Eagle

As already noted, the Renix sender has a range of 0 to 88 ohms. The HO sender has a range of 105 to 5 ohms. The difference isn't the same on both ends of the scale, but adding a 5-ohm resistor to the Renix-era sender would get it closer to the HO values. The range would then be 5 to 93 ohms. Combined with a bit of bending on the float arm, that might result in a gauge whose readings are at least usable, since factory gas gauges aren't especially accurate anyway. (Side note: My brother used to be service manager at a BMW dealership. One day he got an irate phone call from a woman whose new BMW had run out of gas. Her model had a fuel and mileage computer as well as a gauge. L'il bro asked her if she had checked the computer before she ran out of gas. "Yes I did!" she replied angrily. "It said I had 1.3 miles to go before it was empty.") Keep in mind that the fuel pump is also grounded by the one black wire going into the tank. Switching the black and colored wire for the sensor might result in some odd behavior on the part of the pump. I suppose it might be possible to add a fourth wire as a dedicated ground for the sender - I'd have to pull a fuel pump/sender assembly out of a tank to see if that's really feasible, or if it's just another pie-in-the-sky idea that sounds great in theory but won't work in practice.

Dunno, Pete ... but it should work in daylight, with no accessories operating. When it stops charging, it isn't permanently dead. If he recharges the battery, the next time he drives the truck it shows charging (normal operation) for awhile, and then it'll suddenly decide it's had enough for one day and quit.

Engines can be rebuilt, or bought out of a junkyard. For me, anyway, a solid body is a LOT more important. I'm lousy at body work, and when you send it out ... it's expensive, and they do a lousy job anyway. Check it out, by all means.

My brother has a problem. 1997 Nissan pickup, 4-cylinder engine (I think that's all they offered that year, not sure). He has a plow on it, and it's winter here in New England. He discovered the first or second storm he plowed that when he puts any load on the electrical system (like: lights + plow hoist + blinker lights required by law) the alternator stops charging. He has replaced the alternator three times now, with no difference. In fact, he said the problem (whatever it is) seems to be getting worse. Used to be, during the day with no lights on the alternator would charge and maintain the battery, but at night the headlights would make it trip out after about 10 or 15 minutes. He drove the truck to meet a friend for breakfast this morning, and he said after about ten miles (NO lights) the alternator stopped charging. Anybody got any tips or insider info on what might be going on?

Thanks for the write-up Eagle. That must have been painful, to re-live all those memories. Heh ... If I stopped to reconstruct the full history, what I gave you was just the tip of the iceberg. How about an "auto disengage" feature for the cruise control? Pretty neat, huh? It was especially appealing in heavy traffic with a semi on my bumper. Or the panic alarm. It had a "random self-test" feature built in. It would go off whenever it felt like it. They didn't believe me at the dealership. Finally, after the shop foreman had taken a test drive to evaluate one of the other problems, we were standing outside the shop (me, the foreman, the service writer, and a tech or three) and the alarm went off. "There," I said, "that's what I'm talking about." "You did it," said the service writer. "Yeah? Mike [the foreman] is still holding the keys." "Oh." Oh, yeah. If at all possible, DO NOT get one with the optional Sentry Key (or whatever they call it). That's the key with the sensor or transmitter or whatever built in, so the engine won't start unless THAT key is in the ignition. Home Depot or locksmith copies won't work. You'll want to be sitting down if you ever ask the price for a replacement key. And they can't make 'em at the dealership -- they have to special order them from Chrysler.

1999 was the first year for the WJ. DO NOT buy a 1999 WJ. Learn from my error, and remember the adage that you should never, ever buy a new vehicle in the first year it's available. Mine had the 4.7L V8 and the full QuadraDrive II system. When it worked, QuadraDrive was awesome. Problem is, it didn't work very often. The transfer case kept binding up. The factory kept trying different lube formulations, none of which solved the problem. Meanwhile, in 14,000 miles I went through three brake jobs (under warranty) because the front rotors liked to warp. The rear axle (the infamous aluminum "Dana 44") developed a howl, apparently because the diff housing warped. It wasn't abuse, because I never took it off road. I had my '88 XJ for that. That axle is just trash. In the end, the thing died in the middle of a state highway and had to be towed to the dealership where they gave me the good news and the bad news. The good news was, they knew what the problem was: bad cam sensor. The bad news was: the part to replace it wasn't in the system, so they couldn't fix it. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week or even next month. Fortunately, because Jeep had already wasted so much of my time and money, the factory had agreed to buy it back (to stop me from filing a lemon law case, which gets recorded in some Federal database), and the replacement (a 2000 XJ Classic) showed up abut the time the WJ died. So I just handed them the keys and wished them good luck with it. It drove well and rode very comfortably with the Up Country suspension. The much-touted 4.7 V8 had NO power or torque under 3,000 RPM, but over 3,000 RPM it took off like a rocket. In other words, a passenger car engine rather than a Jeep engine. The Chrysler automatic tranny was also junk. It always made various annoying clunks and bangs that the dealership assured me were "normal" (but which I had never heard any other vehicle make). I would suggest getting a 2001 or 2002. I don't think they had the bugs worked out even in the 2000 production. And, unless your wife really likes to use the power, I would stay FAR away from the V8 and get the 4.0L engine with the old stand-by 242 transfer case. If you get that configuration, there's a possibility you might get a Dana 35 axle. Yeah, yeah, I know. But ... the Dana 35 in my 88 Cherokee has 270,000 miles on it, has been off-roaded somewhat extensively, and is still going strong. The "Dana 44" in my WJ had to be rebuilt under warranty at 10,000 miles, and the rebuild made the problem worse instead of better. The good old Dana 35 is actually better than the POS aluminum "Dana 44."

Not sure I follow your thought on this one Eagle. The 2.5 did come before the 4.0. Or do you mean that a more correct lineage would be the 4.0 based on the 4.2? I just look at them all being in the same family. Damn good engines. Too bad they didn't bother to do more development on the 2.5. I think there is untapped potential there. The 2.5L engine wasn't designed out of thin air. My racing friend was service manager at the dealership our family used back when the Cherokee came out. He said back in 1984 that the 2.5L engine was nothing but a 258 (4.2L) with the middle two cylinders taken out, and that's true. The same I6 "family" dates to 1964, when AMC first introduced it as a 232 c.i.d. (3.8L). Two years later they added a de-stroked version that displaced 199 cubes, and then somewhere in the 70s they increased the stroke and bumped the displacement to 258 cubic inches. That's the same 4.2L engine that was used in the Wrangler right up through 1990, and that's the engine that the 4.0L was derived from. As was the 2.5L. Doesn't matter that the 2.5L came a couple of years before the 4.0L -- that doesn't mean the 4.0L was based on it.

I always figured it should increase the mileage, too, but one of the compromises is the need to run bigger injectors to compensate for the higher compression.

The C4x4 tow hook kit is definitely worth $75. If you could still source the parts through a Jeep dealer, they would total up to probably four times that price. The only criticism I have (and this applies to the factory kit, as well) is that there's no way to keep a strap on the hook with the open side facing down. Spend a couple of extra bucks to get a pair of those little stainless steel spring thingies that snap over the open hook to keep the strap in place when it's slack.

Any frame can be repaired. My brother's early 90s Nissan pickup plow truck had the frame crack just behind the cab. It was sway-backed driving down the road, and if he put the plow down and pushed against anything you could see the "hinge" flexing. He took it to a shop that specializes in frame repair, and they fixed it right up.

Not bad. Only found two major errors. It is disappointing, though, to see another "source" perpetuating the myth that the 4.0L engine was based on the 2.5L when the fact is the 2.5L was based on the 4.2L I6, which was based on the preceding 3.8L I6. Makes you wonder where these people get their information.

About four years ago, an ex-girlfriend in Montana was looking for a Cherokee and couldn-t find anything in her price range out there. I found her a 1988 Cherokee Laredo here in CT with 165,000 miles on it that needed a flex plate. Put that in it, added an AAL to correct sagging rear springs, and drove it across the country to her. Ran fine, got about 22 MPG for the trip. The extended highway trip blew the rear main seal, so we had her local mechanic replace that when I got there, and the Jeep lasted her for several years until she decided to sell it and her car and buy a new Honda. (Bad choice - the Honda blew its engine within 6 months.) 135,000 for a 4.0L is barely broken in. Get the rear main seal replaced, and keep on truckin'. The stroker idea sounds attractive, but there are compromises involved and it isn't something to dive into without doing your homework. Aside from the issues with getting a stroker to run without ping, from all I have heard from people who have them, the fuel mileage is worse than a standard 4.0L. That, for me, was the end of my consideration. I don't NEED the extra torque enough to knock my fuel mileage below where it is now.

Use assembly lube on both ends of the push rods, on the interface between the rockers and the ball (roller), and obviously on the lobes of the cam. If you had the cam out of the block, also use assembly lube on the cam bearing journals.

Never heard of a kit. Basically, you use cardboard to make templates of where you want to plate it, use the cardboard templates to transfer the pattern to a sheet of steel, then cut the steel to shape and weld it in.

E = Energy and F = Fail, eh?

