Eagle

The problem with straightening out the front hard lines to move the ends lower is that you are trying to re-bend 20-year old steel lines. You might be able to re-bend them. Or ... they might crack. When that happens, in addition to needing new hoses you also need to replace the hard lines. I realize I'm the resident Olde Pharte around here, but IMHO it's sometimes better to do it right the first time and try to avoid the headaches. I've learned from decades of trying the "cheap out" solutions that they very rarely work, and almost never save you the money you thouhgt you were going to save.

I'd say 2 inches. 4 inches if you will never EVER cross-your-heart-and-hope-to-die take it off road.

VOTES! What else are we talkin' about in this thread? Click that link and put up a few votes for JT's SO

You don't even have drums? Sorry, I thought you were just missing the internals. The backing plates are different, and the offset of the drums. I once tried to upgrade a D35 to the bigger brakes by just using a pair of D44 drums. They wouldn't go on -- the back lip of the drums locked up against the backing plates before the front part of the drums seated on the hub flange. So, if the backing plates are there, you need drums, shoes, wheel cylinders, and all the small parts. The springs and such will interchange, but the pins that hold the shoes to the backing plate are longer for the D44. If the backing plates are gone, you could move the entire D35 setup over (I think -- although I've never done it).

The Dana 44 has 10" x 2-1/2" brakes. The old (non c-clip) Dana 35s had 10" x 1-3/4" brakes. You can install the narrow shoes in the wide drums and they'll work. If you run it that way for awhile, though, you'll build up a ridge that will require cutting the drums before you can install the correct shoes. The D35 wheel cylinders can also be used in the D44, but they aren't the same inside diameter.

I fixed it. You had the closing tag at the start, and the opening tag at the close. Looks like he's put two additional leaves into the spring packs and kept ehe stock leaves. Which means the lift is accomplished by pivoting the axle 9and wheels) down and forward from the front spring eye. Your photos don't show the rear shackcle, but I'll guess it's probably pointed mostly forward as opposed to being basically vertical like it should be. Those are basically stock size tires. That truck doesn't need a lift. I'd bring it back down to stock height, or maybe a 1" or 2" lift at most. How was the front lifted?

Definitely worth the $300, and has potential. Dunno what to do about the rear springs. Can you post a better picture of one of the leaf packs? Looks like it's still spring-under, so he probably either did an AAL or Mickey Moused his own spring pack. The axle may end up centered again if you remove some of the lift -- if the main leaves are original MJ. Looks to me like seven leaves in there, w/o the stock overload leaf underneath. If you can figure out which are the originals, maybe remove one of the additions and that may bring things back closer to where they belong. Looks like the tie rod in the front steering is bent.

That's because you had gauges. You just changed to a cluster with a tach, right? The need to change senders is when replacing an idiot light cluster with full gauges.

I'd love to see that 6x6 truck show up at the Tough Truck Challenge. I think it would do pretty well.

You're not planning on sleeping, then, I take it? It's 11:35 and you still have 345 votes to go. I'm too old to pull an all-nighter ... especially for someone else's woman :)

This is turning into a contest between the day shift and the night shift. Whichever sister puts on a third shift is going to win.

Sneak attack. I won't say I saw it coming, but I was voting as fast as I could yesterday, and losing ground ...

Keep in mind that the ports on the 87-90 engine are lower and shaped differently than on the HO engines. Swapping to the newer manifolds on the older engine is not a straight, bolt-on conversion. There's some adaptation required, and the result is still a compromise because of the mismatch in the port shapes. The other consideration is, what are you looking for in the way of "improvements"? The non-HO engine produces more torque lower in the RPM range, and generally gets better gas mileage than the newer engines. The more you try to turn the old engine into a new one in pursuit of "performance," the more you lose in fuel economy and low-end torque. If you do most of your driving on the street and want to engage in drag racing, maube that's the route to go. If you actually use your MJ as a truck, and maybe even go off road -- it's probably better to leave it alone.

How many calories each? I suspect one of those would destroy my diet for a week ... at least.

Which computer (PCM) and which throttle body are you using? The 91 and 99 parts are not compatible. The 91 was OBD-compliant. The 99 is OBD-II compliant. The sensors are different, the PCMs (powertrain control modules) are different, the ijectors are different, and the fuel system runs at a different fuel pressure. Basically, you need to decide if you want to re-use your 91 externals, or update EVERYTHING to the 99 spec. The 99 doesn't have a magneto. It uses coil-on-rail ignition, basically a small individual coil for each spark plug. No big deal -- you can yank the little sender for that and plug in your 91 distributor if you're going to stay with the 91 parts.

As of Monday afternoon, l'il sister has cut that once "commanding" lead in half. I'm tossing votes up between trying to get some work done here, but the gap is now down to 650, and we're losing ground. Let's try to hit it hard tonight.

If it's a no-brainer, take out the tape and measure it the way everyone else does so we can all be on the same page. Trying to back into it by subtracting a theoretical tire radius, which is affected by tire pressure and given only as an "about" anyway, is not very accurate. What you have said so far is that the back is taller than the front but you don't know by how much. How can anybody advise on possible corrections with that as a starting point?

That's not how lift is measured. Tires are a variable, because bigger tires change the ride height even without any lift, and conversely, you can add a lift without changing tire size. If you still have the factory flares (in the original locations), the accepted way to measure lift is from the center of the wheel/hub/axle stright up to the underside of the flare lip. For XJs and MJs, the stock front measurement should be 17-1/2" (plus or minus not more than 1/2"). For the rear, stock XJs w/o the Up Country suspension should be 17" and stock MJs should be about 21" And as to the front springs, TJ springs do not produce as much lift in XJs and MJs as they do in TJs. So if the springs you bought were tated at 4" for a TJ, you probably got about an inch or maybe 2" of actual lift out of them, and the rest is tire size rather than "lift."

http://comancheclub.com/forums/viewtopi ... permission 4th post in the thread

Dunno about Dakota, but 97+ XJ mirrors will fit.

There is an additive for automotive paint that going to be applied to bumper covers, flares, and such semi-flexible parts. I don't know if there's a technical name for it. The paint shop I buy from just calls it "flex additive" and everyone seems to know what that is, so I guess that's close enough. Yeah, without the additive any flexing at all of the flares will leave cracks in the paint.

This is why I long ago stopped looking at Jeeps Unlimited. This is a CHOICE bit of advice from a real expert: Do NOT swerve to try to avoid accidents. It's always better to hit an oncoming vehicle head-on." FWIW, I have put a 2000 XJ Classic (in stock trim) into a four wheel power slide at 60 MPH, in order to avoid a moron who came up a freeway on ramp and chose to dart right out into traffic rather than use the acceleration/merge lane. It did not roll over, and it was completely controllable. The front sway bar was connected. I doubt very much I would have survived if the sway bar had NOT been connected.

Here's a thought: http://www.doityourself.com/icat/threadedrodcouplers A pair of these couplings with a piece of all-thread, and you're done.

The front sway bar is critically important for safety on pavement. Even at stock height, an XJ or MJ is scary top-heavy in an emergency evasive maneuver. You think everything is fine as long as nothing goes wrong and you just motor along in a straight line, but try to swerve to miss an animal or a child, and you're on your roof. Leaving off the sway bar links is NOT the place to scrimp on $$$

Lengthen. I think I used '95 YJ front hoses. You need to rebend the caliber end metal tube slightly.