Eagle

242 all the way. A few years back I was in a relationship with a gal from New Jersey. About every other weekend I would leave work on Friday and head down to her place. We had a lot of snow storms that winter. Between the NY State Thruway and the Interstate in NJ, there were innumerable stretches where a half mile would be deep snow, another half mile would be plowed (or wind-scoured) to bare pavement, and then every few miles you'd hit a stretch of ice just to keep things interesting. My Cherokee had a 231, and I got a real workput on the right bicep rowing it into and out of 4WD as I went from dry pavement to slippery stuff. I would have been SOOOOOOOOOOO happy to have had a 242 and just shove it into full-time and leave it there.

It should. What year 207, and what year AX5?

Qui Gon-Jinn -- Might I ask what you paid for it with the external drive? I'm seriously considering one of those little guys, but the lack of a CD drive is a serious drawback. But I don't always need a CD, so having an external for when I need it would probably suffice. What operating system came on yours, Vista or Xp?

Based on the steering wheel and (lack of) armrests, it's a base model. That's not a bad thing, just a comment. It'll have idiot lights instead of gauges, but that's a quick swap with a junkyard instrument cluster and changing a couple of sensors and you can have full instrumentation. Looks very solid. Those aren't original MJ rims -- I suspect they may be Ford rimes, which means they stick out a bit more than factory rims, but that shouldn't be an issue. They look good on the truck. Nice rig. Did you buy it? Even if the floor has some rust -- you can buy replacement floor pans. That's much better than having the quarter panels rusted out. AFAIK you can't find replacement quarter panels anywhere, at any price.

The cross member is the same. The transmission mount is different.

The 231 is slightly stronger than the 242. The 242 is both larger and heavier than the 231. The advantage to the 242 is the full-time option, which is used generally only on pavement. If you don't drive a lot in snow and ice conditions on the road, you probably would never have a use for the full-time option. Take your pick. Several of the people in my NAXJA chapter had 242s and nobody broke one, not even rock crawling at Paragon.

4WD wouldn't have helped. It's a common misconception among people who are new to SUVs. They don't understand (until they learn the "HARD" way) that 4-wheel go does not necessarily equate to 4-wheel stop. The ones with ABS are even worse, because they don't understand that on ice all ABS does is prevent the wheels from locking -- which means if you have zero traction the ABS will automatically ensure that you also have zero brakes.

You may notice that a certain thread on the subject of people getting their feelings all hurtie, and other peoiple using a bunch of naughty words, and various other somewhat loosely (or not) related topics ... has disappeared from your radars. The simple reason is that, AFTER we discussed at some length that there is no need to use a bunch of 4-letter words on this site ... some of you decided that it must be a good idea to use such words. Shelbyluvv didn't wave the magic wand over the thread this time, I did. There was no simple, easy way to clean up the individual posts so I zapped the whole enchilada. Do us all a favor, Gentlemen, and take the hint. We now return you to your normally scheduled programming.

Can you post a photo? The double cardan joint in the front driveshaft should certainly be able to handle a 2" lift with a low pinion axle. Ummm ... I hope this is a foolish question, but ... your front driveshaft DOES have a double cardan joint, right?

3.07s are a bad ratio even with stock tires. 3.54 isn't terrible, and 3.73 is quite acceptable with both stock tires and 30s. I ran 3.73s with 31x10.50s and I wished I had 4.10s -- only reason I ran that combo was that I had already bought the gears to go with 30" tires, then bought the MJ with a lift and 31s (and 3.07s -- UGH!), so I put in the gears I had. 3.07s are too ugly to even be good paperweights.

What vehicle did the "new" Dana 30 come out of? If it's from a ZJ (Grand Cherokee) or a TJ (round headlight Wrangler), it's a low pinion axle. The original for your MJ was a high pinion axle. It can make a lot of difference, but at less than a 2" lift it shouldn't be an issue. You may have to reduce the caster angle slightly, and that's where things get "iffy." If the caster angle is reduced below about 6 or 6-1/2 degrees, the possibility of death wobble is greatly increased.

Those look like the rear shocks on my 88 4-cyl MJ.

That would be my choice for a junkyard box, too -- if the spline for the pitman arm is the same. That should have the quick ratio, and the spool valve (the "module" to which someone referrered above) should be the one that provides less boost & better road feel.

I don't believe so ... but I'm willing to be corrected.

