Eagle

But that's not the way the rules of this site are structured. In addition, aside from anyone being offended, personal messages directed to and intended for one or two other members should be sent by PM, not posted in the open forums. Ben might insult Darren and Darren knows (or thinks he knows) that it's just kidding (or not) ... but several hundred other members who don't know either of them see posts like that and start to assume that it's okay on this site to insult other members. It isn't. This isn't Pirates of the Rubicon, this isn't even what NAXJA has devolved into, and I am eternally grateful for that. A little discretion and politeness won't kill anyone.

It is a bolt on. The header is a bolt-on, but the upper-outer corners are more rounded and don't match the sort of beveled profile of the early fenders. If you replace the fenders at the same time, that's not an issue. To imply that you can bolt on the header to the original fenders is misleading. It can be done, but it requires some preparation. Basically, you fill in the hollow spaces in the back of the upper-outer corners of the header with bondo. Then you bolt on the header and shave the corners to match the profile of the fenders. There's also a bit of work involved in mating the new style side marker lights to the older wiring harness. I think anyone considering what can/should be done to an MJ in the context of this thread needs to first sit back and define the distinction between "upgrade" (make it better) and "change" (make it different). There are a LOT of things you can change using bolt-on or near-bolt-on parts, but in many cases (such as the header, for example) they don't add any functionality, they don't work any different or better than the old parts, so they aren't "upgrades." If the goal is to make the vehicle more comfortable, more serviceable, and/or more convenient, it's important to zero in on the changes that actually accomplish one or more of those goals, and not waste money on stuff that's "different" but not "better."

I agree completely. Driving (spot) lights are much easier than fog lights. Just do it as CW proposes. You can do the same with fog lights, using a tap off the low beams for the trigger, but then you don't have the option of running fogs with just parking lights. That's why doing a "proper" setup for fogs gets a bit more complicated.

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all, and may each of you and your families have something for which to give thanks.

That's for 1986 thru 1990. The 91 and 92 have the ECU next to the air intake box on the inside of the left front fender.

Not so fast, Mate. I currently have here an 86, an 87, two 88s and an 89. None of them have a factory foglight switch. The red '88 now has the switch, because I took the panel out of an XJ in a junkyard and installed it in the MJ, but I use it to control an aftermarket dome light.

Keep in mind that, by Federal and most state law, driving (spot) lights can be on ONLY when the high beams are on, and they MUST go off when you switch to low beams. However you choose to modify your wiring, be sure there is an interface to the high beams so the driving lights are on only with high beams. And be sure you use a relay or you'll fry the switch in the dashboard very quickly.

You can run up to 31x10.50-15 tires on stock Jeep rims with no lift. The cheapest way to lift is to go for a 2" budget boost. Use 2" (or 1-3/4", depending on source) spacers in the front, and get a Rancho full-length AAL in the rear. Hellcreek (on this forum) may have a similar AAL and, if they do, I would encourage getting it from them. Don't try to go higher than 2" on the cheap, or you'll just create problems. Personally, if I were going to run 30s I would not lift it at all.

Or off the road ... Just sayin'. I mean ... it IS a Jeep.

If you don't have a grinder, you could probably do the same job with a hacksaw and flat file. Thimk -- you must know someone who has a bench grinder.

Since you asked: I would remove it. After having had one explode in a panic stop, I would not trust any one I found used. I'd much rather have brakes, and then deal with the consequences of having too much braking bias to the rear. Wilwood makes an adjustable proportioning valve if you need one, but it's not a replacement for the height sensing valve (physically), and it doesn't automatically compensate for load.

True enough ... but most "31s" tend to run about 30-1/2" in diameter. The 265s may be taller because they're on narrower rims, so the sidewalls are squeezed in a bit. Plus, of course, they have full tread. My 31s are on 7" Jeep rims and they work on the XJ at stock height (subject to the usual caveat about LCA rubbing).

The cutaway was mine. Since the bypass port (the one that wasn't drilled all the way through on the one I cut open) is the one you block when eliminating the rear height-sensing valve, it doesn't make any difference if that port is drilled all the way through or not. Don't make extra work for yourself.

What's the track on a Scout? I think those axles are pretty narrow ...

I don't think I've even seen a 265/75-15. Based on the numbers, it should be 10.4" wide at the sidewall and 30.4x" in diameter ... in other words, almost exactly the same as a 31x10.50-15. I'm running 31s on the '88 XJ (with no lift) right now ... which is why/how I speak so authoritatively on how they fit and where they rub.

I think it was a few years ago, in Jp Magazine. I haven't had a subscription to that rag for a couple or thre years, but I'm pretty sure that's where I saw it, so it would have been at least that far back. There would be no "upgrade" to using ZJ brakes and hubs -- they are the same as XJ. In fact, the ZJ ceased to exist before Jeep went back to one-piece rotors on the XJ, so arguably rotors from a 2000 or 2001 XJ would be an upgrade for any ZJ, not the other way 'round.

His first post in this thread says they are 1/2" Yes, 9/16" can work. They are a little tight and may need to be lightly sanded and then greased or (preferably) coated with anti-seize, and then tapped through, but they will work. 9/16" is 14.29mm

Please confirm what you have for a drive train. The XJ was not offered from the factory with a V6 after 1986. Where did you get this tranny from, and are you certain it's from a 91 XJ?

I think you should double and triple check that angle before you do anything. That's twice the stock caster angle, and I've never heard of any lift combination that produced anything like that.

Define "work." Wrangler rims are the same as Cherokee and Comanche rims. There is no disagreement as to what will happen if you put 31x10.50s on those rims on a stock MJ. They WILL tuck up inside the sheet metal and flares with no problems. They WILL rub on the lower control arms when the steering is turned to full lock. To put that in perspective, with a stock truck on stock tires the steering has 3-1/2 turns lock-to-lock. Running 31s, I lose less than 1/4 turn at each extreme, so my steering is reduced to 3 turns NON-lock to NON-lock. 97.32 percent of the time it makes no difference at all. The only time it makes any difference is when trying to turn sharply to get into a tight parking space. Changing to aftermarket rims with less backspacing eliminates the rubbing on the control arms, but creates problems with the tires hitting the flares and/or sheet metal. Personally, I'll deal with the minimal inconvenience of rubbing the lower control arms rather than bash up my bodywork and maybe cut a tire any day.

No. It's a locker. Friction modifier is required with clutch type limited slips.

The AX-15 is (was) made by Aisin-Seiki in Japan, and I believe it was also used in some Toyotas. Whether or not the Jeep version and Toyota version are 100% interchangeable I don't have a clue.

A 2WD transmission can be converted to 4WD ... but it isn't worth the time, effort and $$$ to do it. Just buy a 4WD tranny and transfer case as an assembly from a junkyard and call it good. Get the linkage and transmission controller from the same vehicle and you're good to go.

I'll have to check the '86 out back. Most likely some previous owner swapped the front axle. Be sure you torque that nut back to 175 foot-pounds.

Guys, if they are the same as the LCA bolts, they are not 1/2" bolts. The LCA (and UCA) bolts are metric, which is why so many of the control arm kits that come with SAE bolts rattle.