Oyaji

If at all possible, rig up a catch pan and stop frequently to recycle your lost oil. A cheap electric fuel pump (5 psi for use with a carb), some hose, and a home-made filter at the delivery end wouldn't take long to cobble together and would get you home. . Alternately see if you cannot beg a few jugs of used/drain oil from a shop nearby - some of those oil change shops should be open today, no?.

:hijack: . Don't hook up - fight it if you must, but don't hook up to a sewer system. Once you are on it you are captive to their whims and rate increases. I've never heard anyone say they were happier after connecting to a sewer system, either municipal or run by a private company. . It is widely acknowledged these days that the best place to treat sewage is as close to the point of its generation as possible, making septic tanks the best treatment available. Many locales have passed laws "requiring" connection to sewage based on the false premise that doing so is required for environmental protection, but such have loopholes written in because they are lying and they need to provide a dodge to protect themselves. Most common is the caveat that as long as your septic system is functioning properly, you are not required to connect to sewage. (If you ever have to do repairs to your septic system, they will oftentimes require you to connect to sewage at that point - but you can fight that too.) They will tell you otherwise, but insist on reading the fine print. They want to get everyone trapped into using their sewage system, and I can promise you that IT IS NOT FOR YOUR BENEFIT, BUT INSTEAD FOR THEIRS. Once you are connected to their sewage system, you are not allowed to disconnect ever again - they have you trapped, and you are forever at the mercy of their rates and increases and regulations. . Need proof before you believe that septic systems are better than sewage, or need ammo to convince others? Educate yourself - start here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqyaCZ-qEWQ . Sorry for the hijack, but this is the Pub, after all. :)

' For a young fella with ants in his pants looking for power and torque to give him max acceleration, weight is a factor. Shaving off weight is often a better way to gain acceleration than simply adding power. (An even better way would be to go out and buy a sports car instead - but to each his own...) . Don't look at me - I am the guy looking for a sensible diesel swap - I certainly ain't in no hurry! :D

Soooo, Do I use the adjustable Renix TPS or the non-adjustable HO TPS?..I don't know if I ever asked that question! . Well, for the accelerator pedal to work properly, you have to use the Renix... I have no idea about the transmission side, but Cruiser said it is the same as the HO. . The issue I see is that you had a 5-speed originally, so if you haven't swapped to a TPS for use with auto trans, I guess you will have to! (Otherwise I expect you don't even have a transmission side on your manual TPS.) On the plus side, I read here in another thread yesterday or just today that the TPS for auto is cheaper than for manual.

I've been following it, all 11 (so far) pages. My issue(s) have been touched on slightly and I've taken some of that advice. I almost have this animal tamed. Fixed several of the problems I was having just by fixing some factory connections and some of my own shoddy work before I had any clue what went where and who did what. I have two more wires to find before I button it all up. . When you get a chance, will you clue us in as to what signals are needed from the TPS, and how you were able to get them from a Renix TPS into the 1994 AW4 transmission wiring which is looking for an HO 4.0 TPS signal? It will doubtless be illuminating for anyone looking to duplicate your work. . Incidentally, yesterday Zagscrawler started a thread in this forum asking advice about an almost identical swap. Here is a link to his thread, titled "Pulled The Trigger": http://comancheclub.com/topic/40450-pulled-the-trigger/

. What is the weight difference between the 2 engines? That's another consideration to take into account...

ParadiseMJ has gone from a Peugeot BA-10 to an AW4 from a 1994 - but he has run into problems with shifting and/or torque converter lock-up. He is looking for help in tracking down the cause - his thread title is "Facing My Weakness - Electrics". . Maybe both you guys should add "BA-10 swap to late model AW4" to your thread titles?

