Eagle

The angle of the transfer case output relative to the ground will change if you lift one end. Of itself, this DOESN'T MATTER. The angle of the (rear) drive shaft relative to the ground will change. Of itself, this DOESN'T MATTER. Let's not confuse the guy. The ONLY thing that matters is that the angle ouf the transfer case to the drive shaft (forward u-joint operating angle) should be the same as the angle of the drive shaft to the pinion angle (rear u-joint operating angle). Equal u-joint operating angles on both ends of the drive shaft is what we're trying to achieve/maintain. That's for the rear. The front drive shaft has a double-cardan joint, and that's a different animal.

To help what? You don't know what's wrong, so how can you figure out what may help? A quart of oil in 500 miles is a symptom of a MAJOR problem. I think either your rings aren't seated, or the cylinder walls are scored. You can't figure out which without removing the head and inspecting the cylinder walls.

The rear lift will change the operating angles on the rear drive shaft u-joints, but not the front. A subsequent lift of the front will change the angle of the rear drive shaft relative to the ground (which doesn't matter), but not with relation to the relative operating angles of the two u-joints (which is what does matter). However, lifting the front will change the front u-joint operating angle.

Drive it. Don't go over 50 MPH for the first 100 miles or so, then for the next thousand drive gently, and avoid staying at one speed for protracted periods. I like to do an oil and filter change at 500 miles, but that's probably overkill. Ask your uncle if he coated the cylinder walls with assembly lube before he put the engine away. Not motor oil -- assembly lube. Something sticky and thick enough that it would stay in place for eight years and provide critical lubrication for the rings when you first started it up.

I disagree. Valve seals smoke on compression braking, when vacuum is high. Rings smoke on acceleration.

My next step would be to figure out what ratio your rear axle is. The most accurate way is to remove the cover and count gear teeth on the ring gear and the pinion. Divide the tooth count from the pinion into the ring gear count, and that's your ratio. You don't have the new tachometer hooked up? I also like the idea that it's in low range. With 3.07 gears and 31" tires, 55 MPH would be 1914 RPM in 4th gear and 1435 RPM in 5th gear. That's barely above idle. BUT ... multiply that by 2.72 (the low range ratio) and now you get 5206 RPM in fourth (that really is maxed out -- we have a 5500 RPM redline), and 3903 RPM in 5th.

Cherokee springs are clearly NOT "inferior" to Comanche springs. They are made to the exact same standards, and the leaves are the same steel and the same thickness. However, they are designed from the outset to be SOA, so they are designed to run basically flat at curb weight. The concept is simple. As my structures professor expressed it in grad school, "Stress goes where there's material there to resist it." So ... add another leaf to a 4-leaf spring, and you increase the carrying capacity by 25 percent. Add another leaf to a 3-leaf spring and you increase the carrying capacity by 33 percent. What you are griping about is just the arch. What happens if you add another leaf with the same unloaded arch is that you get more capacity but you also get lift. In an XJ, when a second set of main leaves (with the eyes cut off) is used as an AAL, it results in about 1-1/2 inches of lift. Do the same thing to an MJ using another pair of MJ main leaves, and you'll get about the same amount of lift, or maybe a bit more. That's fine if you want lift, but what if (like me) you want the added capacity but DON'T want lift? The way you do that is to add an extra leaf that is arched as close as possible to the MJ springs when they are in the truck and sitting at curb weight. When you do that, the new leaf just takes up space, but isn't doing any work. However, as soon as you start to add load, now the new leaf is also deflecting, so it's adding carrying capacity. I need to hold a loose XJ spring pack up under one of the MJs to see how close the arch is. I'm betting it's pretty close. If I'm right, XJ main leaves should make excellent MJ AALs. But not if you want lift. Not everyone wants lift.

With that low mileage, either the rings haven't seated yet, or it wasn't broken in properly and the rings and/or cylinder walls are scored. 3500 miles should be more than enough to seat any set of rings, so I'll lean toward scored cylinder walls. IMHO there's no way to fix that without tearing down the motor to see what's going on inside.

