Eagle

Steven and daking: We need to know both the year of your MJs and the year of the swapped-in transfer case, AND we need to know if the donor vehicle for the transfer case had a disconnect axle or not. We also need to know if the axle you installed has the front axle disconnect and, if so, if you made it operational or if you locked it in the engaged position.

You mean other than a certain Comanche Club member (who will remain anonymous) who tried to run them behind a Buick 3800?

The 2.5L is 9.1:1 for the later, Chrysler versions, 9.2:1 for the AMC carbed and Renix versions. Not worth the work and expense to bump it to 9.5:1, and probably not worth even going to 10:1.

I would go with the 3.4, but I would NOT try to bore it -- unless it needs a basic .030 overbore for the rebuild. And I have no idea how you would stroke it. The 4.0L to 4.6L strokers are possible because the older AMC/Jeep 4.2L used the same block but had a longer stroke and smaller bore to achieve it's displacement. The 3.4L will be a significant improvement over the 2.8L -- especially if you set it up with the Camaro fuel injection, or even a good Weber carb. Don't try to push the envelope so far that you create an unreliable or short-lived engine.

That's not 3" of lift, then. "Lift" is a change upward from the factory ride height. How to measure that has been posted on here multiple times. Unless someone's amount of lift is compared to factory stock ride height, IMHO it doesn't mean anything because there's no point of reference for the "before" height. A number of years ago I fixed up an XJ for a former GF. The back was sagged about 3/4 of an inch. I did an AAL using the main leaves from another XJ. From the sagged condition the ride height went up 1-1/4", but 1/2" of that was sag removal. I actually gained 3/4" of actual "lift," and that's how I always describe it. I don't consider sag removal to be "lift." I'm also disappointed to find that more than one source of new "metric ton" springs seem to produce lift. They shouldn't. The factory MT springs had the same ride height as the standard springs. Any s-called metric ton spring that rides higher than the factory 4WD springs IMHO isn't made correctly, and should be sold as a lift spring rather than as a "metric ton" spring.

Does Clifford offer a manifold for the 2.5L? I thought of them, too, but I was just on Clifford's web site and the only parts I saw for the 2.5L were camshaft kits. Did I overlook something I should know about?

^^^ This. I can't imagine how you could convert a throttle body injected 4-cylinder to dual throttle bodies. If you run one injector, it might run too lean with the extra air, and if you run two it much not be able to shut down the fuel flow enough. With a multi-port injection, the injectors are totally independent of the throttle body, so no rewiring would be necessary.

I once bought a used 1968 AMX that had that sort of vibration. Turns out a previous owner had replaced the factory 390 engine (externally balanced flywheel) with a 343 (internally balanced, zero/neutral balanced flywheel). Swapping the flywheel for a 343 wheel solved the problem. So my guess would be that the torque converter is eitrher out of balance or installed wrong.

After-market tachometer?

