Eagle

I used whatever data I could get, which for the most part was from Cooper. Even within one brand, different tires of the same nominal size will have different static radii and different revolutions per mile. That's why I went to the trouble of creating the spreadsheet -- because any calculations derived mathematically from the nominal width and profile ratio would be moderately inaccurate.

What diameter u-bolts are you getting? The stuff I've seen in most parts houses is typically 3/8" or 7/16". The OEM u-bolts for the MJ are 14mm -- the nearest SAE equivalent is 9/16", although I think a GOOD quality 1/2" is fine for most ordinary purposes, and better than a 20+ year old, rusted-out 14mm. But I wouldn't go smaller than 1/2"

Why get rid of it? The answer depends on what size tires you plan to run, what kind of driving you'll be doing, and how hard you beat on it. Considering that the disconnect axles mostly stand up to hard off-roading with 31", 32" and even 33" tires and the 4.0L engine, it's unlikely that you're going to break one with a 2.5L 4-popper unless you have a very heavy foot and drive it like you stole it. Just move the sleeve over and lock the disconnect shift motor in the connected position, and forget it's even there.

Also check the wires from the O2 sensor. If the signal from the O2 sensor isn't getting to the ECU, the ECU will probably be operating full-time in either open circuit mode or "limp home" mode.

All you need is a seal. Unless there's a reason to upgrade the axle, why strain the budget and create a lot of work when seals are cheap and easy to replace?

I'm pretty sure the holes are elongated so the same plates work with both axles. The stock plates will NOT work with the Chrysler 8-1/4 axle, though.

You can build a 242 to be stronger than any 231 ever dreamed of being. What transfer case do you think is used in the military HUMVEE? (Hint -- it has the numbers 2, 4 and 2 in it.) Then why is it that you can order just about anything you can dream up for the 231 but there is almost nothing available for the 242? If you can make it so much stronger where do you get the parts and why does nobody build them? http://www.makcotransmissionparts.com/NP242.html http://flashoffroad.com/features/Tcase/ ... /tcase.htm http://www.ilovejeeps.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141

You can build a 242 to be stronger than any 231 ever dreamed of being. What transfer case do you think is used in the military HUMVEE? (Hint -- it has the numbers 2, 4 and 2 in it.)

I don't have the number but it's in the HELP! section of parts, and the one you need is listed for a Ford.

Thanks. That's bad news. That would require one adapter to get it up to a 2-barrel, and then a second adapter to get it to a 4-barrel. Not gonna happen. Looks like if I decide to go carbureted I'll just shop for a 1-barrel application from an older Rambler engine, like the 199 c.i.d. I-6. Or look for a donor XJ and convert to the newer multi-port injection.

????? The auto doesn't use the flywheel. It has a "flex plate" -- the torque converter mass is what does the job of the flywheel.

Does anyone have an intake manifold from a 1984 or 1985 XJ 2.5L that they could snap a photo of? I'm curious about the layout of the bore (or bores, I don't remember if the stock carburetor was a one-barrel or two-barrel) and bolt pattern. I'm trying to determine how difficult (or impossible?) it would be to adapt a small 4-barrel carb to a 2.5L engine.

You are correct about the '86 and the 228 Selec-Trac case, but I don't think the 242 was offered in the MJ in any year.

No. There should be nothing teed into the vacuum line for the brakes. This I won't be able to answer until the snow melts off at least one of the 4-bangers. Off the top of my head, I'm inclined to suggest that it doesn't really matter where it plugs in, as long as it is connected to the intake manifold. The canister isn't a vacuum motor, it is just a reservoir. The purpose is to maintain vacuum in the heater (and cruise control) circuits when intake manifold vacuum drops.

If you are referring to a round or oval canister on the right side, that's a vacuum reservoir for the vacuum operated heater controls. You need it. If you have cruise control, it's also necessary for the cruise.

Oxygen sensor.

This is often caused by a dirty idle air controller (IAC). On my high-mileage 1988 XJ, I've found that another factor is corrosion in the throttle linkage. The cable from the gas peddle doesn't go directly to the throttle body -- it goes to a lever (bellcrank) on a pivot that's mounted down below the brake master cylinder, near the frame rail. I found that soaking that with PB Blaster, then following up with motor oil cured most of my fast start-up issues.

It should be available to everyone now. (I hope)

I don't think that is a factory slider, but if it's intact I don't see any reason to replace it. The stock ones fit flush, like the one in the second photo.

Pretty much what Geonovast said. The crossmember itself is the same for both applications, but I believe the actual mount that attaches to the crossmember will be different. Personally, I wouldn't worry about adapting the neutral safety switch and interlocking to the steering wheel/column. Your manual tranny steering column has the flipper for the ignition lock. Unless you're in the habit of trying to start the engine with the shifter in gear and your foot off the brake, the NSS is a waste and a needless complication.

That would be my guess. Out of curiosity, is the non-power master cylinder a different part number than the power? You might be able to just remove your power booster and move the existing master back directly to the firewall.

Everything from the doors forward is exactly the same (within the same group of years). Rear axles and brakes are also the same, but the rear axle mounts are different. Not all years are interchangeable electrically. Chrysler changed to their own, in-house injection/ignition system in 1991, so pre-91 stuff related to fuel and ignition won't fit 91 and 92 -- regardless of whether it's an XJ or an MJ.

Other than giving you links to FOUR discussions of your question?

The very early ones were available with the base model equipped with non-power brakes and non-power steering. I've never actually seen one, but if they were like the AMC cars from just a few years earlier, there is no adapter. The master cylinder bolts directly to the firewall and the rod from the brake peddle goes directly to the piston in the master. There should be a retainer clip of some type that prevents the actuator rod from pulling out of the piston. On my '68 Javelin autocrosser, I went the other way (which is why I'm fairly confident in what I'm reporting). The Javelin I set up for racing started out life as a base model 290 V8 with manual steering and manual (if that's an acceptable word for foot power) drum brakes. I converted to quick-ratio manual steering and installed power brakes with front discs out of a '73 Rebel, because the newer design used larger rotors and calipers and the rotors were ventilated. Easy, bolt-in conversion, so I would hope that going the other way would be an easy "bolt-out" conversion. I don't know if the push rod is the same length as the one for power brakes.

It **SHOULD** not require any special access permissions. I'm not philosophically opposed to granting permissions, I just don't care to have to deal with it on a continuing basis. The intent of posting was that it would be public. If y'all can't view the link, I'd rather figure out why and fix it. Does everyone get a message saying you need permission, or is it working for some people and not working for others? DANG! Google is fubar. I just tried to access the file behind the link, and I'm getting Google in either Chinese or Japanese. Don't know how to do anything if I can't read the stinkin' menus. I'll try again later.