Eagle

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.

He's got some expensive parts in it. As much as I don't like to say it, it probably IS worth what he's asking ... to somebody. Personally, I'm only interested in stock MJs, so I wouldn't even consider that one. For me to buy it, I'd have to factor in how much it would cost me to return it to stock ... which might not be possible if the rear fenders are cut out beneath those flares. Beautiful truck, though.

Why would you want slower steering? Personally, I want faster. (But ... I don't do any rock crawling these days.)

So would I. Ummm ... where the heck is Nunavut?

Anybody running Firefox? There's a new add-on that by-passes Photobucket's "third party hosting" block. A friend sent me the link, I installed it, and it seems to work transparently. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...d-fix/?src=api

This doesn't make sense. To reduce slop in the steering box, the over-center adjustment screw is turned in, not out. If you have slop when it's turned in as far as it will go, then it's time for a replacement steering box.

Why is starting in neutral and drive a problem? The whole concept of making it impossible to start in gear was a knee-jerk reaction to stupid people doing stupid things. Personally, I would be very happy to see the starter work when the transmission is in gear. For a variety of reasons.

Is the fuel filter clogged?

If we weren't still here ... would it matter if your bills were paid?

Looks like my link didn't bring the comparison through. The two I was comparing were the Duralast Gold DGC477C (ceramic) versus the Duralast Gold Max DGC 477M (semi-metallic). I was leaning toward giving the ceramics a try this time. The old pads are one of the two cheaper ones, but they all carry a limited lifetime warranty. I wonder if they'll let me upgrade for the difference in prive ...

Are you certain that you used the correct bearings? Was the crank machined as part of the rebuild? If so, was it turned to .010 or .020 undersized? And did you buy bearings to match the undersize?

Are we referring to Goatman, from NAXJA? I noticed several other Jeep and AMC vehicles in the lineup, too.

Since I replaced the front brake pads on my late wife's 2000 Cherokee Classic, the pads have been dusting very badly. Like, a week of normal driving leaves the front wheels almost black. With the factory pads, they didn't get as black in two or three years of driving. Mercifully, the replacement pads are themselves getting close to needing to be replaced. Looking to step up the game a bit. I wouldn't mind an improvement in braking, but I don't speed or tailgate, so the braking isn't an issue. But I would like to get something that's going to run cleaner. Looking at two upgrade options fro Auto Zone. Any comments or experience with either of these? http://www.autozone.com/productComparisons/productComparison.jsp

So does the tranny from the WJ have a sender for the speedo, or not?

That is good infor. I'd like to know where it's from, because my 1988 factory electrical manual doesn't have those charts in it. All these years I've thought the temperature gauge ran on the same 0 - 88 ohm range that the fuel gauge and oil pressure use. Live and learn!

Correct. The rear load sensing proportioning valve actually doesn't have any idea how much load you have, it adjusts based on the change in ride height. This is why Monroe doesn't list a Load-Leveler (coil-over) shock for the rear of the MJ. They have some that will fit, but the added load capacity of the coil-over shock reduces how much the bed drops, which means the height sensing valve won't increase the rear braking enough to compensate for the added load. The same applies to helper springs, air shocks, air bags, etc.