Eagle

could you explain this better? ive read multiple posts that all have similar numbers but these seem a bit tite from one size tire to the next. over the years ive come to trust your opinion on anything that involves math and technical fact, but wen i look at the math posted elceware and the random calculators, these numbers just look off. i assume that these numbers are were they should be and not what they would be to keep the factory final drive ratio :dunno: did i answer my own question? for example: had 28"tires with a 3.07 ratio and wanted to go to 33" tires i would want a 3.62 ratio. but why would i want the same 3.07 bs so up it to 3.73. http://www.izook.com/gearcalc.htm (i went 4.10 from 3.07 wen i got 33" tires) The only way to actually calculate equivalencies is to use the revolutions per mile for the different tire sizes. NONE of the on-line calculators do that -- they use the nominal diameter, so they are incorrect from the start. The spreadsheet I made up many years ago was created after researching a lot of tire brochures and manufacturers' web sites to obtain revolutions per mile. (And, of course, another tire of the same nominal size would be slightly different.) To answer your question, the ratios I recommend have NOTHING to do with matching the factory ratio. The 3.07 ratio, especially, was a factory mistake from the outset. They used that for one reason: to optimize the mileage and emission ratings on the old government tests. For actual driving, the 3.07 ratio is a joke. 1600 RPM at 60 MPH in 5th gear? Even the non-HO version of the 4.0L engine has its torque peak at 2400 RPM ... the gear ratio should be chosen to cruise on the torque peak at highway speed. Even 70 MPH was only 1883 RPM with the 3.07s. 3.73s get you up to 2287 RPM at 70 MPH (on stock tires) ... that's getting closer to where it should be. The ratios I suggested above are for a balance between daily driving and having a decent crawl ratio for off-road. No attempt was made to match factory final drive ratio.

That just don't look right, someone tried too hard... :ack: I like it. It's different, but it respects the Jeep family lineage. Much better than turning a perfectly good MJ into a low rider with full body effects. :wall:

My view is: 3.54 for stock tires 3.73 for 30" tires 4.10 for 31" tires 4.56 for 32" tires 4.88 for anything larger than 32" tires (4.88 is the deepest gear available for the Dana 30)

For reference -- the 4.0L does not have a PCV.

Whaddaya mean? He says it's an '86. That was the first year for the MJ. This truck is OBVIOUSLY the long-lost factory prototype. It's a one-of-a-kind. Probably worth at least $75,000 in unrestored condition. It's a bargain. Someone should absolutely snap it up.

Cuttin torch and welder are sorta tough on the fiberglass header panel of the XJ/MJ. Take a look at the stock header panel behind the headlights, and it's already set up for round lights. I think a halfway decent body man with some fiberglass experience could easily modify the stock header panel to accept a Gladiator grille and full-size headlights.

If your control arm bushings are deteriorated, that's a factor. Just keep in mind that, although that may make it easier for death wobble to take place, it doesn't CAUSE it. As an example, my '88 Cherokee was bought new so I know the control arms (and bushings) are the originals. It'll be 22 years old in January, and it's now at 287,000+ miles. I'm running 31x10.50 tires and there's not a hint of death wobble (or even shimmy). What are your alignment specs ... especially caster angle?

L'il bro's first name does begin with a 'B'. I'll let you call him "Bubba," though. Did I mention that he was the starting center on an undefeated high school football team -- in his sophomore year?

Not that one.... this grill I don't know where you could shrink it enough to make it fit.. unless you custom fabbed all the parts. But it would look sweet if someone did. I think that could be very easily done Out there on Highway Fifty-one

I want to know what he used to make that thing behind the pickup. Looks like he grafted the rear body half from a Mercedes Gelandewagen onto a CJ-7 chassis.

I like the shot with the little ATV winch on the front.

It was designated "4.2 Liter" in the YJ Wrangler, but back in earlier AMC days (into the 1960s and up through the 70s, at least) it was the 258 c.i.d. (Cubic Inch Displacement) in-line six. Yes, the 4.2L is the engine the 4.0L was based on. It was a VERY good engine. Better than the 4.0L? Probably not. It's hard to compare them, because the 4.0L was introduced with MPFI and the 4.2L was never offered from the factory with any kind of fuel injection. With a smaller bore and longer stroke, it was a torque engine. Plenty of low end, but it didn't wind up real quick (you'd never mistake it for a V6), and trying to run it higher than 3,000 RPM was an exercise in self-deception. The connecting rods were longer and skinnier than the rods in the 4.0L. We had several of them in the family over the years. No problems.

Texas, actually ...

Crown makes 'em If he can't find one locally, have him call Todd or Tony at Bradshaw Jeep in Connecticut. They can fix him up. 860-274-8834, Option 3 for parts. Mention "Harwood" and they'll be sure to double the price for ya.

What do you mean by "two-piece" front disc brakes? That's a term I am not familiar with.

Yes, 4.2L. Jeep used to sell (and may still sell) a conversion setup to turn the carbureted 4.2L Wranglers into MPFI fuel injected vehicles. The kit was basically the manifold, engine room wiring harness, and injection setup from a 1994 Wrangler, with a special adapted to mount the CPS to the front of the engine to read off a special harmonic balancer that has trigger teeth on it. The price for this is a bargain -- if you have a 4.2L Wranger. The kit from Chrysler was $1500 or $2000 IIRC.

We'll hope for the former.

If it was originally a manual, then there should be a push button on the right side of the steering column, near the key. I'm describing it badly and I'm sorry, but after 21 years and over 300,000 miles (combined vehicles) the motion of turning off the key and pushing the release button has become so automatic that I honestly don't remember exactly where it is. And it's dark and raining, so I'm not going out there tonight to take a photo of it. If there's no pushbutton, the previous owner must have swapped the steering column. You wrote that it "was" a 2.5L with a manual tranny. Is it now an automatic? If so, he may have swapped in the column from a donor vehicle along with an engine and drive train.

Automatic or manual? With the automatics, there is an interlock to the shifter so the key can't be removed unless the shifter is in Park. If it's a manual, there's a push button on the right side of the column, forward of and below the key, and the key can't be turned all the way Off and removed unless that button is pushed. It's sounding like perhaps the previous owner might have either messed up the interlock, or possibly swapped in a different column and not reconnected the interlock. Check out this current thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18411

It's cheaper to hang out here. Sooner or later, most questions will be asked ... and answered.

Torque. And 200,000 mile reliability. In fact, the 4.0L in my '88 Cherokee is currently at 287,000.

2.8L? He says it's a 2.5L -- that's the 4-cyinder. If it's really an '87 it can't be a 2.8L. Looks like a pile of junk to me. I'd pay $400 or $500 for it if it runs well. At $1800 I'd have to wonder what kind of dope he's been smoking.

You should find the answers to your questions here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7658&hilit=hub+bearing+assembly

No, it is NOT the same amount of work. All the parts needed for a 4.0L swap are readily available from junk XJs. You can get most of the parts needed to swap in a Chevy 3.4L V6 from 2.8L XJs, but not all. It sounds like you are thinking more along the lines of a 4.3L V6, which is an entirely different animal. You either need expensive adapters, or you need to do a lot of fabrication. One of the very early members of NAXJA lived a couple of miles from me and had done a 4.3L swap. A group of us used to meet at a local diner on Saturdays for breakfast. We asked him once if he would undertake the 4.3L swap again, now that he had done one. The answer: "No f***ing way!" So, since you asked for opinions, my opinion is ... forget it. But it sounds like your mind is made up, so stand by for opinions that reinforce your decision and proceed accordingly.

The factory surface manual specifically states that the flywheel cannot be resurfaced, it has to be replaced. As noted, it is not flat ... it has a slight taper, and resurfacing eliminates the correct profile. You need a new flywheel.