GM boxes are pretty widely interchangeable, whether they used three or four bolts to mount. The fourth bolt can be ignored in an MJ/XJ, and I think the other three are in the same positions. In my case, the Borgeson Company (http://www.borgeson.com/) is just a few miles north of me, and even closer to where I work, so one of these days I plan on taking the worn out box I took out of the 88 MJ up to them and asking if they'll rebuild it to a 12:1 box, with a stiff spool valve for better road feel/response. I really hate variable ratio. The problem is, I do a WHOLE lot more highway driving than I do off-roading. Fir highway driving, I want a box that gives my instantaneous response if I need to make an evasive manuever. And the variable ratio boxes are slowest at the straight ahead (center) position, and the ratio gets faster as you get more into the turn. For my purposes, that's worse than useless -- it bass-ackwards.

I'm going to send Pete the bill for treating my hernia. Just dragged out the 88 (which is really the 86), 94, and 2000 factory manuals. 88(86) (XJ & MJ): Steering gear type: Recirculating ball with hydraulic assist Steering Gear Ratio: .....1984-85 & 86 "off road" package .......... 17:1 .....1986 - All except "off road" package ..... 14:1 ---------------------------- 1994 (XJ & YJ): Steering gear type: Recirculating ball with hydraulic assist Ratio Code (Top of Gear): .....BH, NZ ............................................ 14:1 .....BF, XS ...................................... 13 - 16:1 .....AL ................................................ 12.7:1 ---------------------------- 2000 (XJ Only): Steering Gear .....Type.............................. Recirculating Ball Gear Ratio: .....LHD ................................................ 14:1 .....RHD ................................................ 14:1 ---------------------------- The 1994 FSM covers both the XJ Cherokee and the YJ Wrangler, so I have no way of knowing which of those steering box code would apply to which vehicles and/or which packages. I know the steering in the 2000 XJ feels much better than the 88 XJ and MJ, but I'd be extremely happy if I could lay my hands on one of the 12.7:1 boxes for my daily driver. I've been tempted to take the box out of one of the hulks and have it rebuilt as a 12:1 box. That would be just about right for the way I drive, I think.

Keep in mind that the 84-99 XJ and the 86-92 MJ used a high-pinion, "reverse rotation" Dana 30 in the front. The ZJ (Grand Cherokee), the TJ (Wranger, round headlights), and the 2000-2001 XJ used a low pinion, standard rotation D30 in front. The low pinion axle will bolt right in -- all the mounts are the same -- but it isn't as strong as the reverse rotation setup, and if you lift it runs into u-joint angles sooner because the pinion is below the axle centerline rather than above. The best candidates for new front axles are from late 90s XJs, with no vacuum disconnect and with the larger u-joints.

I don't think either of those would/could cause wobble. Sounds like either a bent rim, or a bent axle shaft. Put the back end up on jack stands, and run it in low gear to see what's wobbling. Once you see which side (unless it's both), take off the tire and rim and run it again to see if the hub itself is wobbling or running true.

The FSM indicates that the XJ box is a fixed ratio. Where do you see references to variable ratio in the XJ/MJ?

Well, that bottle is NOT an "overflow" bottle. It is part of the pressurized system, so if it's cracked, there's a major part of your problem. http://www.quadratec.com/products/52449_1493.htm http://www.quadratec.com/products/51216_01.htm

It looks to me like you have everything you need except the flex line from the master cylinder to the slave. What do you mean "a whole new clutch setup"? Dude, what you have there is an external slave setup. That's an improvment over the internal -- don't tell me you WANT to go back to the internal!

86 and 88 were both Renix-based, throttle body injection. They should be pretty much interchangeable as far as I know. Just watch out for water pump issues. If one has a serpentine belt and the other has conventional vee belts, the rotation of the water pumps will be reversed.

I think to match the general appearance of the new style front flares a better choice would be Wrangler flares, but I haven't done enough research to decide if YJ or TJ flares would be better.

What year MJ? If it's a 1990 or older, that isn't an "overflow" bottle, it's a surge tank and it's part of the cooling system. If it leaks, the coolant level goes down, and when the coolant level goes down there isn't enough coolant to run through the heater core. Quadratec in Pennsylvania sells the old style coolant bottles, if that's what you need.

Yeah, we confirmed that the regulator is built-in. L'il bro said he drove it for 40 minutes today (about 50 degrees and sunny) and it kept on charging. As a test, when he got near home he turned on the headlights. He stopped for a traffic light and it stopped charging. He tried running in a lower gear to keep the RPMs over 3500 and he said that didn't bring it back. Any other suggestions will be appreciated.