Eagle

I didn't know it was 'shopped. Even so, it shows what an MJ would look like if stretched to accommodate 2-door XJ doors, and that was the question to which I was responding. Nice 'shop job -- one of these days I need to learn Photoshop.

As has been said, anything can be fixed -- the question is how much work and how many dollars will be needed. The way to repair it would be to buy a parts Cherokee, cut the frame stubs off both cabins, and wend the XJ front assembly onto the MJ cabin. A decent body shop could do that easily, but they have the necessary frame jigs to make it come out straight. The cost would be prohibitive. Trying to do it at home would be a monumental undertaking. Option number two might actually be less work, although it sounds counterintuitive. There was a guy who was very active in NAXJA-NAC in the early years. He had an '86 XJ, and he wanted a 4.0L. But he liked the rest of his vehicle. So his friend, who owned a small used car lot and shop, took an '88 or '89 XJ and sliced it in half just behind the A pillar. He did the same with Earl's '86. Then they grafted the newer front half onto the rear of the '86. You couldn't even tell it had been worked on. And it was plenty solid, because Earl wasn't shy about taking it off-road.

I believe this one has 2-door doors:

First time I ever heard of drop kit being called a "CAD." CAD is usually an acronym for Central Axle Disconnect. One more example of why it can be important to use words when trying to communicate. That said -- several companies have been offering control arm lowering brackets for years, and RRO did NOT invent the trailing braces. The '88 MJ I bought back in 2000 had a Trailmaster 4" lift in it with their control arm lowering brackets. It was good quality and it did what it was supposed to do -- but the front springs and the rear AAL were too stiff and it rode horribly. I removed the lift and gave it ti Frank the Dog, and I couldn't be happier.

KJ1H - I'm a couple of hours south of you, near New Haven. Let me know what you need -- I have "stuff" that may help fill in the blanks. (Like a rust-free, black driver's door ...)

Congratulations!

Another forum I belong to has an area for "Blogs." Like our shout box, I never even look at it. If I wanted to read blogs, I would go to a blog site. If I'm in a forum site to discuss, I'm in a forum site to discuss. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but it seems like the people/companies that create forum software think they have to be like a Swiss Army Knife of Internet software. IMHO we would be better off if they would just focus on making their forum software work better, faster, and more reliably.

Personally, I ignore it.

I'm in Connecticut. Our motor vehicle regulations don't allow for the tires to extend outboard of the bodywork. On both #1 and #2 they do. Connecticut also has a 4" limit on how much a vehicle can be raised above stock. That means body lift (which I know doesn't apply to MJs), suspension lift, and larger tires. Both #1 and #2 are much, much more than 4 inches higher than stock. Here's a link that summarizes the situation for the Northeast states: http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1010-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

I would say, "Best of luck to you," but we make our own luck so you don't need any more from me. A great many years ago, the first boss I worked for after getting my degree told me that one decision never matters in life. What matters is that, once you make a decision, you have to make all your subsequent decisions support that one. If you can do that consistently, you'll have it made.

Number 3 for the win. Not even remotely interested in an MJ that has been heavily modified and can't easily be returned to factory original configuration. FWIW, neither #1 nor #2 would be street legal in Connecticut -- but I wouldn't be interested if they were.

No. The '89 has a metric thread. The Purolator number is L14619 The oil filter base on the Jeep 4.0L engines is an adapter that's screwed to the block. You can remove the metric adapter and install an adapter for the 91+ engines and then use the L14670 filters.

I think it would just get you close to what newer vehicles with rack-and-pinion are like. The change to the ZJ box changes the steering from 3-1/2 turns lock-to-lock to 3 turns. Going to a 10:1 ratio would make it 2-1/2 turns lock-to-lock. It's definitely on my bucket list for when I win the lottery.

Following Don's advice, I snagged a box from a '98 ZJ when I needed to replace the steering box in the '01 XJ I picked up for my daughter. To my surprise, it needed quite a bit of adjustment on the over-center screw, and I still think it probably could use a bit of tweaking on the worm bearing preload, as well -- but I don't have a spanner wrench to fit that. It's pretty well dialed in now, and it is a modest improvement over the stock 14:1 XJ box. But I've decided if I ever need to replace the box in one of the good XJs or MJs, I'm going to call up AGR Steering and order one of their 10:1 boxes. Not a good choice for a truck with big tires that does rock crawling, but since I'm pretty much driving just on the street these days, I think I would be very happy with the 10:1 box. I'd prefer to buy it locally (Borgerson is just a few towns north of me), but Borgerson only offers the 14:1 and 12.7:1 ratios -- no 10:1 competition steering.

FYI, Clayton's is located not far from where I live, and his original location was even closer. I used to belong to the same off-road club he did and I've wheeled with him. Clayton is an industrial engineer, and he developed his longarm kit to stand up to his own rather "unique" style of wheeling -- which is not gentle. Then other members of the club started asking him to make kits for them, and it grew into a business. IMHO it's top notch stuff, and still probably the best longarm kit available. Not for me, because I'm not interested in lifing or modifying any of my Jeeps that much, but it's the way to go if that's what rocks your world.

That 2001 XJ probably has a cracked head, coolant in the oil, and trashed cam bearings....... I thought Jeep had fixed that head problem by 2001. Not so?

I think it's a great idea. Back in 1988 I chose to buy an XJ rather than an MJ solely because Jeep didn't have an extended cab version. If they had offered one, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. Sure it would be a lot of work, but you'd be the only kid on the block to have one.

It's almost gone now, so I'll say I hope y'all had a Happy Thanksgiving.

The '98 is a different animal. Starting in 1997, I believe, Jeep changed the transfer case output. On our MJs and older XJs, the front yoke slides into the tailshaft housing and the seal rides on the machined surface of the yoke. The newer style transfer case is sealed and the yoke just has a dust boot around it. Looks like you're trying to mix apples and oranges.

Wow! My experience has been the opposite. I have Sensa-Tracks (not the Load Leveler variety, just the shocks) on my '88 XJ. I can't even remember when I installed them, but it had to have been more than ten years ago, probably closer to twelve. They easily have over 100,000 miles on them. Still good.

"They" are wrong. As Shelbyluv posted, only the '86 engine room is different, because it was designed for the 2.8L Vs rather than the 4.0L I6. And it's really not even true for all '86 MJs, because toward the end of the '86 model run they started using the new firewall design. You have an '89, so that's not an issue for you.

Not if you're willing to do some work. What I have always done is take the block, crank and head to a shop and have them boil everything out, do the necessary machine work, and install the cam bearings. Then I bring it home and do all the assembly. It saves money, plus I have much more confidence in my own work than I do in anyone else's work.

If you have spark, you have power. Please try to be more specific about what the problem is.

I have a set of springs just like those in the photos. I also have a pair without the wear grooves. It seems Jeep made a change somewhere along the way (surprise!). The rebound clip design is basically the same for both sets, but where one leaves the spacer tube in intimate contact with the top surface of the main leaf, the other has taller vertical legs and leaves what appears to be enough space to add an additional leaf. The spacer tube seems to be there as a spacer, but the retainer straps are pretty heavy material. A suggestion to avoid further wear on those grooves might be to omit the spacer tube, and use nylock nuts on the cross bolts. That should leave enough clearance that there won't be additional rubbing.

Yes, the AutoZone listings ran from $115 to $150.