No, they aren't different. I have the new style knob in my '88 MJ. Same thread -- no adapters.

Yes you will need the later flywheel. I believe you will also need a new fuel pump -- I think the operating pressures are quite different. Why would you need to change the speedometer? Yours is mechanicsal and it's driven by the transfer case -- it has nothing to do with the injection.

Do they still use the same style of mounting? I'm just thinking they are going to crack when they get old as well and a big bump or something could knock them loose. The base mounts to the door the same way, but the hinge mechanism is completely different.

Take off the old, put on the new. Yes, it just spins on. The knob itself has an inside thread. There is a recess under the shift pattern medallion for the lock nut. In fact, on the '88 MJ I never got around to installing the medallion -- I left it off because I knew I'd be working on the truck and I didn't want to gouge the new knob prying the medallion off -- and now I have no idea where I put it for "safekeeping."

The wiring diagram may be difficult. I have the 2000 XJ FSM -- the wiring diagrams occupy about 150 pages! :eek:

The one for the 97+ Cherokee also fits the TJ Wrangler. I have it in my 2000 XJ 5-speed, and I retrofitted my '88 MJ after failing to glue the factory knob together with epoxy. I like the new style much better than the early style, for comfort of operation as well as for longevity.

^^^ What he said.

I'm ahead of the curve -- I have a bunch around here with the stainless caps "pre-removed." It's an inevitable result of "technicians" pounding them on and off with impact guns.

The answer is obviously yes, since essentially the Metric Ton springs just have one more leaf than the standard springs. The tricky part is getting the proper thickness and arch to the added leaf so it increases carrying capacity without increasing ride height. About three years ago a good friend picked up a well-used (actually, I guess abused is not so well used) '87 MJ. Each rear spring had a broken leaf in it, so he took the springs to a local spring shop to have the broken leaves replaced. He wanted the truck for hauling firewood (he heats his house with a wood stove), so he also asked to have an extra leaf added. Supposedly, he told the spring man he only wanted capacity, not lift. Well ... he got lift. I never measured it, but according the Mark I, Mod 5 hairy eyeball the lift was at least 2 inches, and probably closer to 3". He was happy with that ... I would not have been. I need to get an XJ spring under an MJ and hold it up next to the MJ spring. What I expect to find is that the unloaded XJ spring is going to have about the same arch as the installed MJ spring. If that's true, then it should be possible to add the XJ main leaf (with the eyes cut off) into the MJ pack without creating additional lift. But the extra leaf would add carrying capacity. How much -- don't know.

If the tranny mount was destroyed, are you sure the engine doesn't need a rear main seal?

Remember what Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

Rockwells, obviously. Go Rockwell or go home.

I don't know what that is or where you got it, but I have the Jeep factory parts listing up in front of me as I type. For the years 1987 - 1990, which includes the turbine wheels, the parts manual shows me the base steel wheel, the triangular slotted steel wheel, the honeycomb alloy wheel, the 5-spoke alloy wheel, the Gambler alloy wheel, and the turbine alloy wheel. For ALL of those, the parts listing shows the same lug nut. There is only one -- and the one in your photo isn't it.

Are you putting it in 4WD on pavement? If so -- DON'T!

You won't read anything that's relevant to your plans, because IMHO your plans are totally unrealistic. The MJ doesn't have a frame in the front, it has a unibody. You start running that size tires and jumping it over rocks, and you'll destroy the unibody in about a week. There's a reason the Baja trucks and prerunners all use vehicles that have separate frames -- they can reinforce the frame and/or tie a cage into it for stiffening. By the time you get done, you won't have anything that's ever recognizable as a Comancge, so why are you gong to destroy a truck that's no longer being made? Sell the MJ now, and go buy a Ranger, S-10, Colorado, or Dakota. Or, better yet, a full-size pickup.

This is absolutely incorrect. I have four or five sets of the factory turbine wheels, and I've been driving on them for 25 years. They use the AMC-standard 1/2x20 lug nuts with the tapered seat. Like these: NOT these:

Yeah -- if you add about three feet of lift.