Eagle

The cat glowing red indicates, if I'm not mistaken, a RICH mix, not lean. If you're running too lean, there's nothing in the exhaust to burn up in the cat. If you're running way rich, you're dumping unburned fuel down the pipe and it burns up in the cat. Are the manifolds tight? If there are any leaks, air can get in and fool the O2 sensor into "seeing" a lean condition where there really isn't one at the engine. That tells the ECU to richen up the mix, and much hilarity ensues. On one of our NAXJA NAC trail rides a couple or three years ago one of the guys busted a manifold. His O2 sensor was sending so much gas to the engine that there were flames shooting out the tailpipe when he let off the gas. He limped off the trail and put it on a trailer to get it home.

Which would create a shortbed MJ with non-OEM springs and rear axle, not a Metric Ton Comanche. The Metric Ton package was offered only on the longbeds. My '87 Pioneer shortbed has a Dana 44 axle, Trac-Lok, and front tow hooks. I've never counted the leaves in the rear springs, but regardless of how many leaves I find, it isn't a Metric Ton.

Simple. It's a shortbed. Therefore, it is NOT a metric ton. That option was offered only on the long beds.

The sadder thing is that "someone" is probably us ... through the National Endowment for the Arts. The best I can figure out, the NEA is a government venue for siphoning money away from productive citizens and giving it to "artists" whose work is so bad and/or so non-art that they could never hope to sustain themselves by the fruits of their "labor" if forced to actually sell their "art" to earn a living. The entire NEA program should be scrapped.

I don't see any seatbelts. It isn't safe without seatbelts.

I'm not at all convinced that your method would work. If it did, it would make a mess of the engine compartment and strip off paint anywhere you spilled brake fluid. I'd just follow the FSM procedure. (In the interest of full disclosure, I actually would NOT follow the FSM procedure. I would actually eliminate the height sensing valve and run a single line directly to the rear flex hose. IF I were to keep the height sensing valve, I would follow the FSM procedure.)

My '88 MJ had a MUCH worse floor. In fact, on the driver's side I didn't have ANY floor. That can be fixed. Rocker panels can be replaced -- they are available. Dash parts are the same as Cherokee, so that's as easy as a trip to a self-serve junk yard. I don't think your truck is nearly as bad as you think. The important thing is to crawl underneath and inspect the frame under the bed.

What would this accomplish? There is nothing flowing in that by-pass line unless the front brakes fail. Here's the link. Scroll down about four posts to where I copied the FSM procedure. http://comancheclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4917

It looks like they sell the same Daystar kit for both the XJ and MJ. But MJ shackles are longer than XJ, so I wouldn't expect any (certainly not much) lift out of that kit at the rear of an MJ. I'm with Pete. A full-length AAL is definitely the way to address sagging rear springs.

There is a rather complicated procedure for bleeding the MJ brakes if you still have the rear height-sensing valve. I transcribed it from the FSM and posted it here a year or so ago. A bit of searching should turn it up.

Ah, yes -- Army hospitals. Ya know, here I've been thinking there couldn't possibly be anything worse than the VA "healthcare" system. Until I saw your post, I had totally forgotten my experience in the post hospital at Fort Lost-in-the-Woods, back in the day. (That's Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for those of you who don't know.) Dang, I feel better already.

Remember, the last MJs were built in 1992. That was 17 years ago. There are virtually NO Comanche parts left in the Mopar system unless they happen to be common with XJs. If you spot an MJ in a junkyard, it's always a good idea to grab anything you can afford and that's moderately portable ... such as taillights. Tailgates, too, and rear bumpers if you should miraculously see one in decent condition. The seatbelts are different from XJs. Sliding rear windows are good candidates. Heck, even the fixed rear windows, if you can get one cheap. Windows do break, ya know. Little stuff, like the seat pedestals and the brackets for mounting the jack behind the seat are always good to grab.

I would sooooooo totally have them dropped at Eagle's house ... which is only about 3 miles difference.

Daystar has a budget boost for a Comanche?

I'll second that. The OEM carb is, in a word, "awful." An old Boy Scout canteen with a drip tube into the manifold would be better.

A 5-speed should have 4.10 gearing. With stock tires, it should feel halfway decent around town up through 3rd gear, but will sort of run out of steam over about 50 MPH once you hit 4th and 5th gears. It's difficult to judge whether or not yours is "normal" because we don't know how you drive, or what kind of vehicles your frame of reference is based on. The MJ isn't a rice rocket. It weighs over 3,000 pounds and the 2.5L was the base, econo-box engine. That combination was intended for getting you from here to there, with decent gas mileage. It was not intended to set the world on fire.

Well ... you're close. A throttle body spacer CAN'T increase the volume of air. How much air gets sucked in at any given RPM is determined entirely by the bore, stroke, and camshaft specs. The air path from the inlet of the throttle body to the intake valve on the head is nothing but a pipe, and the spacer just makes the pipe longer. Yes, there's more air in the pipe, but that doesn't put any more air through the intake valve per revolution. What the spacer can do on a TBI is, as you stated, increase the turbulence and thus enhance the mixing of the fuel droplets with the air column flowing through the manifold. And that's why there's more benefit from a spacer with a carburetor or throttle body injection than with MPFI, because with MPFI the column of air in the "pipe" is dry, and the fuel doesn't get injected until the air gets to the intake valve.

What transmission and what axle gearing?

I'm sorry -- you are correct. 95 was the last year of the YJ, but it did change over to the injected 4.0L in 1991. Sorry.

Dunno about the rest of you, but I think Congresscritters from Oregon should keep their noses out of Utah's affairs. Who the [bleep] cares if a Congresscritter from Oregon thinks part of Utah should be preserved as wilderness? It ain't "wilderness" now, and naming it that tomorrow won't make it "wilderness." We're right back the the tactics of the Clinton administration, when they were having the Forest Service create so-called "wilderness" areas by erasing existing roads from maps and pretending they didn't exist.

The 199 c.i.d. is a not-so-distant relation of our 4.0L. The basic engine that evolved into the 4.0L was first introduced by AMC as a 232 c.i.d. (3.8L) engine in the 1964 model year, in the full-size Rambler Classic passenger cars. For 1966, they added a destroked version of 199 c.i.d. (3.3L) displacement for the Rambler American line. Then in 1970 they dropped the American and brought out the Hornet and Gremlin. I think it was that year that they raised the deck height of the engines. The old 232 became the 258 (4.2L), which lived on right up through 1995 in the Jeep YJ Wranglers. The 199 was dropped and with the increased deck height became the "new" 232 (3.8L). The neat thing is that ALL of these engines share the same basic block, bore spacing, and crank journal size and spacing. So by mixing and matching cranks to blocks you can create a variety of odd displacements. This is what makes the 4.6L "stroker" versions of the 4.0L possible. IIRC, the 199, 232 (both versions) and 258 all used the same bore, and just varied the stroke to change the displacement.

Wrong. The pin just holds the leaves from sliding relative to each other. The pin is at the point where the axle sits, and that's the fulcrum for axle wrap. The diameter of the pin does NOTHING to prevent axle wrap.

A guy named Barney Navarro tried for several years to run the Indy 500 with a supercharged AMC I-6. That was a long time ago, and I don't recall ever seeing any horsepower claims for the engines. Then there was the guy who took two of the 199 c.i.d. versions and hooked them up in-line for an I-12 engine in a dragster ... Here we go: http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/200 ... ure16.html http://wps.com/AMC/Navarro-turbo-motor/ http://www.navarroengineering.com/about_barney.html

Longer front and rear brake hoses. At 3" you really should get an adjustable track bar. A 3" lift will pull the front axle about 1/2" to 5/8" off-center toward the driver's side of the chassis.

:agree: As Ronald Regan said, "Trust ... but verify." Dana 44s were mostly found in the Cherokee in 1987, with fewer used in 1988. It's unlikely to find any beyond 1988, and certainly not out of a '93. And TWO of them? Uhn uhn.