Eagle

He didn't say it won't move. He said he can't shift into first or reverse. I have the same problem with my '87 MJ, but I know I need a clutch and a master cylinder. Once moving, the other gears shift, but that's because (a) they have synchros, and (b) when both the engine side and the wheel side of the drive train are turning, it's easier for the synchronizers to match things up. When the engine is running and the vehicle is standing still, even if the clutch is only dragging a little bit you can't shift into first or reverse.

There's your problem. You need a flywheel.

Yep. For a Renix 4.0L that's about the sweet spot. However, you seem to have conflicting priorities. The things you do to improve performance generally won't help gas mileage. Larger, freer flowing exhaust? Nope. Bored throttle body? Nope. 3.54 gears struggling to push 31" tires? Nope. Many years ago, when the factory exhaust in my '88 XJ 4.0L bit the dust, my brother was managing a Speedy Muffler shop. He arranged for me to get his shop price on a custom-bent, 2-1/2" exhaust system with a high-flow turbo muffler (don't remember the brand, and it doesn't matter). The result was horrible. I LOST low-end torque. My gas mileage instantly dropped between 2 and 4 MPG. And it was noisy. That was the first and last time in my life I was actually looking forward to an exhaust blowing out so I'd have an excuse to replace it. Since then I have gone direct OEM replacement from Auto-Zone. For starters, you need more gear. I ran 31s on the '88 MJ for several years, with 3.73 gears. The overall final drive ratio (as shown by actual road speed to engine RPM) was exactly the same as factory tires with 3.54 gears. I would have preferred 4.10s and I think 3.10s would have prodiced better gas mileage, but I already had the 3.73s (bought when I planned to run 30" tires), so I used them. Not horrible, but 4.10s would have been better.

Since they are all the same basic block, I would strongly advise going to a 3.1L or 3.4L if you're going through the effort of swapping engines.

Oh, bummer. I'm glad you're happy with it, but it's a short AAL, and they're generally not recommended. For just a couple of dollars more you could have bought a Rancho full-length AAL. It only lifts an MJ about 1-1/2" (maybe 2" max), but it makes the entire spring pack work much better and it rides very well. It would be a perfect match for the OME front coils, or for 1-3/4" front spacers. Yeah this one http://www.4wd.com/Jeep-Lift-Kits-Jeep-Lift-Kits-Suspension/Jeep-Add-A-Leafs.aspx?t_c=1&t_s=101&t_pt=5488&Year=1992&Make=JEEP&Model=COMANCHE&DRIVEWHEEL_VQ=4+Wheel+Drive and thanks man I could find it when I was looking earlier. That's the one. It's gone up a bit in price since the last time I installed one, but that's it. It's considered a full-length on a Cherokee, and a "long" (but not full-length) on a Comanche. Rancho's printed catalog listed it as providing 2-1/2 inches for both the XJ and MJ. I didn't see how that was possible, so I called and talked to their engineers. They said that was a misprint, and it should be 2-1/2" for the XJ and 1-1/2" for the MJ.

Wait -- What vacuum? What actuator? If the donor is a 91, it shouldn't have a vacuum disconnect on the front axle.

Oh, bummer. I'm glad you're happy with it, but it's a short AAL, and they're generally not recommended. For just a couple of dollars more you could have bought a Rancho full-length AAL. It only lifts an MJ about 1-1/2" (maybe 2" max), but it makes the entire spring pack work much better and it rides very well. It would be a perfect match for the OME front coils, or for 1-3/4" front spacers.

I think long arms are massive overkill for a 4-inch lift, but if you want long arms, IMHO you can't get better than Clayton's Offroad. I have visited their shop. No matter who you are, you can't possibly build one better, and Clayton is an industrial engineer so you also can't engineer one better.

I have adjusted steering boxes before. Sometimes it works, sometimes the box is beyond adjustment. But ... the internal adjustment of the steering box is the absolute LAST thing to consider, not the first, or even the second or third. The manual box is just a box. No hoses, no pump, no fluid reservoir. It'll bolt right in. And you'll hate it. The steering ratio for the power box is 14:1. The ratio for the manual box, IIRC, is 24:1. How many ways can you spell "S-L-O-W"? Coincidentally, I was discussing the steering box adjustment with the shop foreman at my dealership just a few days ago. He said he has done it on one of his vehicles, but he won't do it on a customer's vehicle and he won't let the techs in the shop do it, because there's too much chance of messing up the box permanently and he doesn't want the liability.

It applies to the Cherokee from the front to approximately the front seat area. In the Comanche diagrams, you can see the area under the (front) seats where the rear frame rails splice into the front unibody rails. From there back, the Comanche is totally different.

Because it raises the center of gravity considerably and the lawyers didn't want Jeep to be responsible when somebody tipped one over.

It almost has to be the neutral safety switch.

I carried a 31x10.50 spare under my '88 shortbed.

