Eagle

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.

Why are you so fixated on removing an EFI system, that ALWAYS operates at the optimum air-fuel ratio, and replacing it with a carburetor that struggles to deliver an optimum air-fuel mixture and can really be optimized for doing so only under one or two load/RPM conditions? WAAAAAY back in time, when Jack Clifford was alive and running Clifford Performance & Research, my friend and fellow Hudson collector ran a Hudson Hornet-powered stock car that was set up with a Clifford triple Weber setup. The track where we ran was located immediately next to the Connecticut River. Typically, we had to run one set of jets for practice, then re-jet for the qualifying heats, and then re-jet again for the main event ... all due to falling temperature and rising humidity. That's how sensitive those things are. EFI would have taken care of that automatically, and far more accurately. Quite simply, IMHO you are heading in the wrong direction. Carburetors cannot do a better job of fuel management than modern EFI. Period.

If neither is working, the speedometer cable is probably either broken, or disconnected. Check to be sure it is connected to the speedometer in the dashboard, and to the transmission or transfer case down under.

The triple Weber setup was created as an upgrade for the carburetted AMC 4.2L engines, which used a monumentally horrible, semi-computer controlled carburetor. ALL the XJ and MJ 4.0L engines have electronic, multi-port fuel injection and you cannot possibly achieve better results than the EFI provides by going backwards to a mechanical carburetor setup.

Common misconception. Front axle OR rear axle, once both wheels on the same axle are on slippery stuff, there is no difference between a limited slip and a locker. There isn't enough traction for either wheel to overcome the clutches in a limited slip, so it performs exactly the same as a locker. I've been doing this for fifty years, I have a better than basic understanding of how it works.

What do you think a bastard pack is? It's a stock spring set with one, two or three add-a-leaves. You can build up a custom leaf pack with as many leaves as you want -- or as many as you need to get where you're going. My Javelin autocrosser originally had three leaves from the factory -- I spliced in a second set of Javelin springs and ended up with either five or six leaves on each side (don't remember which). It still rode okay -- a lot firmer than stock, but I prefer that -- and handled great. Many years ago I had a 1947 Hudson 1-ton pickup. I have no idea how many leaves were in the springs, but it was at least twice as many as the other two Hudson pickups I owned. They were so stiff that it didn't have shock absorbers -- and didn't need them, because [a] the springs didn't deflect, and that many leaves generated enough friction that they were self-damping.

You are correct that the axle devices were called Vari-Lok, but they (as well as the transfer case) were operated by a gerotor pump. Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the Vari-Lok axles used different shafts. That could be a deal-breaker right there. Might have to reconsider the old tried-n-true lunchbox locker, or TrueTrac.

The camber is not adjustable, and the caster is not easily adjustable. (Well, it's not rocket science, but you need special shims and they aren't available through the parts chains.) The only adjustment most alignment shops actually change on XJs and MJs is the toe-in, and you can do that in your driveway with a tape measure. http://gojeep.willyshotrod.com/HowtoAlignment.htm

Recent snow followed by icy rain has gotten me thinking about traction again. Since I drive my XJs and MJs primarily on the street, I find a rear limited slip to be more than adequate for my needs. However, other than my brief sojourn with the ill-fated 1999 Grand Cherokee, I've never had any front traction devices. About the only good aspect to that '99 WJ was the Quadra-Drive system. And not even the whole thing. The transfer case had problems, but the gerotor axle devices worked great. Which has always left me wondering why people aren't using that in the front axles of XJ and MJs. For those not familiar with the original Quadra-Drive system, the axles worked kind of like the opposite of a Trac-Lok. With Trac-Lok, the clutches are engaged, until there's enough difference in torque on the two wheels to make the clutches slip (such as going around a corner on dry pavement). With the Quadra-Drive axles, the clutches are normally NOT engaged. There's a mechanical/hydraulic pump mechanism built into the differential. When one wheel starts to spin faster than the opposite wheel, this causes the pump to start pushing the clutches together, generating increasing lockup. Ignoring the brakes and hubs at the outer ends, is the dana 35 differential used in the '99 and '00 WJs any different from the XJ and MJ Dana 35s? Is there any reason why an MJ front axle couldn't be set up with one of these gerotor traction devices? Does anyone know if these things are available through aftermarket channels?

What wouldn't "look" right? Personally, I think the MJ setup is idiotic. The 4-way flashers completely disable both the turn signals AND the brake lights. Now that's just plain dumb -- and Jeep obviously knew how to do it differently since they managed to keep the 4-ways separate from the brakes in the XJ. I think it's much safer to have the hazards and brake lights separate.

For starters ... is this a 4-cylinder or 6-cylinder MJ? And how many cylinders did the donor vehicle have?