Eagle

Now if another 14,999,999 illegals would follow suit, perhaps this country could get back to being the United States of America.

That one will be live, I trust. (JUST KIDDING!)

I thought the question was about the ones on the exterior. Those have two fasteners. The louver slips down over plastic studs pressed into holes in the pillar. To remove, place a short block of wood against the bottom edge and tap GENTLY upward. They should pop right off. This is best done on a warm day when the plastic is softer.

The Renix (1990 and older) engines have two coolant temperature sensors. The one in the head is for the temp gauge on the dashboard, the one on the side of the block is for the ECU. Which one are you asking about? On the HO engines, the temp sender is in the thermostat housing.

:doh:

I know the 2.8L V6 as used in the early XJs and MJs was externally balanced. On the manual transmissions, that meant a "bob" weight on the flywheel. On the automatics, is the eccentric weight on the flex plate, or on the torque converter? I *NEED* to get my '88 2.5L 4-speed on the road. Clutch is blown. I could replace the clutch, but my wife doesn't drive standard (and the vehicles appreciate the consideration!), and it would be nice if there were a truck she could use when she buys used furniture for one of her projects. I have an ad in the Classifieds looking for an automatic for a 2.5L, but it occurred to me that I have the hulk of a 2.8L out back with a transmission attached. I'd have to replace the 228 transfer case with a 231 or 207, but that's not impossible. I know the tranny will bolt up to the block, and I assume (perhaps foolishly) that the torque converter may work, but will a 2.5L flex plate take care of the eccentric weight issues or will I have to have the torque converter neutral balanced?

There's your problem. (I see Hornbrod beat me to it.) Nope. Stock OEM Jeep rims are 5-1/4" backspacing, and 30x9.50s just barely rub on the lower control arms at full steering lock. I'm currently running 31x10.50s on stock alloy rims on my '88 XJ with no lift. Minor rubbing on the LCAs at full lock turning one way, no rubbing turning the other way. 4-1/2" of backspacing should take care of it for you.

Where are your tires rubbing? Do you have a lift? The usual place where 30s or 31s rub is on the lower control arms at full steering lock, and that has nothing to do with the flares.

DO NOT BUY A USED ONE! That bottle is part of the pressurized cooling system. If you find a used one, it'll be 20 years old and the plastic will have long since given up most of the plasticizers. Either spring for the top-shelf aluminum replacements, or buy a direct replacement from NAPA or Quadratech. Getting one from a junkyard is wasting money.

Try Henry's u-pull in Blackstone, MA. They used to have a row of MJs in the pick-n-pull section of the yard.

The "standard" rear drums for the XJ/MJ in the "early" years (through 1989) were 10" x 1-3/4". After 1990 Chrysler went to 9" x 2-1/2" ... wider, but the contact surface was located 10 percent closer to the center of rotation, so the larger brakes had a shorter lever arm. Dumb. In short, the D44 10" x 2-1/2" drums ARE a huge upgrade over either of the "standard" drum brakes on the XJ/MJ. Beyond that, both vehicles suffer from rear braking issues caused by their respective proportioning valves. In the MJ, the height-sensing valve doesn't let the rears do any work unless the bed is heavily loaded. That won't change if you switch to rear discs, and if you address it by removing or recalibrating the proportioning valve -- you won't need the discs. In the XJ, the proportioning valve gets gummed up and cuts off ALL braking to the rear wheels. Once again, changing to discs won't help, because they won't be doing any work, either. But they'll certainly look ultra-cool and high tech while they're doing squat to stop your vehicle. If you feel a need to upgrade your braking, be sure you understand what part of the system isn't performing before you start throwing parts (and money) at it.

I don't know what he's smoking, but disc brakes don't use backing plates. If it were me, I'd pay the cheaper price and skip the partial disc brake stuff he has, and use the money to put stock 10" x 2-1/2" drums on it, the way it was meant to be. I'm sure that's a minority opinion among you young whippersnappers who didn't grow up during a time when drum brakes were not only adequate, they also worked. The problem with drums in recent years is that the manufacturers started skimping, so they made 'em too small to stop the vehicles they were on. THe primary advantage to discs is cooling, for less brake fade. That's a factor only if you race, or if you drive a LOT in mountainous terrain. For normal purposes, the MJ D44 10" x 2-1/2" drums provide PLENTY of braking. And they don't require changing the booster and master cylinder, which would be necessary to get the discs to work properly.