Best cam for what kind of driving? Will the engine be otherwise stock, or "built"?

The thing is, once you eliminate the height sensing valve you have NOTHING to gain by keeping both hard lines to the rear, and potentially a lot to lose. If he's thinking that keeping the second line will retain the failsafe rear brake circuit, in fact it won't. Case 1: Either rear hard line ruptures. Doesn't matter which one, they are now fully interconnected, so a leak in one is a leak in the system. Result: no rear brakes. Case 2: Front brake line ruptures. This is the condition the failsafe is intended to address. If the front brakes fail, it ensures that the rears will get 100% (rather than proportioned) braking force. But ... with the height sensing valve bypassed, you already have 100% rear braking, all the time. There is no reason to retain the failsafe circuit, because it adds nothing. But it makes it exponentially more difficult to bleed the rear brakes, plus it doubles your exposure to corrosion of the rear hard lines. In deference to your mechanic, I'm sure he thinks his way is going to be better for you. The problem is that I don't think he has any idea how that system works. I have sawed an MJ front metering block in half (the photos are on this forum, somewhere), and I know exactly how it works. Keeping two hard lines to the rear with no proportioning valve is just NOT a good idea.

So he wants to retain both hard lines, eliminate the rear height sensing valve, and merge the two hard lines just upstream of the rear flex hose? The problem is going to be bleeding. If there's any air in the bypass (emergency fail-safe) hard line, stepping on the brake peddle will just allow the fluid in the primary line to back-feed and compress the air in the secondary line rather than actuate the brakes. It is possible that tripping a fail in the front brake circuit, per the factory procedure for bleeding the rears when you do have the height sensing valve, might do the job. But ... I don't know if the height sensing valve has a backflow preventer (I would guess it would have to), so I don't know if this would work. Overall, I think this sounds like a really foolish thing to do. Instead of exposing ten feet of steel line to rust and corrosion, let's expose twenty feet of steel line to rust and corrosion to get to the same place. What could possibly go wrong?

No, if you do it as the diagram indicates, it's the bypass (emergency) line that gets removed and the port for it gets blocked at the metering block in front. The "failsafe" circuit no longer exists, and the line to the rear operates the rear brakes normall (with no proportioning) -- just like the cars I grew up with.

If the hoses leading to and from the heater core don't get hot with the vaccuum valve open and the engine at normal operating temperature, the only answer is that there's no coolant flowing through the heater core. Let's face it, it's 24 years old and probably plugged solid. I kept the heater core on my '88 Cherokee flushed out, and it sprung a leak three years ago. I just blocked it off and ran without a heater for one winter, then I replaced the heater core.

A colder thermostat will NOT help. If you're running warmer than usual, the thermostat is open and the radiator can't shed the heat fast enough. Open is open -- opening earlier won't alleviate the problem. Do you have an automatic? If so, do you have an external transmission cooler? How old is your radiator? Have you had it boiled out and flow tested?

Check the routing of the speedo cable. If there are any tight bends, try to move clips or something to change the bends to a larger radius. If you feel up to it, remove the instrument cluster and take the speedo cable off the speedo head. You should be able to pull the cable up from there to remove it from the outer sheath. (NOTE: Before doing this, inspect the entire length of the cable. If the outer sheath is frayed or broken, do NOT pull the inner core out or it may not go back.) If you can get the inner core free, wipe it down with a rag wetted with mineral spirits to clean off old, dried lubricant, then lubricate it with fresh, clean lube. I think there are special lubes made for speedo cable, but white lithium would be a lot better than 20+ year old, dried-out whatever. Then push the cable back into the sheath, being sure it engages the drive gear socket, reattach to the speedo head, and replace the instrument cluster.

Be VERY careful changing that bulb. It's like a micro-mini version of the bulbs for the gauge cluster -- the bulb itself is like a tiny version of an old flashbulb, with a glass base and two exposed wires that snaps into the socket. The socket itself is a quarter turn bayonet mount into the panel. The ears on that little socket are VERY fragile. Be gentle or at least one of them will snap off.

Hmmm ... Which fuse panel, the one under the hood or the one behind the passenger kick panel?

More problems with the "new" (to me) 2001 XJ. After driving for more than about a half hour or 45 minutes, the radio light blacks out. If the radio isn't turned on, that means I lose the clock. Even with the radio or CD playing, the dial goes totally black. There's no discussion that I can find on radio dial illumination in the 2000 XJ FSM. Does anyone know if this is a simple bulb replacement, or is the only "fix" going to require replacing the radio?

For the Dana 30 with CAD, on the driver's side the seal is inside the diff housing. I assume that would be considered "inner." The passenger side does NOT have a seal in the diff housing, because the gear oil also lubes the sliding spline at the disconnect. The seal on the passenger side goes outboard of the disconnect. I can see how that might be called "outer." There is only one seal on each side.

My first thought, too. Been there, done that. Didn't even get a tee shirt.