Eagle

You can buy just replacement glass if you break one. What I remember from the old repair description is that the mirror head pivots on a pot metal gimbel thingie, and the pot metal cracks or breaks, allowing the ball on the mirror head to wobble around. Somebody figured out a way to rig up a replacement or reinforcement for the cracked pot metal piece. Unfortunately, that's ALL I remember, but it may give you an idea what to expect if/when you get inside. If you try it, please be sure to take photos and do a write-up.

And what happens with a locker if you're rock crawling and lift one front wheel off the ground?

Removing the glass is the only way. There was a write-up on NAXJA, but it was MANY years ago and may not even still be there. The glass can be removed by using a heat gun to soften the adhesive. (Supposedly -- my friends at the glass company assure me this is correct, but I haven't been brave enough to attempt it.)

I don't think this is correct. All the Saginaw boxes the Cherokee used should be the same. Correct - the XJ boxes are all the same 3-bolt 14.1 ratio Saginaw steering gear. The 93-98 ZJ boxes however are the quicker 12.7 ratio. :cheers: http://www.chevelles.com/techref/ftecref29.html Yep. It's highly UNlikely that the steering box needs to be replaced, since there are plenty of other likely suspects to check out first. But IF you need (or want) to replace the box, for primarily street driving and especially if you want "Indy car response" the quicker ratio ZJ box (or aftermarket equivalent, typically from Borgeson) is the answer. However, if you do serious off-roading (especially rock crawling) with very large tires, the quicker box is not a good choice.

It's pretty accurate for home. These days it's 5 to 10 degrees colder at work, and that's only about 10 miles farther north "as the crow flies."

The XJ and MJ do not use a variable ratio box, they use a 14:1 fixed ratio box. And 3.2 is not the ratio for the YJ, that's the number of turns lock-to-lock. Before buying any parts to tighten up your steering, find out where the slop is. Improperly adjusting the steering box can trash it, and may not be necessary. A slightly worn track bar makes the steering feel very loose, for example. Ditto for worn tie rod ends. Also, be sure the track bar bracket is tight where it bolts to the frame.

Quite a bit, but I don't think the SportTrak has the pass-through rear gate, does it? I like the look, but I think those pass-through gates are ridiculous. What happens if I want to carry something long and high on a rainy or snowy day?

It could be a kink or tight bend, or lack of lube, or both. For lube, I think probably something like the white lithium grease that comes in the spray cans (such as we use on the door hinges) might be a good choice. I just checked the FSM and I can't find any mention of a lubricant for the speedometer cable, so you're kind of on your own.

Not really. Either job can kill you in an instant.

Better measure again. The WJ bolt pattern is not 5 x 4-1/2, it's 5 x 5.

RESTORE! (See my signature.)

I don't recommend poly motor mounts. They're bullet-proof, but they transmit a LOT of vibration to the chassis, and with a unibody there are no body mounts to cushion it out.

Put your 31" tires on stock Jeep rims and drive it. Any rubbing will be the tires on the lower control arms, and a lift will NOT help that.

hmmm. got a link to that review? I always thought that situation was caused by a spooled front. :dunno: Yep. I learned that the first winter I had a front wheel drive car. Spool would just make it worse.

Rear main seal, front seal, and replace rod and main bearings. Don't know how many miles are on your engine. Being an AMC guy, I made the mistake of assuming. Late 60s early 70s AMC V8s had timing sets that used nylon teeth on the cam sprocket, and when they got old the teeth liked to shear off. Thinking that's what was in my 4.0L 1988 XJ, at somewhere around 180,000 miles I bought a complete timing chain set and opened 'er up. My first clue should have been that the replacement "Cloyes" cam sprocket had steel teeth. But I went ahead -- and found that the original also had steel teeth, and that there was virtually no slack in the old timing chain. By then I figured I might as well put in the new stuff, but I saved the old set and would not hesitate to throw it into an engine that needed a timing chain. My point being -- you may want to check the timing chain, but there's a good chance you don't need one.

If both wheels are in mud, both wheels spin. If one wheel is in mud (or on ice/snow) and the other wheel is on dry, solid ground, unless you get nuts with the skinny pedal neither wheel will spin. The power goes to the rear diff, the clutches hold everything together, and the wheel on dry ground gets power while the one in the muck just goes along for the ride. Here's an example: When my mother was alive, the last car she bought she asked my brother and me for advice on what equipment to get. We live in rural/suburban New England -- we have snow, and we have mud. So we advised her to get the limited skip diff (whatever AMC was calling it that year) and she did. The town where she lived did not (and does not) have municipal trash pick-up, so she used to take her trash to the landfill once every week or so. And back then it was a "landfill," not a "transfer station." No pavement, just dirt. She backed down to the drop-off one (very) rainy day, emptied her trash, and then tried to drive out. The back end just dug itself down -- both wheels -- until the bumper was on the ground. The guys hooked her up and dragged her out with the Payloader. To the day she died, she swore that it was that limited slip thing that got her stuck, if she didn't have that she could have driven right out. Yep, Okay, Mom, luv ya.

