Eagle

But it will raise $$$. Just another tax. In Connecticut it was a loser. By statute, the fee for a test is $20 -- half to the testing station and half to the state. If you fail, the first retest is free. For an OBD-2 vehicle, the test is quick -- run the mirror underneath to verify that the cat is still there, plug in the scanner to the OBD-2 port, fire it up and read the numbers. For any pre-OBD-2 vehicle they have to physically do a pressure test on the fuel cap, they have to put the vehicle on a chassis dyno and actually run the vehicle through a prescribed series of operational parameters. And then do it again -- for free -- if the first test failed. I'm sure the shops doing the testing were losing money hand over fist, and even the knuckleheads in Hartford finally realized that all they were doing was causing testing stations to leave the program.

The clusters in the Renix years used a mechanical speedometer. The HO clusters (1991 and newer) used an electronic speedometer. That's the reason the clusters can't be interchanged. Worse, for some screwball reason, Chrysler not only changed the resistance range for the fuel sender, they also reversed the polarity, so if you were to ignore the speedometer and plug an HO cluster into a Renix chassis -- the fuel gauge would read backward. Back to Will7798 -- does the cluster function correctly other than the fuel gauge? If so, you should be able to bypass the printed circuit and "hotwire" the fuel gauge. All the signals coming into the cluster come through the rectangular connector that plugs into the left (as viewed from the driver's seat) side of the cluster. The fuel gauge makes contact with the printed circuit through the two screws on the back, the same ones that hold the gauge into the cluster. You should be able to get a couple of pieces of fince wire and mak jumpers to connect from the connector directly to the two posts on the back of the gauge. Do you have access to a wiring diagram to figure out which two wires to jumper?

Colorado tests '88s? I thought Connecticut was pretty bass-ackwards, but at least we have a 25-year window on emissions testing. Cars and light trucks (pickups) over 25 years old are exempt from emissions. You Colorado guys need to start talking to your legislators. Years and years ago, when Connecticut first started requiring emissions testing, I did some research to see when they should stop. I spent a day at Department of Motor Vehicle headquarters, going through registration records by year. What I found was that 98+ percent of car and light truck registrations were for vehicles less then ten years old. Then factor in that the vehicles being driven the most miles annually are probably those less than three or five years old, and it's easy to see that testing just a ten year window would take care of probably 99 percent of the vehicle miles driven. Testing 25-year old vehicles is just NOT going to save the planet.

High idle on the Renix 4.0Ls is usually caused by a dirty IAC, but there's another possibility, also. The throttle cable from the pedal through the firewall leads to a bellcrank assembly mounted down on the driver's side frame rail. From that bellcrank, there's a rigid arm that goes up to move the throttle plate. The pivot of that bellcrank assembly can get gunked up and/or rusted, and resist allowing the throttle to close fully at idle. On my '88 XJ I've had to hose it down with PB Blaster a few times to free it up.

That connector looks worse than "faulty" to me -- IMHO she's be broke.

Too late, I already shipped them back. The problem is that Rock Auto claims they are not the wrong part -- because the number on the package matches the number they list for the part. The fact that the upper mount is nothing like the factory part apprentlky doesn't mean anything if the number on the package is "correct." I guess I'm old-fashioned. To me, OEM replacement means it looks and fits like an OEM part. It doesn't mean "can be made to work (sort of) with some effort on the part of the buyer."

Or Helicoil it ...

You were supposed to send me a blue MJ and a black MJ several months ago. I've been waiting. Where are they? ;)

Corect. Especially wiuth an '86 2.5L this is a very real possibility. If you have conventional vee belts, you need a straight or direct drive water pump. If you have a serpentine belt, you need a reverse rotation water pump. They look alike on the outside and they both bolt up to the engine.

Hmmm ... Well, I'm not a happy camper. I just shipped the parts pack. By FedEx it cost me $16.59 to send the parts back, and I'm going to get a $20.17 refund. So I'm out about ten bucks to Rock Auto, I don't have the parts, and it's still going to cost me the same as it would have cost me if I had just gone to Auto Zone in the first place. I may give Rock Auto a second chance on something, some day. Right now, they're not looking very good to me.

Based on a lot of positive comments on this forum, I decided to try Rock Auto. I am sorry to report that my first experience has not been a good one. It's pretty difficult to screw up wiper blades -- if they're 18" long, they'll probably work. But my order also included a pair of rear hatch gas struts for the 2001 XJ, and those did not fit. The configuration of the upper (hatch) end attachment was completely different from the factory configuration. Rock Auto's automated return request site takes the attitude that because they say they sent the correct part -- the part must be the correct part. Therefore, they'll give me a refund for the cost of the struts, but I eat the return shipping. So I'm going to have to buy the struts from Auto Zone after all, plus I'm out the cost of shipping the incorrect parts back to Rock Auto. I am not a happy camper. Is this typical of them?

