Eagle

I've posted this before but, rather than try to link to it, I'll repeat it. This is directly from the MJ FSM: Jeep tech note I.S. 14E explains how to check the ride height on a Comanche. They use the chassis and suspension not the hubs and flares Front: ------ Measure vertical distance between top of axle tube (looks like just inboard of the LCA mount) to the under side of the frame rail. For the passenger side, measure from the axle tube just outboard of the vacuum disconnect housing. For 2WD models the distance should be 6-3/4" +/- 1/2". For 4WD models the distance should be 7-3/4" +/- 1/2" Rear: ------ Measure from the top of the axle tube to the underside of the frame rail inboard of the rubber bump stop. For 2WD models the distance should be 8.2" +/- 1/2". For 4WD models the distance should be 9.2" +/- 1/2" The quick way to measure for the front is to measure straight up from the canter of the wheel/axle to the bottom edge of the flare. A stock ride height should measure 17-1/2 inches. (Newer XJs with the Up Country suspension option are at 18-1/2, but the older XJ FSM doesn't make any mention of an optional ride height.) I've never quite pinned down what the "stock" height is for an MJ using the hub-to-flare method. Based on some quick measurements of a couple of MJs that may or may not have been sagged, I think it's around 21-1/2 inches, but I think it would be great if someone would jack up an MJ from the chassis until the height from the axle to the frame is exactly 9.2" and then measure from the hub center to the flare. I think I would be very disappointed if I spent the money for new springs, with assurances that they are NOT lift springs, and I ended up any higher than stock height. I don't know why spring makers can't figure that out. A friend of mine down the road had a reputable local spring shop rebuild his MJ springs, both of which had broken leaves. My friend used the truck to haul firewood, so he also had an extra leaf added to each spring for load capacity, but he specified that he didn't want lift. He got about 4 inches of lift. He got a LOT of extra carrying capacity, but the truck looked stupid IMHO. My friend was able to convince himself that he liked it, but I would have been exceedingly upset.

I've been trying to stay out of this topic but, since it is now deteriorating, I'll just chime in with the official Olde Pharte's pouint of view, which is: WHY does anyone think that larger injectors are in any way an "upgrade"? The factory engineers size the injectors as they do for a reason (probably more than one reason). True, they are designing for the "average" range of drivers and driving conditions, but most of us never exceed those parameters anyway. How could the factory injectors NOT provide enough fuel flow, in anything other than a full race engine on a track? The smallest factory injectors were the Renix injectors ('87 - '90), which were rated (IIRC) for 19.2 pounds per hour. That's PER INJECTOR. So if you were to find a way to run those injectors to wide open and 100% duty cycle, each injector would provide 19.2 pounds of fuel per hour. The 4.0L is a 4-cycle engine, so for each revolution there are three intake events and three exhaust events. At 5,000 RPM, which is the practical redline for the 4.0L engine, in one minute we have 15,000 injector squirts. In one hour, we have 15,000 x 60 squirts, which is 900,000 squirts. If EACH injector can provide 19.2 pounds per hour, and there are six injectors working, that means a theoretical 115.2 pounds of fuel per hour. Gasoline has a density of approximately 6 pounds per gallon. 115.2 divided by 6 is 19.2 gallons per hour. In rough terms, that means an entire tank of gas every hour. Does ANYONE use anywhere near that much gas? Let's say you cruise at 75 MPH and get 15 MPG. 75 MPH means in one hour you travel 75 miles, and at 15 MPG that means in that hour you burn 5 gallons of gas, or 30 pounds of fuel per hour. There are six injectors working, so each injector only has to flow 5 pounds per hour. If they are rated to flow 19.2 pounds per hour -- I think there's enough "overhead" flow capacity to handle those short intervals where you accelerate to 4,000 or 4,500 RPM as you go through the gears. I dunno. I'm simply puzzled. A number of years ago a professional drag racer named Bob Salemi (an early member of NAXJA) built a pro race Comanche with a very modified engine. When he put it on the dyno for pre-season testing, it ran like crap. He tried (almost) everything, and it kept running like crap. Finally, the dyno guy checked the air-fuel mixture and suggested SMALLER injectors. BINGO! That was the answer. Remember: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

^^^ Agreed.

Several years ago I was told by one of the better mechanics at my Jeep dealership (which is an old-line Jeep dealer, not a Chrysler or Dodge dealer that woke up one day also selling Jeeps) that the difference between the NV 3500 and the NV3550 is that one has an integral bell housing and the other has a separate bell housing. Unfortunately, I don't remember which is which, nor have I had any way to verify or contradict that information.

If there's an automotive paint store near you and the truck is driving, take it to the paint store. They can match the paint by scanning it with some kind or magic meter thingie. They can also make up aerosol can's with the custom color if you don't want to mess with compressors and spray guns.

Remove the cable holder from the transfer case and install the sender in its place.

You might try Pennzoil Synchromesh in the yellow bottles. Has anyone actually tried it? I plan to but have not done so, but I have seen favorable reports and I haven't read anything negative about it.

Not factory. Bubba.

Cherokee ==> floor shift. I can't think of any way changing the steering column on an XJ could possibly affect the transmission shifting.

And you would be wrong. The AMC Model 20 is a VERY strong axle and differential -- equal to or possibly stronger than the Dana 44. The weakness in CJs was that the outer hubs were not forged as an integral part of the axle shafts, the shafts had a tapered spline and the hubs were then bolted on. Under sufficient torque, the splines would strip and you'd be left with a free-wheeling hub. The Model 20 used in the 84-86 XJ and the 86 MJ used one-piece shafts with the hubs being an integral part of the axle. It's VERY difficult to break one of those. The biggest disadvantage is that it's physically large, which affects ground clearance. Second, there's not nearly as much aftermarket support for the AMC 20 as there is for the D44.

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.