Eagle

:doh: ABS ... of course. "Royalex" is ABS. http://www.amazon.com/Plasti-Mend-Plastic-Repair-Holding-Tank/dp/B003JC3UB2 http://plasti-mend.com/ http://www.plastex.net/index.php?pr=Repaired_Photos

what are, the link or the 3 different seals and the 2 different designs? Redwolf The three different seals and two designs. The original AMC hub/bearing units could be serviced -- you could purchase new bearings and seals, and rebuild a hub. The cost of all the parts was about the same as the cost of a complete new hub, so very few people ever did it -- and it required a 12-ton shop press to do the work. Chrysler changed the design, and the later ones are not considered to be user serviceable. Parts to service ONE 4WD front hub (1984 - 1989): And here's an exploded view of the front axle, with the front hub itself opened up to the individual parts:

Those are for the 4WD hub/bearing assemblies.

They aren't made of fiberglass. You need a repair kit for Royalex. (That's a trade name -- I don't remember what the generic name is for the stuff.)

Rear flares (plus the brackets and interior liners if possible) Rear bumper? Headliner Fuel pump and gas sender Actually, I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you just want to know what else you might need for the 4WD conversion, or are you asking what else on the truck is worth grabbing? If the latter, remember -- the last MJ was made 22 years ago. Junkyards are the ONLY source for a great many parts.

Tail lights Tail gate Spare tire winch? Fuse panel

I say again: Friends don't let friends use Fram oil filters.

I don't think any sensors are involved, if we're talking about a cold start. The Renix ECU ignores most (or all) sensor inputs and operates on a hard-programmed fuel-air map until the block coolant temperature sensor sees a temperature of 165 degrees or higher, after which it switches to operating in closed loop mode and responds to sensor inputs.

But Wally World sells Fram filters, and friends don't let friends use Fram oil filters. Advance Auto and Pep Boys both stock the correct, metric oil filter for the 87-90 4.0L in both Purolator and Purolator Premium grades.

I have a ton of empirical evidence. I have one 1988 XJ that had the C101 removed and spliced. I have one 1987 XJ that still has the C101, a 1987 MJ that still has the C101, and two 1988 MJs that still have the C101. The 1988 XJ that had it replaced doesn't run any better than the four that still have it. That's empirical evidence. I have no problem with anyone cutting out the C101 if they have the time and inclination to do so. If there are electrical issues that affect circuits running through the C101 it's an obvious place to check. I just don't see it as being a necessary item of work for people who aren't having problems.

This is a VERY unfair comparison, because the first photo does not show an undisturbed C101. It shows a rat's nest of loose wires after someone has ripped them out of the C101.

I am suggesting that it might solve some problems if you are having problems, but it won't accomplish anything if you aren't having problems. My own experience clearly demonstrates the wisdom of the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't see how my experience in any way makes me "fortunate." I wasted $500 on being conned into having the shop perform a "fix" that didn't fix anything. How is that fortunate?

Interestingly enough, although there was a TSB covering removal of the C101 connector that came out around 1989, whether or not it makes any difference is very much random. I bought my 1988 XJ new in January 1988. Soon after I bought it, the dealership was sold. I didn't like the new ownership or the new service manager, so I tried another long-time Jeep dealer that was actually closer to home. On one trip in for something unrelated, the service manager told me about the TSB for the C101 and he strongly suggested that I have it done. He claimed it would make the engine start faster, give me better gas mileage, improve emissions, and cure "early morning drive-off stall." So I had the work done. The shop charged me $500 for it ... and it made ZERO difference in how the vehicle ran. No difference whatsoever. When I later mentioned to the service manager that I was disappointed because I had not seen any of the improvements he predicted, he told me he never said that. The same shop also charged me for an oxygen sensor replacement that was covered by a recall notice. It took me almost a year to get reimbursed for that. Needless to say, I stopped going to that dealership. My '88 MJ still has the C101 and it runs just as well as the XJ.

Seems pretty simple to me. Did it shake at 60 MPH with the old tires? No? Shakes at 60 MPH with the new tires? Yes? That's what we call a "clue." FWIW, tire balance problems (as opposed to true death wobble) seem to almost always start to kick in somewhere between 55 MPH and 60 MPH, and then disappear above 65 MPH. If your shake is in the range, IMHO there's about a 99.87 percent probability that the issue is tire balance.

You need seals for a 1986 2WD Comanche. Why do you even have to ask? http://www.autozone.com/autozone/parts/1986-Jeep-Comanche-2WD/Wheel-Seal-Front/_/N-iixsvZ8oxmo

Just DON'T DO IT. I've towed a much lighter trailer and (stripped) XJ behind my '88 MJ. I on;y did it once, and I won't do it again. As noted, stopping is the problem. But it's a lot more than just brakes. The MJ simply isn't heavy enough. I found the trailer was pushing the tow vehicle all over the road.

The springs may not have been cracked then. I don't think those aftermarket bump stops did you any favors. Where are you in Canada? I have a couple of sets of MJ leaf springs in the garage. There are some cracked leaves, similar to yours. My plan has been to make two "good" springs from the four busted ones. I also have some Wrangler YJ leaves -- I'll see if I can figure out what might work for you. Do you want to get back to stock height and ride, or do want to lift it some while you're doing it? (Please tell me you want stock height!)

No, we can't. If those Timbren bump stops aren't making contact with the axle tube, measure straight up from the top of the axle tube to the underside of the frame rail at the point where the bump stop attaches. Measure both sides. The correct measurement should be 8.2 inches for 2WD or 9.2 inches for 4WD (both plus-or-minus 1/2-inch).

Yes. The ones in your link are for the front. If you are consistently hitting those Timbren bump stops in the rear, do NOT remove them. Your springs are shot and the Timbrens are doing a lot of the work in your rear suspension. What you really need is new springs ... then you could think about stock bump stops.

We just discussed how to measure for stock ride height within the past couple or three weeks. I have to leave for work but I'm sure you can find the discussion thread.

Drain out what's left of the two-year-old fuel, put in 5 or 10 gallons of fresh gasoline, and see what happens.

So the front axle doesn't have a ring gear or a pinion gear and you're wondering why the 4-wheel drive doesn't work?

Correction: He's asking about an XJ. The '90 XJ would have an axle disconnect IF it has a Command-Trac (NP231) transfer case. If it has a full-time (NP242) transfer case it does not have an axle disconnect.

The fuel pump needs to be immersed in gasoline for cooling. My guess is that you cooked the fuel pump. (I hope I'm wrong.)

Mechanically, both engines were developed from the same in-line 6-cylinder predecessor, but they are very different. The original 4.0L had a torque peak of 220 foot-pounds at 2000 RPM in 1987, and then 224 foot-pounds at 2400 RPM for 1988 through 1990. But for the 4.0L the term torque "peak" is misleading, because the torque curve beyond the peak remains almost flat all the way up to about 4000 RPM. On the other hand, for the 2.5L the curve has a very clearly defined peak. For 1986 the 2.5L produced 135 foot-pounds at 3500 RPM, and for 1987 through 1990 it produced 141 foot-pounds at 3250 RPM. "Acceleration" is produced more by torque than by horsepower, so to feel acceleration in the seat of your pants you need to keep the engine running near the torque peak. Here's one torque curve for the 4.0L (This one is for an HO version but it's all I could find). Notice how basically flat it is all the way from 1000 RPM to 5000 RPM. Here's a torque/horsepower chart for the 2.5L engine. Compared to the 4.0L torque curve, note how the torque rises toward the peak and then falls off after the peak, with a very obvious spike right at the peak of 3200 RPM: