Eagle

I'm going to guess that those rims have about 4" backspacing. They will definitely NOT work on an MJ with no lift. I don't even think they'd work on an MJ with 3" of lift, without some serious trimming.

Fabbing what? The shock mount studs on the MJ are not on the axle, they are on the spring plates that the U-bolts go through. Other than mounting perches in the correct location, there is NO fabbing necessary unless you choose to create an unorthodox shock mount system. If your MJ has a rear axle, you already have everything you need. The spring perches can be cut off the 8.25 axle and re-used in the new location. Either cut off the XJ shock mounts or leave them -- you won't be using them. Buy new U-bolts, because the 8.25 has 3" tubes and the old ones won't fit, plus you should use new ones anyway. That's all there is to it. It sounds like you are making this a lot more complicated than it really is.

The two best brands of SLR (single lens reflex) camera for 35mm film are Canon and Nikon. Both have loyal and zealous advocates, and it's unlikely to find a member of either camp saying much good about the other. There used to be thousands of professional photographers using each brand, but probably more using Nikon. I prefer Canon, because the controls seem to fit my hands and the way I think. I have used a few Nikons and I always found them to be awkward and counter-intuitive. But both companies make excellent lenses, and that's the heart of a 35mm film camera. For film, Olympus had some decent ones. too. For digital, IMHO Canon is the only way to go. Never EVER buy the newest generation of digital SLR. Both Nikon and Canon are pushing the envelope too hard, and for both companies the professionals are finding that the newest generation image processor screen has tried to squeeze so many pixels into the same size screen that the pixels "bleed," creating artifacts in the images. Many have dumped their newest camera and gone back one generation for better images.

Where did you get the transfer case? If it came out of a YJ Wrangler, the linkage is totally different and the YJ t-case has an arm on it that fits just the opposite of the way the corresponding arm fits on an XJ or MJ. Post a photo of what you have, please.

:hijack: What would be really cool is if CWLongshot could install new, more accurate oil/volt/temp gauges yet still allow the old ones to work so the truck was kept original. Then he posts the "how-to" on the forum. :brows: Temperature would be more difficult, since the sender has to be in the coolant, but on a Renix it would be easy enough to change over to an HO thermostat housing with the port for a temp sender. Leave the one in the head for the stock gauges, and use a new sender in the t-stat housing for the supplemental gauge. CAVEAT: They won't be measuring at the same part of the system, so 100% correlation should not be expected. I keep thinking about adding a supplemental idiot light for oil pressure, and that's easy. Remove the sender, install a tee, then reinstall the original sender in one port and add a sender for the idiot lights in the other side of the tee. Wire the idiot light sender to a big red light somewhere on your dashboard where you'll see it if it lights up, and you have a redundant system. You check the gauge to see what the system is actually doing, but if there should be a sudden, catastrophic loss of pressure the light would tell you immediately.

With your shotgun, or with your MJ?

ahh. nice thank you. so if i get the HO intake and exhaust manifolds it should just be a bolt on deal. thanks for the knowledge! Not quite. The throttle bodies are different. The Renix throttle body will not bolt right onto the HO intake manifold.

:agree: High flow refers to volume, not pressure. With new bearings, there is no reason to spend extra money for a high flow oil pump.

Ain't technology wonderful. There's nothing like asking someone to call you, then fixin' your phone so his call can't come in. And you're waggin' a finger at HIM? Shame on you for wasting his time.

Oh, so you're a back-shooter, eh? Seriously, congrats.

5.0 liters is virtually guaranteed to break through the cylinder walls. Even if it doesn't, there won't be enough metal left to dissipate heat. The only way to do a 5.0 liter stroker is to completely hog it out and then sleeve it. For all practical purposes, .060 over is the limit. Once you hit .090 over you start to worry about core shift and thin walls/heat transfer.

From 1987 on, ALL 4.0L XJs came with 3.07 gears behind the 5-speed manual tranny, and 3.55 gears behind the automatic. That's what will be in the Country Edition XJ you found. I believe the Country Edition was only available with automatic, so the axle will be geared with 3.55s. The Trac-Lok is a decent, clutch-type limited slip. Those Ford Explorer axles that have a traction device also used a limited slip. Might even be the same one; if not, it's very similar.

You'll like the manual steering a LOT less. The steering ratio on almost all MJs is 14:1. If I remember correctly, the ratio on the XJ/MJ manual steering box was 28:1. However, if you want to do it, you'll need the manual box and a pitman arm to fit it. I have no idea if the manual box takes the same pitman arm as the power boxes. I have a fuzzy recollection that back in AMC days they were different.

Excellent. Another CC member who supports the right to arm bears.

The siren song on the mythical "budget stroker" is OOOOOHHHH so tempting. I followed the maiden for several years, doing research, doing more research, talking to people who had built strokers, talking to people who had BOUGHT strokers, and then doing more research, then crunching the numbers ... The "budget stroker" is a myth. IMHO it involves too many compromises to be a cost-effective substitute for a good rebuild. You either have too much compression, or you don't have enough. One of the solutions for the compression issue is to buy a non-stock cam with a lot of overlap, to bleed off excess compression pressure. I finally saw the light -- unless you're prepared to buy special, custom pistons to get the compression ratio correct, I think you're better off to build the engine stock, with a .030 overbore and new pistons, and then put a mild RV cam in it for more torque. Or buy a 4.2L engine, rebuild that, and throw the 4.0L head and injection on it.

Ahhhh, there in-lies a problem. I don't have any of the MJ axle stuff. What do you mean you don't have any of the MJ axle stuff? Isn't there an axle under your truck now? If so, you have the "stuff." The XJ rear axle is set up different from the MJ. Aside from the XJ having the springs over the axle, on the XJ the lower shock absorber mounts are brackets welded to the axle tubes. On the MJ, the lower ends of the shocks mount to pins on the spring plates. When using an XJ axle, you either cut the shock brackets off and throw them away -- or you could just leave them, if you won;t be doing heavy off-road stuff. You could cut the XJ spring pads (perches) off and re-use them. Or you could buy new ones. The best deal going for spring perches, if you buy new, is the pair from the Mopar Performance Catalog. They are beefy, slightly longer than the stock ones, and less than half the price of anybody else's. If they are still available, the part number is P4120074

We obviously have a failure to communicate. Chrysler introduced the HO (High Output) version of the 4.0L engine in the 1991 model year. That's the year the heads, manifolds, and ports all changed. Considering that 2001 was the LAST year of the XJ, I'm not sure what you had in mind by calling an 01 or older "pre HO." Your engine is a Renix 4.0L. It was used from 1987 through 1990 in the Cherokee and Comanche only. That's ideally what you should be looking for. You could get an HO engine and put your head on it ... but that presupposes that your valves, guides and seals are all in good shape.

I don't think it looks at all like an MJ. But then, a Cheromanche doesn't look like an MJ, either. This thing, in fact, looks a lot more like an Isuzu Amigo on steroids than it does like an MJ. I think it looks good and it appears to have been VERY well done, but it doesn't look remotely like an MJ, or even like a "pickup truck." Why waste an MJ tailgate on it?

You don't measure oil consumption by time, you measure it by miles. How many miles did you drive in that time, and at what speeds?

:agree: That seems to sum it up pretty well.

I like it, but I wouldn't compare it to a Comanche. It's really the ZJ version of the Cheromanche. So I guess it would have to be called a Grand Cheromanche.

The block is essentially the same but the ports on the HO heads are shaped differently and raised up higher. Some people have managed to modify either the HO head or the Renix manifold to be able to bolt them together, but due to the mismatch of the port shapes it's just not a good idea unless you have no choice. Also, the Renix has a temperature sensor down low on the left (driver's) side of the block for providing temp data to the ECU. The HO engines use a sensor in the thermostat housing to send data to the ECU.

Back to the transfer case - the 231 is slightly stronger than the 242, but ... try to find anyone who has busted a 242.

All XJ axles need to have the perches relocated. XJs had the springs over the axle, MJs had the springs under the axle. Also, the center-to-center distance is different for the XJ, so even if you were doing a spring-over-axle conversion using an XJ axle you would have to move the perches. The ONLY direct bolt-in axle for an MJ is from another MJ.

It looks just like the standard cluster -- except the speedometer goes to 120 MPH (or is it 140?) instead of 85