Eagle

Yes but that will probably give you more lift than you need. The ZJ coils are going to give you about an inch in the front. Using cut-off MJ main leaves as AALs should give you between 1-1/2" and 2" in the rear. Rancho's XJ/MJ AAL is rated at 2-1/2" but that's for the XJ. Rancho told me it lifts an MJ about 1-1/2".

Yeah, WHY would you want to do this? Most people want to go the other way and get rid of the internal slave. I'm not 100% certain, but I think you'll have to replace your bellhousing. IIRC the internal slave is mounted to a pair of threaded bosses inside the bellhousing. I doubt the mounting points will be there in a bellhousing that was set up for the external slave.

Aside from what Geonovast posted, you should keep in mind that '86 thru '92 covers basically three "generations" of the XJ and MJ, and other than body parts there isn't a lot of interchange. 1986 had the 6-cylinder engine as the 2.8L GM V-6. From 1987 thru 1990 the 6-cylinder engine was the original "Renix" 4.0L I-6. 1991 and 1992 the 6-cylinder engine was the same 4.0L I-6 but it was set up with a Chrysler injection/ignition system that shares nothing with the earlier Renix system. Also, begining in 1991 the speedometer went to electric instead of mechanical, and the polarity of the fuel gauge and sender were reversed. For the 4-cylinder, it was the same from 1986 thru 1990, and in 1991 and 1992 followed the 4.0L and got a new Chrysler injection/ignition system. Again, 1991 and 1992 electronics are not compatible with or interchangeable with the earlier years. They also made some changes to the axles and to the front hubs, knuckles, and calipers. Especially when dealing with the front axle, it is critical to keep all components correct for the year of the vehicle the axle came from or there will be problems. You can bolt in a complete axle from another year, just don't forget what year the "new" axle is when ordering replacement parts for it.

I strongly suggest that you NOT do that. Especially if you're going to be checking them to 120 ft-lbs. You'll pull the lug nuts right through the rims within a month. The FSM specifies 85 to 115 ft-lbs as the service torque for lug nuts. Among all the XJs and MJs I own and have owned, I must have put on close to a half million miles (the '88 XJ along has 287,000 on it). I always use a torque wrench, and I always torque to 85 to 90 ft-lbs ... no more. I have NEVER had one loosen up on me. I HAVE seen lug nuts pull right through the wheel as a result of obsessive re-torquing. It happened to one of the guys in the old Javelin/AMX Sports Car Club. He autocrossed with us, and he would go around and re-torque his wheels after every run. One season was all it took -- actually, he didn't even make it one season. It was an expensive mistake, too, because he had more money than brains and the wheels he ruined were custom-made racing wheels. If you must check the torque every few days, be sure to use a torque wrench and aim for the low end of the allowable range rather than a setting that's over the top of the high end.

I have a very strong bias -- see my signature. As someone else noted, a lot depends on what you plan to do with the truck. If you plan to restore it and use it as a basically stock daily driver, buying the rust-free truck makes a lot of sense. If you intend to modify it, chop the heck out of it to fit big tires, and beat the crap out of it off-road ... why destroy one of the few remaining straight, solid MJs when you could buy a candidate for modification a lot cheaper?

How many miles? I have been noticing a tapping in my wife's 2000 XJ. I'm pretty certain it's caused by the exhaust pipe (not the tail pipe) hitting the cross member. If so, it means the cushions in the tranny mount are getting compressed.

For looks, the Coursers. But if you actually plan to drive the thing on the street, forget those tires. I picked up a used set of very similar mud tires and I hated them. This forum doesn't have type sufficiently large to properly emphasize that they were NOISY!. Worse than that, they didn't track on pavement. I had to really work to keep the vehicle going straight. Since we have lost most of our wheeling venues here in southern New England, my XJ (the vehicle I had those tires on) is now mostly a daily driver, and I just could not tolerate those tires for daily driving.

I haven't done it yet, but my guess is ... almost zero. I hope to test that this summer. My guess is that cut-off XJ main leaves will add carrying capacity without adding much lift, thus replicating the Metric Ton spring on a budget. Using cut-off XJ main leaves as AALs in an XJ yields 1-1/4" t 1-1/2". Most people say 1-1/2" but the one I did came in at 1-1/4" gross. The rear had sagged some, so the actual net lift was really only about 3/4" over stock height. (Which was perfect for the purpose with that vehicle). If you're looking for around 2 inches, I think you need to use cut-off MJ mains, or mains from some other spring-under vehicle. XJs are spring over and the springs have a lot less native arch.

That has been my experience, as well.

WANT!!!

They are unique to the Comanche. They are approximately two inches longer and two inches higher than XJ rear flares. And I don't know of any source for reproductions.

May I quote you the next time my wife bothers? "But Dear, Squeegy says ..." Yep, that'll work.

Nothing could possibly be worse than the OEM carb that came on the 2.8L. If you don't wish to buy a new maniforld, go with the Weber. A friend of mine in Greece had one on his XJ and he was very satisfied with it.

I am well aware that the 2.5L I-4 has the same bell housing bolt pattern as the GM V-6. But "bolt up" to the bell housing is not the same as "bolt into" the vehicle. Putting a 2.8L (or 3.4L) V-6 into an MJ that had a 2.5L I-4 would require changing the entire underhood wiring harness, exhaust system, motor mounts, fuel delivery system, ... That's not my idea of "bolt in." Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.

