Eagle

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.

They'll be "okay," but they won't be great. For reference, 3.73 gears with 31" tires is exactly the same ratio as a factory automatic with 3.54 gears on stock tires. My guess is that at highway speeds you will be cruising at well below the torque peak of the engine, and that your gas mileage will suck in 5th gear. Here: http://comancheclub.com/topic/27178-tire-size-gear-ratio-rpm/ You need to stop listening to "somebody," because "somebody" doesn't have a clue. You WANT the ratios of the two axles to match. It's when they DON'T match that you start grenading transfer cases. Finish what you already have in progress and then don't touch anything for at least six months. You call a shop that specializes in transmissions and transfer cases. But ... at the top of your post you wrote that you have a "272" transfer case. Never heard of it. What is it and what's it out of? XJs and MJs (except for 1986 and older) used either a 231 or a 242. Don't see why it won't work. My '88 MJ has a YJ Wrangler AX-15 and transfer case in it. With a slip yoke eliminator, you will need a new drive shaft with the slip joint in the shaft. You have two options for the new shaft: (a) You can have it made with the upper/forward end set up with a double Cardan joint, like the front driveshaft. If you do that, the rear pinion angle should be zero (pinion parallel to drive shaft) with the truck sitting at curb weight. If you prefer to use a single u-joint on each end (like stock), the pinion angle should be set parallel to the angle of the transfer case output shaft. All of which means you have to measure your truck. Nobody here can tell you what angle to use. How are you getting the rear tires to clear the frame? 12" tires are a problem with a Jeep axle, and the Ford is narrower. Are you running spacers, or wheels with a large offset? I'll be blunt -- if you wanted worry-free, you should have left it stock. The more you modify, the more opportunities you create for problems.

You can still buy the OEM replacements at Pep Boys -- just not the longer/deeper versions of them. I agree on chrome-plated. They're okay in places like Tucson, but here in the rust belt it only take one winter to kill them deader than last week's fish.

Nope, they are (were) not unique. I bought my '88 XJ new -- it came from the factory with standard AMC 1/2x20 lug nuts with the stainless steel, crimped-on caps. A long time ago I saw some that were the same type (crimped-on caps) but a little taller -- but they were aftermarket, at a Pep Boys. And I've been back several times hoping to find them again, because I liked them. Alas, they have disappeared. "He who hesitates is lost."

They shouldn't. MT springs are supposed to ride at the same height as standard springs, unloaded. They just have more carrying capacity. If aftermarket "metric ton" springs result in lift -- they weren't made correctly.

Using a second set of main leaves in an XJ for an AAL usually results in a lift of 1-1/2". The one time I did it, using a set of older donor leaves in a spring set that was sagged 1/2" below stock, I got a total lift of 1-1/4", resulting in a net gain of 3/4" higher than stock. I think you're on the right track.

What difference does it make? The hitch is the same for both.

Your symptoms sound like a ground problem in the lights. As far as I know, the fuse panel is the same for the 2.5L and 2.8L -- within the same year vehicle. I don't know if or how much the fuse panel changed from one year to another. But I don't think the fuse panel is your problem.

http://comancheclub.com/topic/44109-swb-hitch/

Rusty deals mostly with XJs, so unless it says the AAL is for an MJ, it's rated for an XJ. XJ springs start out nearly flat, because they are SOA from the factory. MJ springs start out with an arch. For reference: Rancho also lists the same AAL for both the XJ and the MJ. Unless they have revised their catalog, the listings claim 2-1/2 inches for the same AAL in either an XJ or an MJ. I wasn't buying that, so I called Rancho, and eventually I was connected with a product engineer. She understood my question, but she didn't know the answer. She put me on hold and went off to talk to someone else. Eventually, she came back and said that the AAL generates 2-1/2" of lift in an XJ, and about 1-1/2" in an MJ. Based on that, for Rusty's AAL I would expect to see 2" to 2-1/2" in an MJ. If you're looking for more than that, go ahead and try it with both the long and short AALs. But I wouldn't scrap the overload leaf -- it's also useful to control spring wrap.

Oh, yeah. Sign me right up to let a bunch of people I don't know wrench on my Jeep, and then keep it for four to six WEEKS doing God only knows what to it. Sounds like a great deal to me (not).

Is Rusty's AAL rated for 3-1/2" in an MJ, or in an XJ? If it's the latter, expect about an inch to an inch and a half less lift in an MJ.

The power steering doesn't change the turning radius -- that's set by the stop on the steering knuckle. Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.borgeson.com/xcart/catalog/New_OEM_Saginaw_525_Box_161-p-1732.html

By steel, do you mean rigid (hard) lines (which won't work) or are you thinking of braided stainless steel lines? The braided stainless lines are nothing more than rubber lines with a braided cover. Nice for a show vehicle, but there's no particular advantage to them on a truck that gets driven.

So????????????? Price?

Especially not when there's a (comparatively) easy work-around. One of my friends in NAXJA-NAC did it about ten years ago. On the early fenders, the "vertical" side surface doesn't roll smoothly into the "horizontal" top surface -- there's a flat bevel between them. On the 97+ fenders there is no bevel -- the upper corners of the header are round, and the transition from vertical to horizontal on the fenders is round. What Bob did was to use bondo to fill in the voids in the back up the upper corners of the header. Made it completely solid. Then, when he bolted the new header onto his old-style fenders, he just took a grinder and shaved down the corners of the header to blend with the beveled profile of the fenders. If you didn't know what he did and how he did it, you would never guess that it was a kludge.