. That was what I was afraid of, alright. . But TPSes do put out more signals than just a variable resistor voltage, at least on other vehicles I remember. There is at least a WOT position and an idle position (and also a power enrichment function based on how fast the throttle is opened, but covered by the ECU though as I recall) on Bosch FI TPSes besides the variable throttle opening signal. Maybe the signal on the Renix and Chrysler HO are the same for some positions? And if so, which of those signals are used by the TCU for proper shifting and maybe torque converter lockup, and can they be used interchangeably? . Do we have any transmission experts (particularly for the late model [1994] AW4) here who can answer? . Barring that, what do you guys think of piggy-backing dual TPSes? Renix to throttle shaft, mounting screws custom threaded to accept screws into them and shouldered to provide a mounting base for a Chrysler HO TPS above it, and a stub shaft from/through the Renix TPS to the HO TPS mounted on it. HO TPS would be used exclusively to provide signal to the AW4 - would probably need a jumper to provide voltage, but that's all, I am thinking. Any reason that wouldn't work?.

. ummm... this may sound dumb, but - of course, don't forget to ground the plug when you check for spark.

. Good info, but not what is needed here - I'm talking about TPS, not NSS. (edit: Whoops - are you maybe not responding to my post?) . At issue is the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS) on a Renix 4.0 being connected to provide the signal(s) needed by a 1994 electronically-controlled automatic AW4 from an HO 4.0, swapped in to replace the Peugeot 5-speed manual that was original equipment. . As noted in my previous post, Cruiser said in a different thread that the 2 TPSes are different. The questions are "how different?", "can the Renix TPS be wired to produce the correct signal(s) for an AW4 from a later year" (donor had an HO 4.0, with different TPS), and "if so, HOW?".

Anyone have advice to share regarding wiring a Renix 4.0 TPS originally mated to a 5-speed manual but now with 94 HO 4.0 AW4 TCU wiring? Because that is the current application here. . I mention it because I read a post by Cruiser this week that the reference signals for throttle position are opposite for them: .

You don't need a bracket attached to the bed floor if you attach the flagpole to the bedrail behind the cab - like I said before just put a rubber cap/plug on the bottom of the pole. Wind drag will force the pole backwards at the top, but forwards at the base below the U-bolt or strap "retainer" in the bed rail, the bottom of the pole shold stay between the ridges on the bed floor, and the rubber stopper on the base won't scratch the paint. Tighten the U-bolt/strap and the pole will not move upwards to tip sideways later, or put a pin through the pole beneath a loose retainer so as to prevent upward travel and you can easily remove the pole whenever you like.

Put a rubber stopper on the bottom of the pole and put that between 2 of the ridges in your bed floor. Above that put a U-bolt or strap with screws or rivets into the bed rail. Enjoy ripping flags to shreds from the wind daily until you run out of money for replacements, or bend/tear off the pole from wind resistance or running into low hanging tree limbs, etc. . Then in a couple years when you have rust starting at the holes where you drilled for your mount ask yourself, "did I really need a damn flagpole?"

Agreed. I look at W/M more as a solution in search of a problem. There are a handful of other things that should be done prior to even considering W/M. My response was aimed at addressing this: . No worries, man. I wasn't addressing you (or anyone) in particular - just the idea of going overboard with mods. . I don't mean to sell short the idea of experimentation and back-yard mods, either. Sometimes from such work are great ideas born. But just being a "me too" "I can do that too" copy-cat won't do anything but get you started on the path while emptying your pockets, since copying produces nothing new and can be extremely costly. Experience, formal education and careful study of what has come before are ways to save a lot of cost and headache along the way. . If you do decide to go the path of unguided self-funded experimentation, you also have to be prepared to accept a certain amount of this sort of thing among your "peers": . . :yes: . . With regard to the application comment, I was referring to production applications, not mods. Thanks for the extreme after-market apps you guys mentioned - it was good reading them.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should... and just because other people are doing something does not make it a good idea... . . . . . .

now if i knew what stock horns i were lookin for off a buick or caddy that'd be great to know since i'm goin to pnp tomorrow . :hmm: . . You need a picture too? . .