Getting back to "How could this happen?" -- the '89 Wrangler had a vacuum disconnect on the front axle. If working properly, the right side axle shaft is disconnected by a sliding, splined sleeve when in 2WD. When 4WD is engaged, the transfer case ports vacuum to a switch that operates a vacuum-powered device (technically called a vacuum shift motor) on the front axle that slides the sleeve over to lock the inner and outer halves of the axle together. There are no disconnects at the hubs. Usually, if the vacuum fails it happens during the long periods when the vehicle is being operated in 2WD and the result of a vacuum leak is that the front exle won't lock -- leaving you with a 2WD Jeep. However, I believe it also requires vacuum to disengage the axle lock, so it is theoretically possible (but unlikely) that the axle was locked even though the transfer case was in 2WD. But that's the way all Cherokees and Comanches were made after 1990, and all TJ and newer Wranglers. The last Jeep with the axle disconnect was the 95 YJ (square headlight) Wrangler. The transfer case disconnects from the front drive shaft in 2WD, leaving the driveshaft to free-wheel with the front tires. There's no load on the drive shaft. My guess is he had it in 4WD on pavement and didn't understand that the front wheels and rear wheels don't travel the same distance, which builds up stress in the drive line, until ...

Oops. Sorry -- I try to edit out the non-essential parts when I quote a previous post, and I guess I edited out the wrong stuff this time. Lemme see if I can get back in and fix it. Okay -- I think I got it right this time. A thousand pardons, Sahib

Nope. First, it's the wrong size and probably wouldn't even fit the 2.5L bell housing. Second, it wouldn't be balanced for a 4-cylinder engine. Third, it's set up to fire three times in one revolution. The 4-cylinder engine only fires two times per revolution. Yiou have to use a flywheel from an '86 thru '90 Jeep 2.5L. (And remember, Jeep used the 2.5L in 1984 and 1985 in the Cherokee and Wrangler, but those engines were carbureted and do not have the trigger ring with the teeth or bumps needed to make the CPS function. The flywheel MUST be from an '86 thru '90.

There is no adjustment on the valves for the AMC engine. Tighten the lifter nuts down on the studs to the specified torque. They seat on a shoulder and the hydraulic lifters essentially determine the "lash." If you decide to replace the push rods, be sure to verify that the new ones are the correct length. (In fact, if you use the old ones it might be wise to verify that THEY are the correct length.)

To run right? You have to change the flywheel to get it to run at all. The two systems are not compatible. To use the early (Renix) injection/ignition system, you must use a flywheel from an '86 - '90 engine. And you must use the CPS for a Renix engine, not the CPS that was in the '95.

The cross member will be the same, but the tranny mount won't. And you may need to move the cross member to the other mounting location, which will mean moving the studs. The other "gotcha" is that the '95 flywheel won't work in your vehicle. The '86 throttle body injection is a Renix system that uses the same CPS as the early 4.0L engines. From '91 on, the Chrysler system used a different system with a different type of CPS that requires different trigger teeth/bumps on the flywheel.

That flopping around is caused by worn bushings at the joints where the linkage arms join up. There's a replacement bushing kit in the HELP! line at all the parts chains. From memory, I'll say I *THINK* the number is 49555. I'll try to confirm that when I get to the basement later ... if I remember to look.

The optional engine in the 84 - 86 Cherokee and 86 Comanche was a GM 2.8L V6. The GM 3.1L and 3.4L engines share the same block, so those are almost drop-in conversions. You use the motor mounts and exhaust manifolds from a Jeep 2.8L.

+1 what TAZ said. You can't compare starting time on a Renix engine against an HO.

I'm having trouble keeping this one straight. What year is the truck? If I understand your other thread correctly, you have a 91 or 92 MJ in which you have installed an 87 fuel level sending unit. The polarity on the gauges did change starting in 1991, but I don't know if the terminals on the gauge are reversed, or if the printed circuit board for the cluster leads to the opposite sides of the gauge. And I don't have any post-1990 gauge clusters I could check. You may need to figure out which two wires on the smaller bundle that attaches to the left side of the cluster (when viewed from the driver's seat) go to the fuel gauge, and see if you can swap them. But ... if the new style panel uses a common ground for all gauges, that won't work. Someone suggested swapping the two wires where they attach to the sender (in the tank), and I was going to suggest that also. But when I think about it, I don't believe that will change the polarity. The gauge is really nothing but a variable resistor, so I believe it'll read the same regardless of which wire goes to which terminal. The cluster that would match up with your sender is from an 87 thru 90 XJ or MJ ... but that won't work, because they used mechanical speedometers. Your speedo is electronic.