes, the Comanche 4x4 is definitely better than the Cherokee 4x4, except where where it's identical... and beyond the length of the rear driveshaft and the location of the rear spring perches, that would be everything.

 

Okay, yeah the Dana 30 front axle is probably a low-pinion vs the high-pinion in the MJ, and it's likely you've got a 242 transfercase vs the MJ's 231 (Maybe... did we figure out which one you have?), but that just gives you an awd option for sealed surface use. And I suppose the XJ's difference in weight and the distribution thereof, and also the difference in wheelbase would come into play, as would the differences in power between the two (low power means less likely to break traction) but there's very little difference between the two systems.

[Klutch]

My comment about the 4WD system relates to the system in the 2000 Cherokee I just bought. Unlike my Comanche, the Cherokee has "Part Time" and "Full Time" options. I thought this was specific to a Cherokee. I found out what you guys already know. That's an option and, after figuring out how it works, it actually works fine. My misunderstanding.

 

jimoshel, likely your 4 cylinder engine has more power than my 2.8 V6.