LOL!! . I laughed too when I read that. . Priceless! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Regulator stuck (partly or mostly) in the open position would dump your fuel right back in the tank via the return line and cause a pressure drop in proportion to how much the valve is stuck open. Did you check the regulator? . Earlier you mentioned wanting to delete it. Can't do that, because the fuel pump puts out too much volume - without the regulator the pump would stall and burn itself up. Putting the regulator in the tank with the pump would solve that problem, but then you would still have no cooling of the fuel lines/rail near/at the engine, and vapor lock (from boiling gasoline) would result when trying to restart a hot engine... along with possible injector problems long-term because they have no by-passed fuel to use as a heat sink.

. Not the same as a spark ignition engine. Every singe combustion event in a compression ignition engine amounts to detonation - which is why they are so much more heavily built and why they clang and clatter so damn much. :) . Diesels are also an unthrottled engine design (wide open unrestricted intake with no butterfly throttle valve to restrict intake air - they rely entirely on fuel delivery to control RPM and power settings) that always operate with an excess of oxygen in the combustion cycle. (A side effect of that excess oxygen is high oxides of nitrogen emissions.) To boost power you definitely want to both increase the combustion temperature (since engines turn heat into useful work, heat is a plus), and work on getting more air into the engine, as that is the hard part (getting more fuel in is the easy part - you can pump liquids far more easily than gases). To increase the intake air charge density a far better way to go about it is with supercharging and inter- and after-cooling... but I suppose once you have hit your limit and are reaching for a way to get a bit more density and keep your engine from slagging/melting itself down, M/W injection might net you one last benefit once all other options are exhausted. That would be very much just for specialty applications - like your tractor pull example. . In no way do I think it is a good solution for a daily driver road vehicle! . Wow - that is boosted nearly 7 atmospheres (6.8 bar). Most supercharging is between 7.5 and 15 psi (0.5 and 1.0 bar). . I reckon he is a brave soul with deep pockets and tremendous faith in the amount of over-design that went into that engine. Hopefully he has a good bit of other people's experience on which to base his modifications. Regardless, he may still rather abruptly find the absolute limit by experiencing catastrophic and very expensive failure. . No less amazing for all that! . Just the other day my dad was telling me stories about how some local farmers have boosted the engines in their International Harvester 806 tractors (about 100 horsepower stock) all the way up to 300 horsepower, and apparently with no ill effects over many seasons of hard use. I find that only somewhat less amazing... but I guess it just goes to show that some engines are so far over-designed that they can handle big increases. I am not sufficiently wealthy to go out seeking the bleeding edge of what is possible, so I'll leave it to them, since doing so not only affects the life of the engine but also everything else that is attached to it.

As an aside, when I learned about it around 45 years ago transmission lubricant was properly called "grease" and not "oil"- the difference between grease and oil being the addition of soap. I don't know if soap is still part of the formula, but years back when you got water into 90-weight transmission grease in the jug, quite a bit would emulsify with the grease and turn it milky in appearance (doubtless because of the soap content). I dunno if it is still made the same way, but I expect the lubrication qualities suffered little with some water content, which was probably part of the reason for the inclusion of soap. Once the friction from running heated up the grease, it would boil out the water content over time. It's not my specialty, but I was told by axle design engineers more than once that temperature in the differential housing of heavy trucks can exceed 350 degrees! I expect a manual transmission can get just as hot. . I noticed some years back a trend for modern documentation to call for "gear oil" - makes me wonder if soap is still used in the formulation... Whatever the ingredients, it gets mighty stiff when cold - just ask our Canadian friends! I reckon they use 70-weight for winter use - maybe even a lower viscosity than that in the most extreme cold conditions?

.It is a better example, but I have trouble putting much faith in quantitative statements by that guy after I read stuff like this from him: when asked the weight of his Grand Cherokee: "I would guess around 5700lbs" (Wiki puts the GC at 3,574 pounds - so that means he replaced the ~550 pound I-6 with a 2,700 pound I4 diesel? *lol*) . when challenged about his fuel economy: "That was what the mpg display was showing, but based on math I have been getting about 21mpg city and highway." (Incidentally, all the electronic fuel economy readings I have seen are based on injector pulse width signal from the ECU, so I am wondering how he uses this on a mechanical injection engine that doesn't have an ECU.) . His qualitative statements I have less trouble with, because they are based on simple observation - but I think he is mod-happy and that his ideas for mods are not sound (like doubling his power with fuel pump mods. and adding cooling with methanol injection):. . "Now that I have her running I am going to start adjusting the fuel to see if i can get a little more power and get a little higher rpm. Right now I max out at about 2200 I know I can safely go up to 2800rpm. I am able to get on the highway and hit 75mph it just takes a minute to get to that speed." . "Also I have a guy that rebuilds pumps and a injectors and he thinks he can hot rod my pump and get me another 80hp which should put me at 165hp, this engine is just a little underpowered for this jeep, around town its great but going up the mountains it struggles to stay over 50mph." . "Does 70mph no problem. Only weakness thus far it going up the mountain, can keep it at 60 but that's at 2500rpm and she does start to get real hot, I'm thinking methanol injection will be a good solution to this." . :nuts: . He's got problems alright, but I think most of them could be corrected by regearing The way I understand it, water/methanol injection, if done properly of course, will help with cooling and add a bit of power to the engine. How much of either, I have no clue, although the way i understand it is that you inject a water/methanol mixture into the cylinder between firing strokes to cool down the cylinder walls, keeping the engine running cooler and, to some degree keeping the air in the cylinder denser since its cooler. Makes some sense i theory, although, in my head at least, not enough to make a huge difference?.Water/methanol Injection was used in WWII (and maybe earlier?) to reduce peak combustion temperature and increase octane rating to reduce detonation in spark ignition aircraft engines, thereby allowing higher supercharging boost pressure and drastically increasing maximum power output for brief running periods. It has sometimes been used for extreme racing applications since then. . I know of no advantage or benefit from its use in diesel engines (nor have I ever heard of such an application either, for that matter), but maybe I am missing something.

I expect your transmission grease is thickening up with the colder temperatures as winter approaches. If so, the problem should go away after you warm up to operating temperature. . Alternately, maybe your clutch is dragging a little from not being properly adjusted. Check your free pedal to make sure you have enough stroke to completely disengage the clutch.

I'll be following this thread with interest. . Good luck, and make sure to document your work not only with pictures but with measurements and notes. I wish you all success, partly for a selfish reason: I may want to duplicate your work someday! . Let me know if I can help in any way.

. It is a better example, but I have trouble putting much faith in quantitative statements by that guy after I read stuff like this from him: when asked the weight of his Grand Cherokee: "I would guess around 5700lbs" (Wiki puts the GC at 3,574 pounds - so that means he replaced the ~550 pound I-6 with a 2,700 pound I4 diesel? *lol*) . when challenged about his fuel economy: "That was what the mpg display was showing, but based on math I have been getting about 21mpg city and highway." (Incidentally, all the electronic fuel economy readings I have seen are based on injector pulse width signal from the ECU, so I am wondering how he uses this on a mechanical injection engine that doesn't have an ECU.) . His qualitative statements I have less trouble with, because they are based on simple observation - but I think he is mod-happy and that his ideas for mods are not sound (like doubling his power with fuel pump mods. and adding cooling with methanol injection):. . "Now that I have her running I am going to start adjusting the fuel to see if i can get a little more power and get a little higher rpm. Right now I max out at about 2200 I know I can safely go up to 2800rpm. I am able to get on the highway and hit 75mph it just takes a minute to get to that speed." . "Also I have a guy that rebuilds pumps and a injectors and he thinks he can hot rod my pump and get me another 80hp which should put me at 165hp, this engine is just a little underpowered for this jeep, around town its great but going up the mountains it struggles to stay over 50mph." . "Does 70mph no problem. Only weakness thus far it going up the mountain, can keep it at 60 but that's at 2500rpm and she does start to get real hot, I'm thinking methanol injection will be a good solution to this." . :nuts: . He's got problems alright, but I think most of them could be corrected by regearing.

. I couldn't imagine what you were talking about, so I Googled it. Now I see what you mean. It is pretty blocky, but still sleeker than a Comanche - smaller too, which means its aerodynamic load would be less. . While I was looking, I turned up these shots and thought of your prospective project. Enjoy: . . . .