Here ya go http://custom4x4fabrication.com/recovery.html#brackets

Two points: (1) The factory wiring for the fogs allows them to operate with the low beam headlights, or with the parking lights. I wouldn't want the fogs to operate with the headlight switch in the OFF position. Too much likelihood I'd forget to turn them off, and come back to a dead battery. (2) It is Federal law that fog lights CANNOT stay on when you switch to high beams. That's why the factory wired them that way. There is NO car, truck or SUV that has ever come from the factory with fog lights that would stay on with the high beams. It costs more to do it this way ... trust me, the manufacturers would not do it if it weren't a legal requirement.

You seem to be under the assumption that the factory wiring harness for fog lights was there even if the vehicle didn't come with fog lights. That was not the case in 1989. AMC did not install wiring for options that were not ordered. If you bought the fogs later, over the counter, the harness was sold as a stand-alone item. Back around 1990 the wiring harness alone sold for $55.

You did the math right. 31" tires are about 10% larger (in terms of distance per revolution) than stock tires (assuming that stock was 215s or 225s), so 133 + 10% would be around 147.

Wow! Pricey, but VERY nice. For something a little less expensive (but also not as potentially useful), most of the auto body parts places sell the brackets that go with the Fey/Westin universal step bumpers as a separate kit. The bumper is the same for all the small pickups, and you buy the brackets to mount the universal bumper to your truck. As far as I know, the MJ brackets are still available. http://www.discountbodyparts.com/catalo ... to%20Parts)&Ntt=bumper $52.96 / pair

The low-range ratio in the 207 is a couple of hundredths less than that of the 231. Not a huge difference. IIRC, the 207 low range was 2.61 and the 231 was 2.72. The real difference is that the 231 has better oiling. As to noise, the pitch on the gears for the 231 changed, which might account for a newer one in a TJ being quieter. A couple of people on NAXJA encountered problems some years ago trying to mix and match input gears between 231 boxes. I can't think of any reason to change the gear pitch without changing the ratio unless they were trying to make it run quieter.

As noted, it's the "brick on wheels" factor. Aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with speed. During my brief sojourn with the '99 Grand Cherokee, I took a 500 miles (each way) trip and used the opportunity to conduct an experiment. Going from CT to Pittsburgh (western PA, for those who don't know) I ran with the cruise control set at 70 (speed limit on I-84 is 65). For grins & giggles, I had plenty of time on the return so I set the cruise control at 55. IIRC my gas mileage on the return was either 3 or 4 MPG better than it was on the first leg of the trip. And a '99 Grand Cherokee is a slipperier brick than an MJ, by a substantial bit.

Fan clutch. Classic symptoms. Half full when cold. It's a surge tank. The coolant expands when it gets hot. You NEED that air space for the expansion. If you fill it full when cold, you'll blow up the new tank.

I don't have a clue what the problem is. My wife and I are in the Yoo Ess of Ay, and the friend is in northern Chile. The friend doesn't use the same mechanic my wife used to use when she lived there. The lady knows exactly what part she's looking for, so we assume someone has verified the need for it, but I'm not going to start second guessing her mechanic by remote control from several thousand miles away. The part sems to be unavailable in Iquique, so we'll help her get the part. Beyond that ... she's an adult, she can deal with the mechanic.

My Jeep dealer stocks both inners and outers, and Auto Zone has listings for both. Curiously, the Auto Zone web site indicates that my nearest store has the inners in stock, but the outers are special order. Go figure. This is for a 2003 with the 3.3 engine, if it matters. I don't doubt that Chrysler wants to have you just R&R the rack. It's probably faster, and at today's shop prices it may even be cheaper for the customer. Plus Chrysler makes more money that way than just selling the tie rods. But that's just evidence of our throw-away society. In most South American countries, they still prefer to repair things rather than throw them away.

We got it, folks. Tie rod. Of course, it's for rack & pinion, so there's an inner and an outer on each side and the friend didn't say which she needs, but we're closing in on it. FWIW, the bi-lingual dude at the Auto Zone store I called thought it meant "brakes." Epic fail. Brakes is "frenos."

So how did you lot know I had a crush on Princess Summerfallwinterspring when I was a lad?

A 231 is noisier in 4WD than in 2WD, too.