Eagle

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???:

So the poll is defective because it failed to account for those who drink responsibly. After seeing a great number of polls on various Internet forums, I have come to realize that there should be a high school class (or perhaps an entire subject, for at least one full semester) on how to structure a poll. I don't think I have seen ANY that it would be possible for me to answer honestly, because they ALL seem to omit at least one reasonably probable choice (and, more often, they omit two or three, at least). FAIL!

And you're telling me that I need to move? Now that's REALLY funny ...

The flexplate issue is a valid issue, but it's a cheap fix -- especially if you'll have the engine and tranny out for a swap anyway. The center portion of the flexplate cracks, leaving the outer portion no longer connected to the engine. Usually makes a bad rapping noise that sounds a lot like a bad rod bearing. The solution is simply to replace the flexplate -- they're not that expensive. The engine will run so you can check it out -- you just can't drive it. If he says the engine won't run, then either there's a bigger problem, or he drove it like that until the flex plate completely sheared off. Since the CPS gets its cues from the teeth on the rim of the flex plate, if the flex plate isn't still connected well enough to go around with the crankshaft there's no signal.

I know exactly how Low-Jack works. If the average time where you live is one hour or less, good for you. It's FAR longer than that around here. Only some patrol vehicles are equipped with Low-Jack receivers, and in this part of the world they are very rare. My former employer had Low-Jack in his wife's car. It was not found in less than an hour. In fact, it was not found in less than a day. Besides, a joy rider can make a pretty terrible mess out of a nice 4x4 Comanche in a lot less than an hour. I prefer to focus on ways to slow them down from stealing it. Pretty much by definition, most thefts of MJs and similar, older vehicles will be by joy riders, not by professional chop shops. They are crimes of opportunity, not professionals cruising neighborhoods with tow trucks. Anything that will cause them to fail at their first attempt (breaking the steering column and hot wiring the ignition) will generally result in their going away to look for another truck to steal. And lay off the personal attacks, Mate. I am not a third grade English teacher and I didn't in any way treat your post the way a third grade English teacher might.

You can use an ECU from a 4.0L manual in a 4.0L with an automatic tranny, and vise versa. Perhaps not optimum, but it'll run and you'll probably not be able to see/feel the difference from the driver's seat.

Just wanted to wish all you gearheads a happy new year. My 2010 be better in all respects and all aspects than 2009.

It would seem that it has to be related to the switch. The instrument lights and the taillights are fused, but the headlights don't run through the fuse panel, they are fused by the built-in circuit breaker in the headlight switch. So if you lost all of them at once, a bad fuse or even a bad fuse panel seems unlikely.

Cool. So we can expect your typing to improve now that you won't have to use the gaming keyboard, right? Wait, you're from Canada, let me rephrase that: So we can expect your typing to improve now that you won't have to use the gaming keyboard, eh? Just joshing, Mate. Let us know how you like it, because I may have to pick up one of those little darlin's. :cheers:

Lo-Jack doesn't stop a theft, it just transmits the vehicle's location so that MAYBE the police can find it after it has been stolen. Problem is, a 20-year old MJ isn't likely going t be stolen by a chop shop that's going to send the parts to South America, it's going to be stolen by some punk who wants to go joy riding in a Jeep. The cops will find it ... most likely in a ditch or wrapped around a tree. I would prefer to make it so they can't steal it in the first place.

Yeah, isn't that the same thing as Star Office? The open source (public domain) office suite that reads and writes to Microsoft Office file formats. Yeah, I'm aware of it -- the question was whether or not an Acer Aspire has the horsepower to run it. I guess if it ships with a trial version of MS Office, it's good enough to run Word and Excel, or the open source equivalents.