You're referring to the CVs from the Grand Cherokee, I assume? The late-model Cherokees still used u-joints. I believe the ZJ CVs are considered smoother but weaker than the late model u-joints.

I would certainly go for the 5-speed. You won't be able to use 5th gear for much of anything except highway cruise on level terrain, but it won't hurt anything to have it in there.

Relays are always worth grabbing, if they use standard relays for anything.

I dunno about more expensive. Ten or twelve years ago XJ and MJ D44s were selling for $500 to $600 and people were falling over one another to pay those prices. Since the 8.25" and 8.8" swaps have become more common, the bottom has fallen out of the D44 market.

No recent experience with Rusty's junk. "Once bitten, twice shy." My primary question is, how can you tell from looking at their kit (on their web site?) that they've tried to remedy "some" of the complaints. The complaints that I had and that everyone else I knew who tried Rusty's crap was that the quality wasn't there. At least one of the failures could have been fatal. I had one of his adjustable track bars on which the upper TRE wore out in a lot less than 10,000 miles. One of my friends in NAXJA/NAC didn't do quite that well -- on his, the threaded bung in the upper end broke the welds and pulled right out of the tube, leaving him with NO steering. It happened at low speed on a trail, so no injuries. What might have happened if it had decided to pull out on the highway at 65 MPH?

The wire in that photo does not look at all like a factory wire or a factory wire terminal.

The seat, that I agree with. The stock bench seat in my red '88 is badly bent/broken down on the outer edge. I think that's partially due to the 4" lift that was in the truck when I bought it. I'm 6'-1" and the lift put the seat at just the height that my entire weight had to slide over the extreme edge and outer front corner of the seat when entering or exiting the truck. Once I had removed the lift, my feet could reach the ground for a normal mount or dismount.

But it is NOT a characteristic of old Jeeps (or old vehicles of any description) unless most such vehicles exhibit the same behavior. I currently own an 87 MJ and two '88 MJs. Others that have passed through my hands include three 86s and an 89. My buddy down the road had an '87, another friend has an '89. A guy I work with has an '87. None of them exhibit sag to either side, and I can't recall ever seeing or hearing of one with significant sag to the driver's side. If it doesn't affect a significant majority of the vehicles, it isn't a "characteristic," no matter how badly one or two isolated vehicles might have failed.

Yes, and no. Or ... maybe. Yes, in that I can certainly read off the data, enter it on a spreadsheet, and chart it the same as the one I have already done. I guess I'll have to look up the formula for computing horsepower from torque, and see how that works out. Is this from yours, Don? What's the source of the stock readings? Ideally, I'm looking for factory numbers in order to compare different years on an even footing, but it would also be interesting to compare a real world example against the factory numbers to see how much the factory fudged the numbers. I'm having trouble reading it, though. Where is 1,000 RPM -- is it midway from zero to the first tick on the X axis (where the number is entered), or is the first tick 1,000 RPM?

Because the engine is operating FAR below the torque peak. You need to regear -- and since you mentioned future plans to lift and run larger tires, consider your choice carefully before acting.

If we're dealing in assigning "characteristics" on the basis of anecdotal observations ("I saw one like that last week and another one three years ago"), I'd say mid-80s Chevy pickups are MUCH more prone to suffering "characteristic driver's side sag" than MJs. Come on, people. The newest MJ around is 24 years old at this point. They ARE trucks. It's not realistic to criticize the design or construction when you're dealing with a truck that's two decades old and you have no idea who has been driving it or how badly it has been abused.

What is this "characteristic driver's side sag" to which you refer? Granted, I only own three MJs at the moment, but several others have passed through the Jeep farm, and I know a number of other people who own MJs. I've never once heard anyone complain about a "driver's side sag."

Looking for torque charts in response to the thread about towing capacity, I discovered that I don't seem to have any horsepower/torque charts for either the Renix or early HO 4.0L engines (or any of the 2.5L engines, for that matter). Worse, they don't seem to be available on the Internet. If any of you have any older Jeep literature that includes power graphs, I would very much like to get a scan or a photo so I can enter the data into a spreadsheet and create a set of graphs that are all the same size and scale so we can have them for comparison purposes. Ideally, I'd like graphs for the XJ or MJ -- I think the values are a bit different for the same engines in the YJ and TJ due to exhaust differences. But ... more data is better than less data, so I'll take anything I can get. If you have anything, drop me a PM and I'll give you an e-mail address to which to send it. Thanks

Agreed. And there is certainly the possibility that it's a 24-volt light. I'm going to be scrapping a couple of XJs this Spring. I can easily cut out a back-up light socket for you -- I don't have any plans to save the chassis wiring harnesses.