Eagle

Especially platinum plugs. Stay with standard plugs. NGKs are best, Champion truck plugs are a distant second, all else is tied for fourth.

You should have front brakes ... but you'll have a VERY low pedal. And the front metering block on an MJ is not a proportioning valve. All it does is provide the brake system warning light if you lose front or rear brakes. All proportioning is handled by the rear valve. If you really have NO front brakes with the rears disconnected, you probably need a master cylinder.

The pinion snout on a D44 (if you should be so lucky as to be getting a D44) is about 3/4" to 1" longer than the D35, which means that the driveshaft should be cut down by a commensurate dimension if upgrading from a D35 to a D44.

NGK. The standard ones, NOT platinum.

Do you have a manual for the '90? The engine is the same. They made a few very minor tweaks between 1987 and 1988 to get a few extra horsepower out of it, but mechanically it all goes together exactly the same. In fact, for the engine (not the fuel injection) you could just as well use a manual from any AMC 6-cylinder all the way back to 1965. The 199/232/258/4.0L are all the same basic engine. What do you think is missing and what do you have that doesn't belong? There's virtually no difference between the 87 and the 90 -- are you sure you're not comparing to a 91 or newer engine setup?

Is the chip replaceable? The Renix is not replaceable. I know the ZJ could be replaced with a Jet chip, so the Chrysler chip in the 91 and 92 MJ might be replaceable -- if anybody makes on for it.

That's not the casting number, it's the build date code. My '88 FSM says: 1st character = year 2nd & 3rd characters = month 4th character is engine type (M=4.0L) 5th & 6th character = day 701M20 sounds a lot like 4.0L, January 20th, 1987

I only know one guy who did this swap, a friend from the early NAXJA days. I should mention that at the time he was a student in electronics at a technical university, and basically an electronics genius. He said he had to swap the ENTIRE harness, and I have no reason to doubt him. You can't just plug into the bulkhead connector for the simple reason that the ECU for the Renix years is mounted inside, under the dash, and the wires to it come from the bulkhead connector. And if you get a FACTORY wiring diagram, you'll see that the pinouts for the 4.0L ECU are dramatically different from the 2.5L ECU. Go ahead and try it if you think it'll work. I'm curious to see how you'll make out, but I've been researching the same thing and I am fully anticipating that I'll have to swap the entire harness from the donor vehicle.

No, the rear license plate light for the MJ is completely different from the XJ.

I got a pair a couple of years ago from Auto Zone. They weren't in store stock, I had to order them. Took about three days to come in.

Buckets

I'd say it's worth between $300 and $500. Most likely needs a CPS. That may (or may not) cause some funky symptoms before crapping out entirely. Other times, it runs perfect right up to the day it doesn't run at all. Could also have multiple problems. Not revving could mean a plugged catalytic converter.

MPG "gains"? That was a joke, yes? I suggest you contact Bob Salemi at . Bob has a stroker in his street XJ and a built stroker in his pro dragster MJ. He has done extensive dyno testing on the MJ engine, and he may have done some on the XJ motor as well. For the XJ (which came first), I know he went through several tries before finding the correct injectors. The stock Renix 19-pound injectors are definitely not adequate. IIRC he ultimately found that 22-pound or 24-pound squirters were about right. MPG gains. You're a real comic, you know that?

If the leak is at the flange, it is not where the rubber hoses clamp to the tubes, it is where tubes go through the flange itself. As Chico commented, you relly need to fill it up again and see where the leak is originating.

You're looking in the wrong place. The fuel pump/sending unit assembly mounts into the side of the tank through a round opening in the right side of the tank, slightly above the horizontal seam but definitely NOT on the top of the tank. To really inspect it you might need to drop the drive shaft, but you do not need to drop the tank. All you really need to do is pour in enough gasoline to start it dripping, and crawl under to see where it's coming from. I would be amazed if it was coming from the top of the tank. I've heard of that on XJs, but for some reason on MJs the fuel pump flange tubes seem to be much more vulnerable. You will not see a break. The two steel tubes are brazed or soldered into the flange, and it's the brazing or soldering that lets go. The gas seeps out around the perimeter of the two tubes. At least one person fixed it by drying it off, wire brushing around the tubes, and packing it with JB Weld.

No, he's not. He's talking about the fuel pump assembly in the call-out box at the upper left and lower left of the diagram. The two rubber fuel lines clamp into steel hard lines where they penetrate the fuel pump assembly mounting flange, and it's where those two steel lines go through the flange that the leak often develops.

The eliminator package was cosmetic. Cloth bucket seats, up-scale interior with center console, full gauges, "roll" bar in the bed, and stripes. The interior parts you can get, you might be able to find a "roll" bar in decent shape, but good luck finding the decals. The Eliminators were not necessarily 4WD. In fact, the first year of its existence the Eliminator was offered only in 2WD so you do not need to change to 4WD to make your truck a faux Eliminator.

Yeah, she means a real book. She'll be going to an area of her native country that doesn't see much tourism and she wants to do "the" book on the region.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou ... An instruction book. God is good!

Time is the issue (aside from money, which is also an issue). She leaves Monday, and she just sprung this "Maybe I'll do a book" thing on me. My wife is great on ideas and sudden bursts of initiative ... but she's rather short on follow-through. Obviously, at this point there is no book, there is no contract, and there is no publisher. So we have no idea what format or compression a hypothetical publisher might want, and because money is tight I don't feel we can afford to throw dollars we don't have into memory cards to store more pictures for a book that will most likely never get beyond the "I think I'd like to do a book" stage. On the other hand, she won't be able to go back and re-shoot unacceptable pictures if the book accidentally becomes a reality. Hence, I need to optimize the use of what the available equipment offers, and we don't have time to take test photos and then get them printed out to see what's acceptable and what's not. As to the old RTFM -- I wish that were possible, but the instruction manual is in Greek ... as well as being in Greece. (No, I'm not kidding. It's a long story.) It's a Minolta Dimage A1, 5 megapixel.

How would you like it if people responded to your MJ questions with non-answers because they disagree with your parameters? I understand your points very well, and I knew that a bigger memory card would offer a lot, but that's why I specifically asked how to optimize what we have. I need an answer to the question I asked.

What year MJ and what are the codes associated with those listings? And where did you get the listings? What you need to be aware of is that Chrysler seems to have recycled some codes that were originally used for XJs and MJs, either by AMC or just after the take-over, in newer vehicles. The result is that you request a build sheet from Chrysler and often you'll get codes for options that didn't even exist when your Jeep was built.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but you completely ignored the parameters of the question.

Now that we have my wife's new monitor squared away ... she's leaving in a couple of days for a trip. She wants to take photos on the trip, with the idea of possibly doing a book about travel in the area where she'll be headed. The issue is how to maximize the number of digital photos she can store on the camera's memory card while maintaining sufficient resolution to produce acceptable prints when blown up to 8x10. The camera offers four resolutions. That much I can figure out -- more resolution = finer "grain" ==> better enlargements. But, larger file size. The camera also offers, for each resolution, a choice of "standard," "fine," or "extra fine." For the moment, I have the camera set for the highest resolution, and "standard" mode. I'm certain the resulting picture quality would be even better if I were to go to "fine" or "extra fine," but we don't want to get into multiple cards, fo a variety of reasons. So the name of the game is to make the best use of the 1GB card that's in the camera. Are we better off using the highest resolution and "standard" mode, or would the results be better (and number of photos stored greater) if we dropped the resolution one step and switch to "fine" mode?

And before the shock absorber piston bottoms out and the shock self-destructs.