Eagle

They won't fit.

No, they can't. The Chinese don't understand the distinction between "correct" and "sorta close-ish." I found the same thing looking for wheel centers for a set of factory alloy rims for the 2000 Cherokee. Amazon and eBay had lots of people selling them, and claiming they were OEM Chrysler, citing part numbers, yada, yada ... and it was obvious from the photos they weren't a match for the factory centers.

No, you can't have one made. It's not flat, it's curved.

One liter is 61 cubic inches, so a 3.4 liter engine displaces (approximately) 207 cubic inches. Carb sizing isn't rocket science and you don't have to be accurate down to the third decimal place. Pick a carb for around 200 cubic inches if you'll never see high RPM, or pick one for 225 to 250 cubic inches if you drive with a lead foot.

Okay ... but the optional heavy-duty rear axle in 1987 XJs and MJs was the Dana 44.

You're on the right track, but your explanation is technically incorrect. Many years ago, in my AMC days, a young friend bought a used 2-seat AMX. For some reason,m the AMX used a rear proportioning valve but the Javelin didn't. I guess the short wheelbase of the AMX made it more prone to "swapping ends" in panic stops. Anyhoo ... the previous owner of this particular AMX had FUBARed the entire brake system by filling it with something other than brake fluid (ATF, I think it was), which caused all the seals to swell up and lock up the brake system. By the time my friend bought it, we could still buy every part of the system ... except the proportioning valve. So, we removed it. To compensate, he used wheel cylinders from a 6-cylinder Gremlin (smaller bore). He drove it that way for many years, autocrossed it, and never had a problem. So it's a valid approach. BUT ... it means reduced braking to the rear axle ALWAYS. Not a problem when running an unloaded pickup, but something to keep in mind if fully loaded. It's a work-around to deleting a proportioning valve, not a functionally equivalent solution. The smaller wheel cylinders do not result in reduced pressure to the rear. In any hydraulic system, pressure is always uniform throughout the hydraulic (fluid) part of the system. But FORCE is pressure applied to an area. So if a brake system is pressurized (by your foot on the peddle) to, say, 1000 psi, then a wheel cylinder with a piston that's one square inch in area will apply a total force of 1000 pounds to the rear brake shoe. That 1000 pounds is then spread out over whatever the area of the brake shoe lining is. If you use a smaller wheel cylinder with a piston area of 3/4 of an inch, that same 1000 psi of hydraulic pressure applied over an area of .75 sq. in. will now apply a force of only 750 pounds to the brake shoe. That 750 pounds is then distributed over the same lining area, so the force applied to the rear brakes is only 75%.

Yes -- you are incorrect. You will NOT lose all braking power by eliminating the rear height-sensing valve. The MJ has dual-circuit brakes. There is one hydraulic circuit to the front, and a separate circuit to the rear. With the height-sensing valve in place as designed, under normal conditions the output from the "nose" of the distribution block goes through the height-sensing valve, which reduces (proportions) the braking force to the rear wheels. The forward, bottom outlet on the distribution block, which only opens if the front circuit fails and loses pressure, by-passes the height-sensing valve and sends full pressure to the rear wheels. If you properly eliminated the height-sensing valve, by connecting the "nose" outlet directly to the flex hose at the rear axle, you will ALWAYS be sending FULL braking pressure to the rear wheels -- both when the front brakes are working, AND if the front brakes fail. The downside to eliminating the height-sensing valve, especially if you also put disks on the rear, is that under normal conditions you may have too much braking in the back. In rain, snow, or if the road has oil or sand on it, the rears may lock up before the fronts, resulting in spin-outs. Obviously, this is more likely when the bed is unloaded than when it's loaded to capacity, but that's the way most of us drive our MJs probably 90% or more of the time. It's also more of an issue when going down steep inclines, because more weight is transferred to the front end when going downhill. I'd suggest finding an empty parking lot and testing how your new setup behaves under heavy braking.

Speak for yourself, Matey. That pile of excrement sure isn't anything I've been asking for. It certainly isn't a successor to either the Comanche or the J-trucks. The Ram is a full-size pickup. When my wife was alive, I spent a couple or three months every year in her native country, in South America, every year. Cherokees and Comanches were VERY popular, along with a 4-door, crew cab version of the Chevy S-10, with a box that was probably only five or five and a half feet long. I only remember seeing ONE Dodge Ram pickup in all the time I spent there, and it was so huge (comparatively) that it was totally out of place. It took up two of their parking spaces. I know about the American love affair with monster trucks but, worldwide, there's a healthy potential market for a smaller pickup, and Jeep is a well-known and respected brand in South America. It would sell. This pseudo 4-door "Scramber" wannabe? Highly unlikely it will sell in South America. People there want multi-purpose vehicles that can carry a family and still do some real work.

Jeep hasn't been Jeep since 2001, when they killed off the Cherokee and stopped trail testing all new vehicles over the Rubicon Trail, instead driving over a couple of logs in a parking lot and calling them "Trail Rated." How can it be Trail Rated if it has never seen a trail? Put a Jeep logo on a Ram? That's not what I'm talking about. The Comanche competed against the Dakota, and that's why Chrysler killed the Comanche. The Comanche in stock trim could go places no Dakota could possibly get to. Years ago, several clubs banded together to do a clean-up of a power line trail in Rhode Island. Deep into the trail, somebody found a huge pile of old roofing shingles on top of a hill off to the side of the trail. I said I'd get them and bring them to the dumpster. There was a local cop working with us. He said, "You'll have to go back out and miles around to get to them." I told him I was just going to drive up the hill. He said, "That's impossible." Three minutes later I was parked on top of the hill, loading shingles. When you talk about function over form, people who buy pickup trucks generally aren't interested in the sun on their heads and the wind in their faces. A ragtop isn't part of the pickup truck scene. Jeeps are Jeeps because they can (or used to be able to) go off-road better than just about anything else. The new Wranglers can't even to that without a couple of thousand dollars worth of reinforcement for the front axle. And the dinky little bed on that thing isn't big enough to carry anything that really needs to be carried. It's a toy, not a truck. Plus -- the proportions are all wrong. It's just UGLY.

This thing is not a pickup truck. It's a Wrangler with a slightly longer/larger cargo area. I want Jeep to introduce a pickup again, which means a TRUCK, with a metal roof, an enclosed back to the cab, and a separate load box. If they want to make a new version of the Scrambler, it would have to be more like this (excuse the crude MS Paint edit):

As you've all probably noticed, the emoticons aren't working yet. As a temporary work-around, a friend has a gallery of smileys, and he's given me the link to it. If you're feeling emoticon-deprived, you can go here, copy, and manually insert an emoticon using tags. http://herohog.com/images/icons/smileys/

Almost had to be that. You don't go anywhere near that relay bank to change the CPS.

Ten bucks says that mechanic had an '87 XJ that was missing the relay cover.

No. Cherokees are 17" at the rear. Years ago I measured some stock MJs and I estimated that a Comanche was 21" from center of axle to bottom of flare. It might be as low as 20" but not 19".

Where are you going to find a 10:1 box? Special order? From an old dirt track stock car? :yes: They would be super twitchy on the road. 12:1 was the quickest factory bolt-in Saginaw box I know of, and they are super hard to find. AGR Steering offers Saginaw boxes with a 10:1 ratio. I don't think it would be especially twitchy at all -- it would be about like newer cars with rackety pinion steering.

What year? 1986 through 1990 were throttle body injected. 1991 and 1992 were multi-port injected. I believe it was '87 through '90 that the clutch used a combination release bearing/slave cylinder assembly, commonly referred to as the "internal" slave cylinder. They are a bit pricey, and replacement requires dropping the transmission and bell housing. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to check one, other than to look for brake/clutch fluid dripping out of the bell housing. The timing chain in the 2.5L uses a tensioner. Those wear out, but 85k probably isn't enough for that to be an issue. Check the floors for rust -- both from underneath, and under the carpet/mat, if you can get a sense of what's going on from the topside. Check the frame rails under the bed in the area of the forward leaf spring hanger brackets.

The switch panel isn't molded to the cover - it's attached by plastic studs that have their tips heat welded. It's easy to grind off the plastic welds with a Dremel and remove the panel. The dash mount module should be available from a junkyard XJ.

That may hold some weight for you, but it doesn't mean jack to me, and it doesn't mean he knows jack about Jeeps. So he dropped a 124,000 miles engine into a repainted body, and that's his idea of "restoration"? I think you should look elsewhere. The more I learn about this one, the more I think I wouldn't touch it with a 10-yard pole. Because cops never embellish the truth, eh?

Start a new topic. :thumbsup: ^^^ Yes.

??? Who edited what, and who attacked whom?

He has a VERY strange notion of what "restore" means. There's a company in Texas that specializes in restoring full-size Grand Wagoneers. They do true restorations, and they sell for good money, but you're getting the equivalent of a new Grand Wagoneer for your money. What this guy is doing is not "restoration," it's "modification" -- and (as has been noted), people selling modified Jeeps (or any vehicles) rarely get their money out of the vehicle. I'd say pass on this one. The one Skorpyo suggested looks like a much better deal -- even if it does have the wrong grille in it :)

And rock crawling with monster tires. A slower steering ratio is usually considered to be better for that. In fact, the off-road package in the very early XJs (and possibly MJs) came with an 18:1 steering box.

?? 10:1 is faster than 14:1, not slower. Sounds to me like we're thinking in opposite veins, not the same. Stock box is 3-1/2 turns lock-to-lock. The 12.7:1 box is 3 turns lock-to-lock. A 10:1 box should be approximately 2-1/2 turns.

Just a thought: I have an '88 MJ that I bought wearing a 4" Trailmaster lift, with drop brackets to maintain stock (-ish) control arm geometry. I ran it for a couple or three years on 31s, wheeled it with NAXJA NAC all over New England and at Paragon -- and hated it. The height was too low to need a step, but too high to get in and out without mashing the outer corner of the driver's seat. It rode like a truck -- a tri-axle dump truck.. Basically, it was pretty awful. I finally pulled off the lift and gave the parts to another member here, put it back to stock height, and I couldn't be happier. And, to be honest, I'd say at stock height running decent 235s or 30" tires it can go about 90 to 95 percent of the places it would go with the lift. For what you are describing, I don't think you need a lift, and all the issues a lift carries with it. The Comanche, especially the shortbed, is a VERY capable off-road vehicle without any modifications other than perhaps a good limited slip or locker in the rear diff.

The factory steering box ratio is 14:1. When I needed a box for the 2001 XJ I was fixing up for my daughter, I got a ZJ box (at Hornbrod's advice). That has a 12.7:1 ratio. That was nice, but I think for my good MJ I may go for a 10:1 box.