Eagle

So I guess the hot tip for WJ owners without hitches is to go on Craigs List, find a cheap universal hitch, slap it on and call for your $100 gift card and free factory hitch "replacement."

I disagree. The Pinto came out in 1968. The WJ came out thirty years later, LONG after the problems with the Pinto fuel tanks (and, incidentally, the problems with Crown Vic gas tanks) were known throughout the industry. But Jeep didn't want to have a spare time standing up in the cargo area like the Cherokee, and they didn't want the spare slung underneath like the Comanche -- so they stuck it under the cargo floor. That obviously meant they had to mount the gas tank pretty low, where it's particularly susceptible to damage. My WJ didn't last a year, but in the nine or so months I had it I was a bit safer because I had the Up Country (off-road) package, so my plastic gas tank had a steel skid protecting it.

31x10.50-15s, 3.07 gearing: 70 MPH is 2436 RPM in 4th gear, 1827 RPM in 5th gear. Chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHFuhGgj6dQDfzyfFJH5z7NCDLW2KX3ABQgAJr3lBvM/pub?hl=en&hl=en&output=html (The link to the chart is in the DIY forum area) That's based on actual tire manufacturer's revolutions per mile data, not a mathematical calculation based on unloaded tire diameter. Question: If you have an AX15, why are you asking about 4th gear? Don't you use 5th gear at 70 MPH?

I SOOOOOOOO want to drive some "roads" like that.

The speedometer "quill" (the piece on the lower end of the cable that holds the speedo gear) has to be indexed when you put it into the transmission or transfer case. How it gets oriented depends on how many teeth are on the speedo gear. If you didn't index it correctly, it's possible the two gears inside aren't making contact.

I didn't realize you were marrying into a complete family. Having done that, I can say with some authority that it makes life ... interesting. Congratulations.

If they're dry rotted and cracked after just four years, they must be pretty crappy tires.

Try pointing it slightly below horizontal. Think how it works. Normal (unloaded) the arm should be horizontal. There's a rigid rod from the end of the arm up to the chassis. Put weight in the bed. More weight needs more brakes. Bed goes down, rod goes down, axle stays at same height ==> arm goes down. I don't think so. More weight, bed goes down closer to the axle. So the stationary rod moves the valve arm up (not down) above horizontal to the axle to increase rear brake bias. So try pointing it slightly above horizontal. :doh: Don is correct. I was picturing the valve as mounted on the axle, not on the frame. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ...

Try pointing it slightly below horizontal. Think how it works. Normal (unloaded) the arm should be horizontal. There's a rigid rod from the end of the arm up to the chassis. Put weight in the bed. More weight needs more brakes. Bed goes down, rod goes down, axle stays at same height ==> arm goes down.

Did you follow the procedure for bleeding the bypass circuit, or did you just do a normal bleed at each wheel? Is the arm of your load-sensing valve horizontal?

Bad ground. When you turn on the lights, the filament doesn't have a good ground so it seeks one by back-feeding through the other circuit. Either clean up the grounds for the taillights, or replace the socket.

Tell me again why computer controlled EVERYTHING is such a great idea ... http://www.juno-news.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-jeep_recalling_206668_cherokee_suvs_for_wiper_defe-ap Static electricity from the wiper blades on dry glass can fubar the wipers? That's NUTS! What's wrong with a motor and a switch? It's been working for nearly fifty years. Haven't automotive engineers ever heard, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Not even an inch. 6/10s of an inch -- 28.3" diameter vs. 28.9" diameter. But what really counts is revolutions per mile. From data I compiled many years ago, a 225/75-15 turns 730 revolutions per mile, and a 235/75-15 turns 722 revolutions per mile. That's a difference of 1.1 percent. In real world application, if a 225/75-15 with 3.55 gears turns 2100 RPM at 65 MPH in 5th gear, a 235/75-15 will turn 2077 RPM at 65 MPH. You'll never notice the difference.

Not sure, but I think you need to burp it more.

That will put the height of the output basically exactly the same as it is now -- you're just adding a few feet of length. Are you counting on the bend over the axle to act like the inverse of a plumbing trap and create an air pocket to stop water from getting in? If the water is deep enough to be higher than that bend, and thus deep enough to do bad things to the engine, I don't think it will make any difference.

"225" is not a tire size. It's only one part of the size. You also need to know the profile ratio (the 70, 75, xx) part, and the rim size. Since you have an MJ, I guess we can live dangerously and assume that you have 15" rims. But those other two digits make a big difference. The largest factory tire size offered on XJ and MJs was a 225/75R15. That's what came on my 2000 XJ Sport. My wife's 2000 XJ Classic came with 16" rims. The factory tire size was 225/70R16. Note the change to a 70-series. The actual tire size, in diameter and in revolutions per mile, is the same as the 225/75R15. Yes, the 225/75-15s with 3.55 gears and a 5-speed makes a good combination. It's what the factory should have used, IMHO. The ridiculous gearing the factory used with the 5-speeds was chosen to beat some arbitrary fuel economy test. If you think about it, the factory combination has the engine turning over at 1821 RPMs at 65 MPH. That's well below the torque peak of the engine, and best economy is produced at the torque peak. With my '88 XJ 5-speed, I found the gas mileage didn't suffer if I "forgot" 5th gear entirely, and just drove on the highway in 4th. (Maximum legal speed around here is 65, and many highways through and around the cities it's 55. I wouldn't try the same experiment where the speed limit is 70 or 75. It wouldn't hurt anything, but I think that's about where the fuel mileage would start to drop off.)

:yes: Well, mine are still round, so I think you got cheated. Yes, I do like the original Wranglers. But -- again, not available in a 225/70R16 so I have to look for alternatives. Leaning more and more toward the Cooper Discoverer AT/3. I've had good luck with Coopers in the past.

Tee-hee!

To me, those are extremely offensive. They're mocking the flag. I'm sure they don't see it that way, but that's how I see it.

Just ... WOW! She be a keeper.

Not offered in 225/70R16. And the crap tires with the cracked sidewalls are Bridgestone Duellers. A friend had a similar issue with premature cracking of sidewalls on a set of Firestones a few years ago. I think I'll pass on them.

Not according to the Flag Code.

Not available in 225/70R16. Waffling between the AT/3 and the H/T

What the heck is the ATP? It's not even shown on Cooper's web site.

With a "hack-n-tap" any rebuild kit will work. The hack-n-tap kit is nothing but an output slip joint that terminates in a flange instead of a yoke, and it has a hole in the center so it can be bolted to the tailshaft. The transfer case itself is completely untouched (except for cutting the tip off the tailshaft).