Eagle

Possibly a flaky CPS. Also possibly a dying fuel pump.

What's the issue? I see a photo with no explanation of what problem it's supposed to be showing. The lower end of that arm goes to a bellcrank on the frame rail. That bellcrank pivot gets rusted up or gooked up and doesn't rotate freeley. That's the most common problem with the Renix throttle linkage, and the cure is usually to shoot it with PB Blaster and work it manually until it rotates freely.

Use the HB to size it. I agree..........that's what I'd do. I think that's what I would do, too.

Start with a good set of plug wires. For spark plugs I like NGK, with Champion truck plugs being second choice. Don't waste money on platinum plugs -- not needed.

I don't think you want to add lift. You seem to be happy with the way it is now, except for the slight rubbing, and I agree that you want to keep the center of gravity as low as possible, especially with a camper. Before you even start discussing a lift to cure the rubbing, you need to find out what's rubbing and where -- and then determine whether or not a lift will address that. 30-inch tires would normally be expected to rub on the lower control arms ... with Jeep wheels. I can't tell for sure from your photos but it looks like you are running aftermarket rimes, so that means less backspacing -- the rims (and tires) sit farther outboard than the same tires on OEM rims. If that's the case, the rubbing is almost certainly going to be the shoulder of the tire rubbing the lower portion of the flare behind the tire -- right side rubs on right turns, left side rubs on left turns.

The Renix system is already a high-output system. You can waste a lot of money on aftermarket stuff that isn't in any way an upgrade. What makes you think you need to "upgrade" anything?

It's an original, retractable underhood light. It mounts on the passenger side of the hood, back near the hinge.

Please take the measurements I asked for and report what you get. Measure from the center of the wheel cap/center hole straight up to the lower edge of the fender flares. Front and rear.

Look more closely. Whoever did the "modification" (i.e. butcher job) didn't tap anything -- he drilled all the way through. The other three bolts already have nuts on them. All the OP needs to do is buy a pair of the u-bolts discussed in that video and install them.

The yoke doesn't look wasted to me. The top of the hole for the bolt that dropped out has the inner portion of the wall broken out, but with the stock parts that area isn't even threaded, and the wall may have been blown out when it was drilled for the odd-ball, non-factory bolts that we see in the photo. I would just buy a pair of the u-bolts recommended in the video and reassemble it. In addition to the lock washers, use blue Loctite on the threads.

But it's almost certain that 88mjchevy didn't buy the truck new, so it's anybody's guess what [a] previous owner may have done to it. It might have had an AAL put in the rear, or it might have sagged in the froont, or the whole truck might have been lifted, but unequally. We don't know. He also might have an MJ that began life as a 2.8L V-6 and now has a small-block Chevy V-8 in it (based on his screen name), and that could open up a whole different can of worms.

There are no relays in the parking light or turn signal circuit. If your meter shows voltage at the battery but nothing at the socket -- start from the socket and work back until you find where you DO have power. There's your problem.

The 4.3 was never offered in the MJ by Jeep, so if you're certain it's a 4.3, it had to have been swapped in by someone. Did you do it, or was the swap done by a previous owner? The 4.3L is basically a 350 V8 with two cylinders chopped off, so it sounds like transitioning to a V8 would be easy. However ... every XJ or MJ I've seen with a small-block Chevy engine in it has had severe overheating issues. For that reason, I would recommend that you stay with a 4.3L because it just might be a little easier to keep cool.

Except that we don't know if the back is too high or the front is too low. OP, please measure from the center of the wheel hubs straight up to the bottom edge of the flares, front and rear, and post the measurements.

Correct. Look at the photo of the two straight connectors. The barrels are marked "1st Crimp" and "2nd Crimp"

I don't dispute that your MJ caught fire, but I don't believe it was due to the headlights. I own an '87 XJ with about 100k on it, an '87 MJ with about 120k on it, an '88 XJ with 287k on it, an '88 MJ with 209k and another '88 MJ with 120k on it -- ALL have the factory headlight wiring, and none have either caught fire or melted the headlight switch connector. How did you determine that the Xtravision headlamps were the cause of your fire? Drawing 150% of the factory low beam rating is meaningless. Stock headlights are 35 watts low beam and 65 watts high beam. The Xtravisions are 55 watts low beam and 65 watts high beam. That's actually 157% of the low beam current, but it's still less than the OEM high beam draw, which is the same for both.

Considering that the Xtravisions don't draw any more current than the OEM headlamps, they cannot possibly set your truck on fire.

I understand completely ... you have a preconceived idea and you are willing to accept only advice that supports your pre-determined direction. But, you also wrote: That says it all. Go ahead ... waste your money. I am through with this discussion.

Not sure, but I think stock sealed beams were 35 watt for low beam and 65 watt for high beam. I've been perfectly satisfied with the OEM headlights in my wife's 2000 XJ but, for some reason, the lights in the 2001 XJ I bought used were the pits. I looked at the Sylvania Silverstars and I wasn't impressed with the rated lamp life. Then I spotted Sylvania Xtravision lamps. They are standard sealed beams, requiring no conversion housings or any changes (although a harness upgrade will also help them deliver more light). They are 55 watt for low beam and 65 watt for high beam. Rated life: Standard (OEM replacement: 320/200 hours Xtravision: 850/200 hours Silverstar: 150/50 hours (YIKES!) The Xtravision are, IMHO, the clear choice. You get about the same light output as the Silverstars without the funky blue color, for 25% less money. You get more light from the low beams (which around here is probably 90% of my driving) than the OEM replacements, plus almost three times MORE lamp life than the OEM replacements and nearly six times the life of the Silverstars.

Quoted for truth.

Start with the cable ...

Here: http://comancheclub.com/topic/17726-drag-comanche/

Respectfully, no ... you do NOT understand. You say you don't have unlimited money, yet you insist that the only way to get power out of a 4.0L Jeep engine is to go with completely custom parts, and to revert from a modern fuel handling system (EFI) to technology that's 100 years behind EFI. It is OBVIOUS that you don't understand. You are fixated on a preconceived path. If you want to use triple Webers because they look cool, that's just fine. They do look cool. But they AREN'T the best way to accomplish what you claim you want to accomplish. A few years ago I made multiple trips to Rhode Island to see Bob Salemi building his NRA drag-race MJ. I even helped in a VERY minor way in turning some wrenches on the project. Bob is a VERY experienced professional drag race driver, owner and builder. If triple Webers (or any other carburetor(s) ) were the way to go, he would have gone that way. He didn't. He runs factory EFI with hand-polished and port-matched manifolds. So ... spend your money on the internals and the machining, and stop trying to throw money at a "solution" that's going to be inferior to what the factory injection can and will do for you. "Punch" is not going to come from the difference between EFI or carburetor. "Punch" is going to come from compression ratio, camshaft selection, gearing, and optimized fuel management. Too rich or too lean and you don't get maximum acceleration. The ONLY purpose of a carburetor or a fuel injection system is to deliver the optimum air-fuel mixture into the cylinders. And EFI does a far better job of that, more reliably, more economically, and across a much wider range of operating conditions, than any carburetor setup can possibly hope to achieve. Do I think all cylinders make the same power with EFI? Yeah, I do -- but there's no way to know that. You can't connect six individual dynomometers to the six cylinders. You can't know that with a triple Weber setup, either. Yes, you can tune the three carbs so each tube is flowing at the same velocity at the carburetor, but there are so many possible variables from there to the piston pushing on the crankshaft that even flow-matching the carbs doesn't guarantee equal output per cylinder.

I'm not assuming anything about where you live. There is nowhere on the planet where the temperature stays at exactly 82 F 24/7/365 and the relative humidity never changes. Go back and read what I wrote -- that Hudson engine was modified to the point that it was more than competitive with built Chevy 327s and 350s. We had to change the jets twice between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. because of the drop in temperature and rise in humidity when the sun went down. I'm not talking about the difference between July heat and December cold, I'm talking about three hours. Horse pucky. The guys who have been building the strokers and using the factory EFI prove that this is incorrect. What you're overlooking is that, with a carburetor (or multiple carburetors), the fuel gets mixed with the air at the carb, which is the inlet end of the intake runner. From there to the intake valve, the length and shape of the intake runners affects how well the fuel and air mix or don't mix, and how well the atomized fuel stays atomized. With EFI, the fuel is injected directly at the valve, so the intake runners only carry air. Their length and shape have no effect on fuel atomization, and there's no concern that the fuel won't stay finely atomized.

As Oyaji suggested, try to turn the engine by hand. Do NOT assume that the overheating and no start are unrelated. The one followed IMMEDIATELY after the other, so they most likely are related. My guess is that by continuing to drive when you knew you were overheated, you seized the engine. If I'm correct, you now have a boat anchor.