Eagle

Without looking at the pages you cited -- in general, negative always ultimately goes to ground, and the wires are almost always black or black with a tracer. Positive wires are colored, or colored with tracer. To find out where they come from, you may need to jump from one page to another to see what's on the other side of a connector.

Gotta be something like that. Time to pull the head and look inside. If you can get 3/4 of a turn, it's not seized. There's mechanical interference and you just have to keep digging until you find out where it is.

Well, if it's worth it to you, that's what counts. While they're answering questions, though, ask them what they mean by "total toe from its current 61-degrees to within spec," Toe-in for an '87 MJ isn't even measured in degrees, although the newer machines may have conversion tables. The toe-in was specified in degrees for the 2000 XJ, though. But ... toe-in is supposed to be zero to 1/16th or 1/8th of an inch. I'd have to look up what that equates to in degrees, but it certainly isn't 61 degrees, or anywhere near 61 degrees. I don't think there's enough adjustment range on the MJ tie rod to achieve anything close to 61 degrees of toe-in.

I don't think any MJs came with the T-4. The T-4 was an alternate factory standard tranny in 1984 XJ 2.5Ls when the Cherokee was a brand new vehicle and AMC didn't have the supply lines fully ramped up. I don't think you'll find a T-4 in anything newer than 1985.

Camber is not adjustable, so all they're going to do is pop in a shim or three and check the toe-in. $155 seems high to me, but I haven't paid for an alignment in 30 years. You don't really need a machine to do the MJ, although it does make it easier.

Solution (from a friend who runs the M1911.org forum):

Don't guess. The knuckles and the hubs have slightly different dimensions/offsets. You can't mix components or you get an interference fit. You need to verify what year EVERY component is from, to be certain they're all compatible. If you didn't use new or rebuilt calipers, though, the problem may be as simple as a frozen caliper. Also check the caliper sliders to be sure the calipers can move freely.

You don't. The owner of the images has to buy a $388 per year subscription from Photobucket. There are patches to get around the problem. What browser are you ussing?

When you swapped the axle, did you keep ALL the brake parts from the "new" axle, or did you use anything from the old axle? From the manuscript for my unfinished book (this is copyrighted, and I am NOT granting anyone permission to copy it or to distribute it):

That's what happens if you don't bleed it for 25+ years.

A '91 XJ cluster will certainly fit, physically, but you'll need to convert to an electronic speedometer, and the gas gauge will read in reverse because Chrysler changed the polarity.

Offset measurement from what to what?

Building a custom cluster will be a lot of work and a lot of expense when any cluster out of an '88 through '90 Cherokee will drop right in.

No. When I lost brakes in my '88, it was the height sensing valve itself that popped, so I still had the fronts. The fact we don't know of it happening doesn't in any way negate the reason the system was designed the way it was, and it doesn't provide me any rational reason for NOT ensuring that the system is properly bled.

This works fine -- for the normal braking fuction/circuit, which is what your foot feels when driving around. By skipping the FSM procedure for properly bleeding the MJ system, you have no way of knowing if there's air in the rear bypass line. If there is, instead of getting full braking to the rear if the front brakes fail, you'll get mushy rear brakes at best, or posibly nearly no rear brakes at all. The factory specified that procedure for a reason ...

Same here.

If I remember correctly, the 84-86 cluster gauges didn't return to zero when the engine is shut off, they stayed where they were. When the ignition was turned on later for a restart, they then moved to display the current reading -- which would be zero for oil pressure and cold (100) for temperature. I don't think you have a gauge problem, I think you have a no power to the cluster problem. Are you getting a reading from the volt meter?

Nobody asked about testing the gas and oil pressure gauges. I asked if they work. The engine must start and run, since your question about the tachometer mentions idle and then increasing the throttle. So when the engine is running, what does the gas gauge read, and what does the oil pressure gauge read?

This thread is about the temperature gauge, because that's what you asked about and that's what we have been discussiing. If you want to diagnose the tachometer, please start a new thread to discuss that. What's the status on the temperature gauge? Do the fuel gauge and the oil pressure gauge function?

Factory Jeep coils were all black. NAPA and Carquest "cargo coils" could provide 2-1/2" of lift. Numerous companies used to to sell 3" lift coils for the Cherokee -- it's not difficult to imagine that aftermarket coils might have settled a half inch.

The opposing coils don't have separate polarities. Both are 12-volt input. That would be one of the two terminals that also connects to other things on the circuit board. Then one of them connects directly to ground (the C-coil). The other connects to ground through the temperature sensor (the H-coil). So in your test setup, you need a 12-volt positive source to the terminal you determine to be the input. Then you connect the C-coil terminal directly to the negative terminal of your power supply, and you connect the H-coil to your potentiometer, and then connect the potentiometer to the negative terminal of your power supply. To run the test, you have to have both coils powered up at the same time, because the gauge operates by comparing the magnetic output of the two coils.

Does your potentiometer have the same resistance range that the temperature sensor operates in? The section Green Mesa provided from the 1986 electrical manual gives us some numbers: 55 ohms for 260 degrees, to 1265 ohms for 100 degrees (which is "cold"). So you need a pot that gives you approximately that range. I suppose they all start at zero, but if you use one that's rated for 10,000 or 50,000 ohms on the high end, it won't take much rotation to blow right past the range for the Jeep sensor. It does appear that your gauge is functioning. The second photo from Green Mesa is from the 1988 electrical manual, which is the one I have. The simple GO - NO GO test is to disconnect the wire from the sensor. This simulates infinite resistance and should peg the needle to Cold. Grounding the wire directly to the chassis (or engine) simulates low (zero) resistance, and the needle should peg to Hot. Your testing seems to have replicated that cycle, so the gauge itself is probably okay.

I guess we could say you're past the statute of limitations ...

Getting better. Put a real roof on it and I could start to think about maybe being interested.

You need the wiring diagram to determine which pole is 'C; and which is 'H.' Only one of them is connected to the temperature sensor. One gets a constant 12-volts, the other sees variable flow based on the resistance at the sender. The third pole at the gauge is ground, which apparently both circuits share. Since the back of the gauge has four, one of them is redundant and not used. However, we can make some guesses. Look at your fourth photo -- the one of the back side of the gauge. Of the three circuit traces that lead to the temperature gauge, the upper one also connects to a terminal on the other gauge on that side of the cluster. (Is that for the tachometer, or do you have the big fuel gauge there?) The middle one connects to two light sockets, plus the other gauge. So that one HAS to be either a common 12-volt feed, or a common ground. The trace from the lower contact from your gauge doesn't touch anything else -- it runs directly to the connector header. I'm going to guess that's the C-coil. If the lower one is the C-coil, the upper must be the H-coil, and the middle one is likely the ground.