Eagle

You are correct. We DO want a good anti-drainback valve, and the good filters mentioned all have one.

Very messy. Those were partial flow filters, IIRC. That last partial flow filter I saw (not the toilet paper type) was in my father's 1962 Rambler. They didn't run the entire oil circulation through the filter, only a bypass circuit. So only some of the oil was filtered as it flowed through the engine, and as the filter became obstructed by gunk less and less oil went through the filter -- at the time when the oil was dirty and it was most important to be filtering it. Dunno whoever thought that was a good idea, but he should have been shot at dawn.

So youse wanna know about erl filters, eh? Ask and ye shall receive: http://minimopar.net/oilfilters/index.html

It's the easiest car to hack: http://www.komando.com/happening-now/265593/the-top-three-most-hackable-cars-in-the-world

Removing the spring and pushing the piston permanently forward accomplishes the same thing, and you don't have to worry about the spring. Or I may remove both the spring and the rubber cup washer. Once the cup washer is gone, there's no reason I can think of to keep the spring in there.

The 4.0L was introduced in the 1987 model year, and NO 2.8L V6s were used after 1986. Something about the story behind this vehicle doesn't add up.

The MJ distribution block does not act as a proportioning valve, because the rear height-sensing valve takes care of that. BUT ... the MJ distribution block also has a by-pass circuit so that, if the front brakes fail when the rear is unloaded (and therefore getting very little braking through the rear proportioning valve), the bypass circuit sends full pressure to the rear brakes. If you eliminate the distribution block entirely and run direct from the master cylinder, you'll always have full pressure to both the front and the rear. But you won't have any warning light if there's a problem in either circuit. In an unloaded pickup, full pressure to the rear brakes may be too much, and can cause skids and spin-outs. If that's the case, you can buy the Wilwood adjustable proportioning valve and install that in the rear brake circuit. You still won't have a warning light, and if the Wilwood is adjusted for light loads, you won't automatically get increased braking when you load the bed with roof shingles.

Not Cruiser, but the stock metering block (MJ) or proportioning valve (XJ) serves a second function: It's also the actuator for the brake failure warning light. If you eliminate it, you won't have any brake warning system. The way the proportioning function works in the XJ/ZJ version, the forward part of the valve is the part that feeds the rear brake circuit. That plug you see on the front (or nose) of the block has a rubber gasket inside, and there's a brass plunger that has a sliding shank that seals against this gasket. Then there's a heavy spring, and behind the spring there's a flange and a rubber cup seal. At rest, the cup seal blocks brake fluid from going to the rear brakes, so under light braking the fronts do ALL the work. Under severe braking, the hydraulic pressure finally gets high enough to seal the cup in the bore and force the piston forward against the spring. This opens the port to the rear brakes and allows them to do some work. And that's why I don't like the system. There's no danger of spinning out under light braking. Under heavy braking, a lot of weight transfers onto the front wheels, making it harder for them to skid, and OFF the rear wheels, making it easier for them to skid. So what the XJ proportioning valve actually does is not allow the rear brakes to work EXCEPT for the conditions when you really need to limit the braking force to the rear wheels. The other problem with it is that, since the piston only moves under heavy braking (did I mention that the spring is STRONG?), if you drive sanely and never get to panic stop pressures in the system, the cup seal may not move for years. The crud in the brake fluid builds up around it and locks it in place. At that point, you have NO rear brakes -- ever. My '88 XJ hasn't had rear brakes for three or four years. I tested it in snow -- rolling at about 10 or 15 MPH, I opened the door to watch the rear wheels (in a deserted parking lot) and slammed on the brakes. The fronts locked up and skidded. The rears just kept rolling. I think when I get Old faithful back on the road I'll just pull the spring out of the proportioning valve and leave it so I always have rear brakes. I can deal with that.

Look at the two photos in Hornbrod's post #60. The upper ones are Spidertrax. Do you see that ring around the center hole, inside the lugs? That ring (or flange) is the same size and diameter as the projection of the actual hub through the drum or rotor. The center hole of the wheel fits snugly onto this flange, allowing the flange to support the vehicle's weight and the lug and lug nuts only have to hold the wheel on the hub. On the back side, the side that mates to the vehicle's axle, the center hole has a small depression milled around it to allow it to fit snugly onto the hub flange of the axle. Now look at the lower photo. Notice that the outer face is completely flat/flush, from the outer edge right in to the center opening. No flange. Nothing to key into the center hole of the wheel. Don't buy them. If you can't afford to do it right, don't do it until you save some more money.

If you have the rear proportioning valve in place and operational, use the original MJ distribution block. The XJ unit is also the proportioning valve, and I can't make myself think of any reason why it would be a good idea to have two proportioning valves in the system, fighting for supremacy. To be honest, the more I think about how the XJ proportioning valve works, the less I like it for ANY application.

Yes. All direct fit. No. It's all exactly the same. Possibly a bit, but IMHO not enough to consider them an upgrade. The real braking improvement in the newer XJs over the early XJs and MJs is the double diaphragm brake booster -- which isn't part of the front end. Direct fit. NO! The hub/bearing units are different and cannot be interchanged. The rear is a bit trickier due to the matter of relocating the perches. The front will be a direct, bolt-in replacement so there's nothing to be nervous about. Just remember down the road that anything for the front axle has to be ordered by the year of the axle, not the year of your MJ. (That refers to brake pads and rotors, hub/bearing units, and ball joints.)

Dunno. I currently have an 87 Pioneer, and 88 SporTruck, and an 88 Chief. I had an 86 XLS and another 86 that I don't recall the model of.

Blazer were definitely not factory. Blazer is what Wal-Mart sells (or used to sell). Not even close to being OEM quality.

Think SERIOUSLY about how you'll be using the truck. Remember, the forward end is the same as an XJ. Ed Stevens, an early member of NAXJA and a very experienced off-roader (and off-road racer, IIRC), put a lot of effort into exercising the front suspension of the XJ to determine an optimal tire setup. What he found was that 31x10.50s on factory alloy rimes will tuck up inside the fenders when the suspension compresses, allowing full suspension travel. However, if you add 2" or even 1-1/4" spacers in the front, you create a situation where 31" tires WON'T tuck up inside, they'll hit the flares and sheet metal. Then you have to cut, or install much taller bump stops to limit the amount by which the suspension can compress.

Which is where they belong. Why is that a bad thing? What are the laws in your state? When I bought my '88 MJ the previous owner had removed the flares and crudely hacked out the mounting flanges. Within two weeks after putting it on the road with 31" tires, I got a ticket for having the tires extending beyond the body. Worse -- I was getting ready to leave for a trip, and I had ten days to fix it and get it reinspected.

Don, is that shown on their web site? I looked, and I didn't see any reference to different kits.

You would also have to give up your HESCO CPS relocation kit, I believe.

I don't think now is the time to decide between Renix and HO. Thew time to decide would have been before you bought the HESCO relocation kit. The size, shape and distribution of the notches and bumps on the flex plates are different between the Renix and the HO because the CPS for each operates on a different principle and generates a different type of signal. The relocation kit would have to be configured similarly. The problem is, the information on HESCO's web site doesn't say if the kit is Renix or HO. Before making a decision, I'd suggest contacting HESCO to find out. My guess is that, since these kits were offered by HESCO before the HO came to exist, the relocation kit is going to be a Renix-only affair.

How's the fuel filter? It's a round canister mounted to the driver's side frame rail, roughly under the driver's seat. Not expensive, and probably due to be replaced since most people don't know it's there.

I would guess that for the Renix era and for MJs, the percentage of 4.0L 5-speeds would be significantly higher than 30%. In fact, having spent a lot of time hanging around the dealership where I bought my '88 XJ, I'd say the percentage is higher than 30% for XJs, as well (for the Renix years, anyway). The percentage of vehicles with automatics became steadily higher as fewer and fewer people knew how to drive a manual transmission.

Getting back to the original post: Maybe I'm losing my sense of spatial orientation but ... does a tapered shim in that position do ANYTHING to change the caster or camber angle? I need to go out and look more closely at my pile of old axles, because I don't think that shim does anything other than to make the front end dangerous.

That depends on your definition of "superior." As far as trim level, the Eliminator was a higher-level model than the Chief. But in its first year (1989? 1990?) the Eliminator was only available as a 2WD. After that, it was also available in 4WD and was, without question, the top model. Below the Eliminator came the Chief and the Pioneer. Aside from exterior decals, they were pretty much the same. The Chief was just tricked out to look a bit more "off-roady," whicle the Pioneer was trimmed out more like a daily driver. Below those two were the Base and SporTruck -- and I believe in the years when there was a "SporTruck" by model, that actually was the base model. 1986 was a completely different series, with X being the base model, XLS being the top of the line, and something else in between. (XL, maybe?)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the 3.07 was all that came with the 4.0 5spd. That is a pretty "common ratio." The 3.55 came in most XJs on up through '01 and are a dime a dozen around here. There is literally a pile of them at one of yards here....your pick for $125 all day long. The 3.55 ratio was standard for all 4.0L XJs and MJs with the automatic. 87MJTIM is correct, the 3.07 ratio was used with the 4.0L 5-speed through the entire production run of the XJ and MJ, from 1987 through 2001. I would call that a "common" axle.

Pretty ugly, IMHO. And I hope you are aware that the MJ rear wheel arch openings are larger than the XJ, so the rears probably won't work.

The factory mounted them to the lower radiator cross brace, in front of the a/c condenser.