As 88pioneer has mentioned, cooling will be your problem. Lots of people have shoved Chevy small blocks into XJ and MJs. They ALL have cooling issues. Do what you wish, but the Jeep 4.0L engine is a far better engine than a Chevy small block for Jeep-like purposes. I would rebuild the Jeep engine, either in stock displacement or as a stroker.

The 1986 Selec-Trac is a very different animal from the 1987 and newer Selec-Trac. The old NP 228/229 box is a very heavy, very strong transfer case. It is probably overkill for a Cherokee or Comanche. The difference between the 228 and the 229 is that one used a viscous coupling for the full-time mode and the other used a mechanical differential ... and I can never remember which was which. They key part is that the 228/229 did not have a locked (part-time) mode in 4WD-High Range. When you shifted into 4WD-Hi, you had AWD -- with differentiation. IIRC, the only locked range was 4WD-Lo. The controls were funky, too. There was a lever, and there was a separate vacuum switch. They had to be operated in a specific sequence. I once owned an '84 XJ Wagoneer that had that system, but I never had it registered and I don't have any recollection of exactly how the system worked.

The 2001 block may not have a boss for the knock sensor. If it does, I don't think it will be tapped for it. Check the number on the head casting. It was around 2000 that Jeep started using a head that has a reputation for cracking. There was a recent thread here in which someone provided the casting number to watch out for.

Fenders are easy to replace, and in the overall scheme of the universe not that expensive. Rocker panels are a bit more work, but also readily available. The floor is the big issue, and since the floors seem to usually rust out from the inside due to undetected leaks even a nice southern truck is no guarantee that you won't be replacing the floors. Comanches are NOT growing on trees, and the ones that are out there are not getting any better as they age, so if you find one that's of interest, my advice would be, "Buy it." Check the frame immediately behind the cab. I know of two or three that have broken there. I wouldn't let some rust there kill a sale, but I would use it to negotiate price, and I would derust and reinforce that area immediately upon purchase if there's any deterioration.

Huh? AFAIK Chrysler recommended GL-3 for the AX-15 right up until they changed to motor oil, and they did that basically because it's nearly (if not completely) impossible to find GL-3 gear lube. And what's this about the AW4? When did they ever recommend anything for that besides Dexron/Mercon? Related question (sort of): Has anyone tried that Pennzoil Synchromesh manual transmission lube in an AX-15 ... or, for that matter, in a BA 10/5? It's formulated for the NVG 3550 and 4500 trannies, but why would it not work in other manual transmissions? Chrysler recommended GL-5 lubes for the AX-15 at one point.. they later rescinded it as they didn't like replacing synchros in warranty... There are owners manuals out there with the bad recommendation in them.. I'm very surprised you never read any of the info covering that on Naxja. In Oct. 2008 Chrysler changed the recommendation for the AW-4 from Dex/Merc to ATF+4.. for ostensibly the same reason as changing the GL recommendation..They no longer wanted to purchase Dex/Merc for their service centers. Ninja Edit... Did some searching of the Naxja archives.. Found a thread from 2003... Eagle.. you posted this...May 1, 2003 3) According to DaimlerChrysler, the AX-4, AX-5 and AX-15 should use the Mopar product meeting spec MS9684, which is rated as a 75W90 GL-3 lubricant. HOWEVER, according to the engineer at Pennzoil (who claims to have all the tech bulletins from DaimlerChysler, that product should be used only in the AX-series trannies 1998 and newer,and the older ones should use 75W90 GL-5 gear lube (which is what the '94 FSM calls for. But the question there is whether the earlier lube recommendation was incorrect, or if they changed the material used in the synchro rings in the newer transmissions. I remember that conversation with the Pennzoil engineer. That was when I called them to ask if their then-new Synchromesh gear lube was suitable for use in the AX-15. He declined to offer an opinion. He said the then-new juice was engineered for the NVG 3550/4500 family of transmissions and that he could not offer an opinion regarding its use in any other box.

Huh? AFAIK Chrysler recommended GL-3 for the AX-15 right up until they changed to motor oil, and they did that basically because it's nearly (if not completely) impossible to find GL-3 gear lube. And what's this about the AW4? When did they ever recommend anything for that besides Dexron/Mercon? Related question (sort of): Has anyone tried that Pennzoil Synchromesh manual transmission lube in an AX-15 ... or, for that matter, in a BA 10/5? It's formulated for the NVG 3550 and 4500 trannies, but why would it not work in other manual transmissions?

Under a 1990 Cherokee, it will be an AX-15 if the engine is a 4.0L and it will be an AX-5 if the engine is a 2.5L. Aside from the AX-5 being weaker than the AX-15, the input shaft is smaller in diameter (which no doubt contributes to its being weaker) and may be a different length.

Not the NVG3550 ... but it's unlikely you'll find that in an MJ.

Rubberized undercoating is for separating customers from money. It doesn't adhere tightly to the metal, but it is cohesive enough that when moisture gets behind it the moisture stays trapped so it can continue to attack the metal for a long time. POR-15 bonds well to bare metal and provides excellent protection against rust. However, POR-15 is not UV resistant, and that's why it should be topcoated with a couple of good coats of some decent enamel that will effectively protect the POR-15 from daylight.

POR-15, and then overcoat with two or three coats of black Rustoleum enamel.

Ah, yes, the AMA. Otherwise known as "Doctors looking out for doctors." That's like asking the police to investigate when a police officer shoots a minister. (Oops, that one's been done, too. Guess what? The cops walked. What a surprise.)