In a word - no. The idea of a unibody is to use the welded-together sheet metal panels to take up some of the stress so the "frame" doesn't do all the work. By distributing the stress through the entire body, the need for a rigid, separate subframe is eliminated. In theory, a properly designed unibody is stiffer than a vehicle with a body mounted to a separate frame, not more flexible.

Define "good." The Trac-Lok is a "good" limited slip, but it isn't a locker and it isn't ideal for serious, heavy duty off-road use. There is no speed at which it starts locking -- it isn't a locker. It uses clutches, which are always engaged (not "locked"). If the torque to one side exceeds that on the other side by a certain amount, the clutches let go and allow the two sides of the differential to slip -- hence the name limited slip. There is a heavier duty clutch type limited slip that is available for the Chrysler axle, from Auburn Gear. You can see a description of it here http://www.reiderracing.com/index.php?c ... _5852_5961

I didn't say it will resist either bending or twisting more than tube (at least, square or rectangular tube). But an angle shape also is far from zero resistance to bending and twisting. But ... those two slots they cut in the vertical leg really REALLY bother me from a structural perspective. They weaken the angles considerably against both bending and twisting.

Tubing is nothing more than four angles with the legs solidly connected. Any 'L' or 'U' or tube shaped steel section has resistance to both bending and twisting -- it's just a matter of how much. As my structures prof used to say (in a heavy Scottish burr that would have put Sean Connery to shame), "Strrrrrress goes where therrrrrrre's mateeeeerial ta rrrresist it." In simplistic terms, if some is good, more is better.

Questions: 1. I wonder if they have multiple models, to account for the two different mounting locations for the cross member. 2. They have two cuts running almost the entire height of the vertical leg. Those cuts become hinges. It makes me wonder what they think the vertical leg is going to go, if they make it into a hinge. 3. Does anyone know how it attaches? When I saw the first two photos I thought, "Wow! That's a lot of plug welds." Then I saw the third photo and it leaves me wondering if the screws are just to hold it in place until all the rosettes get welded, or if the screws are all they intend for mounting them. Interesting concept. Need more data.

I hope this thread -- and this entire forum -- doesn't get too political, but we might as well address a couple of things (I think): First, Freakjeep, the Canadians and the Americans and the British and the Polish and the Australian and the ___ troops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't fighting just for "your/their/our" country as they are fighting to preserve freedom everywhere in the world against the encroaching forces of religious fanaticism. Contrary to what the Islamicist fanatics claim, it isn't "Islam vs. the West" or "Islam vs. the infidels," it is radical fundamentalists against everybody else. Heck, Turkey is a Muslim country and they're on our side. They are as afraid of the fundamentalist zealots as the rest of us are. In Iraq, you have Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims killing each other as well as attacking coalition forces. In Afghanistan, you have the Taliban killing any Muslim who dares support the coalition forces against the Taliban. Second, forget about the rules of warfare. The fundamentalist terrorists do not represent a country, they do not wear any country's uniform, and there is no war (in the legal sense). They are not soldiers (despite the fact they portray themselves as "soldiers of Allah"). What they are, is terrorists. And terrorists never fight "fair" or face to face, unless cornered. Their modus operandi is based on fear. The Geneva (and Hague) Conventions do not apply, at least not in the sense that you might think they apply -- the way they address how two armies of two sovereign nations should conduct themselves. There are other rules pertaining to how an occupying force is supposed to treat civilians -- and I honestly don't think those rules are realistic in this situation, because they did not take into account the possibility of "civilians" who not only resist the occupying force (anyone remember "Red Dawn" and the Wolverines?), but who don't mind killing innocent bystanders in the process and who don't mind strapping explosives to a small child and blowing him/her up as a way of taking out opposing forces. Civilized rules don't work against uncivilized opponents.

Bartender, I'll have a whiskey, and a water chaser

It depends partly on what you drink, partly on what it's diluted with (WHAT?!?), and partly on how much solid food you had in your stomach before you started drowning it in alcohol. My sports car club (back in the days when there were sports cars, and when I drank) had a concoction created by one of the more senior members called a "Cadavre." It was ... potent -- but it also didn't cause hangovers.

"ror"? :huh???: