Eagle

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.

^^^ So what's the bolt circle on the '05 and newer Grands? I know they have gone to larger rims, but I wasn't aware they changed the bolt circle again.

According to Pete M, Dodge ran the AX-15 transmission behind the 2.5L in the Dakota pickup. That's the bellhousing you need if you want to do it.

Nous parlons français aussi (un petit peue, et très mal)

Also, a WJ Grand Cherokee (99+) uses a different bolt pattern for the wheels. MJ rims are 5 on 4-1/2", WJs are 5 on 5"

Welcome to the collective. Stick around. We Americans talk to Canadians. In fact, we talk to anyone who likes Comanches.

FWIW, you can mount 1-3/4" shoes in a 2-1/2" drum setup and all you lose is a bit of braking power. Which isn't an issue if you don't haul full loads often. However, you canNOT convert the 1-3/4" to 2-1/2" by just buying new drums and shoes. The offset from the hub mounting surface is different, and the deeper drums bottom out against the backing plates before they contact the hub mounting surface.

He should pay you to take it out of his yard. Sheesh! I hope somebody will rescue it from the scrap heap, but it ain't worth 500 clams. The one I bought out of the local wrecking yard for $100 is in much better shape than that.

Yes, they use C-clips. So does the '90 and newer Dana 35, and all the Chrysler 8-1/4s. If the axle breaks, the wheel departs from beneath the Jeep.

As TAZ wrote -- the only way to be sure is to pull a drum and measure. My guess is you'll find that they are 10" x 2-1/2".

Keep in mind that a leak like that could also be the rubber section of the line between the (clutch) master cylinder and the slave cylinder. Even if your leak is the slave, that hose is now 22 years old and has a lot of miles and a lot of time on it. Replace it now, when doing the slave. Otherwise, you'll be like me -- ALL new clutch, master cylinder, and slave cylinder -- 100 miles from home on an Interstate toll highway, with NO clutch. Whatever part it is -- master, slave, or hose -- be sure to use genuine Jeep parts. For whatever reason, aftermarket clutch and slave cylinders seem to have a life expectancy not better than about 6 months. This is one place where it is definitely worthwhile spending the extra coin for the genuine parts.