I disagree. I've adjusted any number of steering boxes, and had only one box that was so trashed that it couldn't be improved by adjustment. However, the OP asked about "preload," and I'm wondering if that's what he really meant. The XJ and MJ boxes are the same as the ZJ box except for the ratio. They are a basic, GM Saginaw steering box. They have two adjustments, a worm bearing preload adjustment and an over center lash adjustment. I've never touched the worm bearing preload on a steering box in over 50 years of playing with them. The adjustment I usually make is the over center lash. This adjustment is made with the steering gear (which hopefully also means the steering wheel) in the straight ahead position. Before doing this adjustment, park with the steering straight ahead, turn off the engine but DON'T lock the steeering wheel, and see how much (if any) free rotation there is in the steering wheel. If you can move the steering wheel back and forth more than about 1/8 of a turn in each direction, you may be a candidate for a lash adjustment. The adjustment is the recessed (Allen head) screw in the top of the steering box, in the cover plate that's held on by three bolts. Put a box wrench on the locknut (I think it's a 14 mm or 15mm IIRC), put an Allen wrench in the adjusting screw to hold it in place as you loosen the lock nut, then loosen the lock nut. Once the lock nut is loose, you adjust the steering lash by turning the adjusting screw into the box. Be careful -- a little goes a long way. Turn it no more than an eighth of a turn, then check the steering wheel again. What you're aiming for it to take out ALMOST all the free play. If you over tighten it, as Dasbulliwagen posted, you'll destroy the box. [Not, however, for the reason he stated. In fact, the lash is tightest at the straight ahead position, which is why you adjust it there. It's looser when the steering is turned, so if you adjust it off-center, it will bind across the center and that's what destroys boxes.] Once you have ALMOST all the play adjusted out, sock down the locknut again and you're done. Just remember -- these are old-fashioned, recirculating ball steering boxes. They are NOT rack and pinion steering, and they will never be as tight as a rack and pinion steering gear. If you are judging your steering compared to a modern rack and pinion vehicle -- don't. You can't get it that tight ... period. There MUST be a small amount of lash in the over center adjustment to prevent binding up the steering box. However, +1 (+2?) on the caster. I picked up a 2001 XJ for my daughter. Steering had a lot of slop in it. I replaced all the tie rod ends and adjusted the box. Had it pretty good. Then I corrected the sagged rear springs. brought the back end up about 1-1/2" and now it wanders like crazy. That rear lift reduced the camber in front by about 1 degree, and I think that was enough to induce the wander. I need to shim the LCAs, but it's too cold to even think abut that until Spring.

Let us know what happens the next time you fill up.

Was the D44 ever offered with ABS? I believe Jeep introduced ABS for the XJ in model year 1989 but I don't know if that extended to the MJ and I don't know if it included the models with the D44 axle. I know in later years for the XJ, ABS was not available with the Chrysler 8.25" axle, only with the D35. (Don't know why.) Also, doesn't ABS require a sensor on each wheel? A wire from the diff housing doesn't sound like ABS.

Aren't you in Virginia? And isn't Virginia the only state besides Connecticut that does NOT allow forward-facing lights above the OEM headlights? Back when the first generation of Liberty came out, there was a model with a set of four OEM lights on the roof. The requirement in Connecticut was (and is) that those lights must be covered when the vehicle is on a public road. My understanding was that that model wasn't even sold in Virginia because the roof-level lights weren't allowed.

I know we had this discussion before, and I remember that you think it's better to break the law than to do it right ... so I suppose my posts here was more for the benefit of people who might prefer to know the difference and do it right. In the opening post to this thread you wrote: You use "fog lights" and "driving lights" interchangeably, and the two are not interchangeable. As for reporting that your driving lights "act as" fog lights -- that's simply impossible. If they act like fog lights, they are fog lights. More likely, what you have is driving lights that you use as fog lights, and since you probably don't drive much in fog you don't understand why they are a bad idea for that purpose. It sounds like what you really want/need are driving lights, so why not just install driving lights and do the installation properly?

Technically, "spot" lights would be "driving" lights, which are NOT the same thing as "fog" lights. Driving lights have a long, thin pencil beam that shines far down the road in front of the vehicle. Under federal (and many states') law, "driving" lights can only be used with high beams and they are supposed to shut off when you dip the headlights to low beam. However, "fog" lights are not the same as "flood" lights. Flood lights put the light out into a much wider pattern than spot lights, but it's still basically a round pattern that shines in a cone. That's not good for use in fog, and it's not good for on-coming traffic. "Fog" lights have a specialty pattern -- it's very wide horizontally, and very narrow vertically with a sharp cutoff at the top of the pattern. What many people don't understand is that fog lights are not driving lights, and they aren't intended to reach out and melt things half a mile in front of you. They are for driving in ... fog, which means they are optimized for lighting the road surface and the shoulder right in front of the vehicle without reflecting much light back from the fog. So they are aimed low. Under federal (and most states') law, "fog" lights are supposed to operate only with the low beam headlights and must switch off automatically when you flip the headlights to high beam. The Marchals used on the early XJs and MJs were true fog lights, and the factory wiring allowed them to operate only when the low beams were in use.

I believe AMC also used the Iron Duke in the 4-banger Eagle SX/4, which was in production at the same time that AMC was using the engine in the CJ.

I used to recommend Jo-Anne Fabrics, but I stopped into one a couple of months ago and couldn't find any headliner material. The store manager insisted they still carry it, but she and another clerk couldn't seem to remember where they have it ...

The 2.5L uses the same GM bellhousing bolt pattern as the 2.8L and 3.4L small V6s.

I have three of those, two black and one chrome. They are a somewhat ugly but utiliarian replacement and about the cheapest thing you can find, but they are not even close to matching the OEM bumper.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. You may not even need a new fuel pump. Siphon off enough gas to get the level below that hole in the tank. Then clean off all the gasoline residue. I would use carb cleaner first, followed by brake cleaner -- and then maybe wipe it down with alcohol. Mix up a bit of epoxy and press it tightly around the tubes to seal them to the flange. I used to use an epoxy that came in ribbon form. It had the consistency of clay. You tore off a strip, mixed the two colors together, then applied. That stuff would stick even to a surface wet with gasoline -- as I proved conclusively by doing it. The problem is, I haven't seen that product for sale for several years, and I don't know what epoxy to recommend in its place.

Before you buy a new tank -- be SURE the leak isn't where the metal tubes come through the fuel pump mounting flange. I made that mistake. I had a leak. I put in a shiny new tank, drove to the gas station to fill up, and just over the half tank mark it started peeing gas all over the place. A leak at that mounting flange is a very common problem -- perhaps even more common than needing a new tank.

Something isn't right. The Dana 44 wasn't offered in 1986. The '86 heavy-duty axle was the AMC Model 20. My old eyes are having trouble seeing your spring clearly, but that spring looks like a 3+1. I don't think that's a metric ton spring. I believe they were either 3+2 or 4+1, depending on year.

Happy New Year, y'all. Keep those MJs rolling.

No, I can't tell you why they say you can re-use them only once. I've lost contact with the last AMC factory engineer I knew several years ago. I would guess that taking them to the specified torque must be very close to the elastic limit and that it's just a risk to push your luck with them. There are three elements involved, any one of which can fail. There the bolt itself, that can be stretched beyond the elastic limit. Once that happens, it yields (stretches), and you lose the clamping force you're trying to develop. And then there are the threads, in both the block and the bolt. The shaft of the bolt is in tension as you torque it, but the threads are acting in shear. Steel has different limits for tension, compression, and shear. And the bolt alloy is likely different than the block alloy, so the limits are also probably different. Over-torquing or over-using the bolts may just strip the threads off the shank, or maybe strip the threads out of the block. I haven't seem either mode of failure in the flesh, but I have seen a head bolt literally pull the rear corner off the block. That was ugly -- you can't fix that with a helicoil. Don't get me wrong -- using new head bolts is always better. But the factory says they can be reused once, and I've rebuilt any number of engines using the original head bolts, including a couple of race engines, and didn't have any failures. I've never rebuilt the same engine a second time but, if I did, I would believe the factory engineers and not try to use the same head bolts a third time.

I don't like or dislike you. I don't know you. I DID, however, study graduate-level structural engineering and strengths of materials. And I read your links, how else would I have picked up that they are comparing new, lubricated bolts to used, dry bolts with damaged threads? Doesn't really matter if it's head bolts, u-bolts, wheel studs or any other bolt that has a specified torque. Except for torque-to-yield bolts, the specified torques are intended to generate the required clamping force while keeping the bolt within its elastic limit. And I think if you check the XJ or MJ FSM you'll find that the torques for both head bolts and u-bolts are specifically given as for "clean, dry threads." Lubricate them, and if you don't reduce the specified torque you run the risk of torquing the bolt beyond the elastic limit. That puts it into the plastic range, which is where you get permanent deformation.