Eagle

Hola, Fernando, y bienvenido al ComancheClub.com As a "gringo" married to a Chilena and struggling to learn enough Spanish so I can talk to her family when we visit Chile, I agree that Spanish isn't easy to learn. It seems that, for every rule of grammar I learn, EVERYTHING I need to say just happens to be an exception. French (which I studied for four years and once spoke ... okay) was a lot easier. However, my wife will disagree with you strongly. She insists that English is impossible to learn. (Of course, it doesn't help that she keeps the telly tuned to Spanish language stations, but I'm not going there ...) Anyhoo ... we are happy to have you here as a member/participant. I have seen a few Comanches around Santiago, but not many. Plenty of older Cherokees, though. Last trip to Chile we took a side excursion to San Carlos de Bariloches (??) in Argentina. Spectacularly beautiful, like a part of the Alps in South America.

Yeah, there was a change. Are you asking about the 86 with a 207 transfer case? Different animal. Example: From the old FSM. For the 228/229 transfer case (and the 231), 3.54 gears and 225/75 tires calls for a 33-tooth gear. For the 207 transfer case, 3.54 gears and 225/75 tires called for an 18-tooth gear. You're going to have to run the numbers to calculate the right speedo gear for the 207 gearsets. In general, assuming NO change in axle gearing, a jump from 215 or 225 OEM tires to 30x9.50s represents about a 5% to 6% jump. Going from the same stock tire sizes to 31x10.50s is a jump of about 10% to 11%.

Well, you've thrown a bunch of variables at the problem, but 2WD vs. 4WD isn't one of them. They use the same speedo gear. What you are overlooking is that the "quill" into which the speedo gear fits, and which in turn is bolted into the tranny (transfer case, for a 4WD) has to be rotated to a different orientation depending on how many teeth are on the gear. That's how you adjust for the different sizes of gear. Since I ran 31x10.50/15s for some time, I'll start be pointing out that 31s with 3.73 gears works out to exactly the same final drive ratio as stock 225/75 tires with 3.54 gears as came from the factory with all 4.0L automatics. Assuming you have an automatic, your stock speedo gear should have had 33 teeth. (If your OEM tires were 215s, that would have been 34 teeth.) Okay. 33 teeth stock automatic. 33 teeth also good for 31" tires with 3.73 gears, but you're running 4.10s. So you need more driven teeth to make the speedo read slower for each revolution of the driveline. The difference in percent is (4.10 - 3.73)/3.73 x 100 = 9.92 percent. So you need a speedo gear with 9.92% more teeth than the original 33 teeth. 33 + 9.92% = 36 teeth. Which just happens to coincide with the number shown in a table of speedo gear selections I printed out several years ago, from a web site that no longer exosts, when NAXJA was in its infancy. Now ... about that quill clocking: Take a close look at the quill. You should see three small bars, and between the bars you should see numbers stamped/cast into the metal. The numbers correspond to the tooth count. There is a small index mark/boss cast into the housing below the hole the quill fits into, at about the 6:00 o'clock position. You need to rotate the quill untill the numbers of the range in which your speedo gear fall are aligned above the index boss. In the illustration in the old FSM they show only two sets of numbers, 32-38 teeth and 39-45 teeth. My fuzzy recollection is that the quill on my '88 MJ actually had three sets of numbers, but it doesn't matter. Whatever the tooth count, align the range into which it falls with the index mark. One other point -- if you get it to within 2 to 3 percent, stop fighting it. You won't get any closer. There's that much difference between tires of the same nominal size from different manufacturers, or from different inflation pressures. My wife's 2000 XJ speedo reads 2-1/2% faster than actual speed (verified by running through the police radar trailers more than twice) with the original factory tires. Most vehicles come from the factory with speedos that read slightly faster than actual ground speed.

That's a factory mini-console, which was standard in the MJs because of the bench seat.

Actually, it's getting better mileage because the timing is more advanced, not because it's less. Using the knock sensor allows the timing to be advanced to the optimum setting pretty much all the time, and when the engine gets loaded down and starts to knock the sensor backs it off enough to prevent damage to the pistons. Even though I live in a coastal state (elevation at my house is about 450 feet above sea level), the last time I replaced the CPS in the '88 Cherokee I threw in a high-altitude CPS just to see what would happen. The vehicle is 19+ years old, 265,000+ miles, and in normal commuting (15 miles each way, of which maybe 5 is highway) routinely delivers 21 to 23 MPG. I haven't taken a long trip since putting in the high-altitude CPS but I think I'd probably be pushing at 25 MPG if I stayed near the speed limit. Best mileage ever was a trip to Vermont when the Cherokee was about a year old -- 28 MPG. There's no way an HO will produce mileage like that. My wife's 2000 XJ typically runs at 16 MPG when she drives it, and 18 MPG when I drive it. If any of my Renix XJs or MJs turned in mileage like that I'd figure it was due for a rebuild.

+1 ... And I think we can count Pete's post as +2. Since an MPFI system injects the fuel directly into the cylinders at the head, it's difficult to imagine any way in which a throttle body spacer could make much of a difference. It pretty much CAN'T affect the fuel atomization, and it pretty much CAN'T affect the velocity of the air charge as it enters the cylinder because that's a function of the pistol speed and valve opening ... what's left? Yeah, I know the people who make and sell throttle body spacers claim massive increases in horsepower, torque, and economy -- all of which are mutually exclusive. I'm still waiting to see independent corroboration.

Let's see if being married to a Chilean wife has rubbed off at all: Hello to all. I am from San Jose, Costa Rica, and in a few days if God is willing I will be acquiring a Jeep Comanche 1989, 4.0L 6-cylinder, standard transmission, 4x4

I am very skeptical of for-hire "credit counselors." They charge you a fee for doing what you can do for nothing. If you are already over-stretched, how does it help to incur yet another debt?

What system is flawed? There are numerous areas in which the Renix system is better than the later Chrysler system. The fact you don't like it doesn't make it "flawed."

$150 is a headpop? Man, here in the land of steady habits attorneys charge $400 an hour and up. Even at rates like that, it seems every week or so I read an article about some attorney who embezzled a few hundred thou from some elderly client's estate.

I agree with JeepcoMJ. Don't waste time and effort on a used tie rod end. You would (and probably will, if you continue) be amazed at how little looseness in a tie rod end makes the steering feel really horrible. Unless it's a brand new vehicle that's in the yard due to a collision, buying junkyard tie rod ends is an exercise in futility.

+1

Not saying you're wrong, because I have never seen any spring rates given by the factory, but what's the source of these numbers? I know that stock Cherokee rear springs are much heavier than that, and usually the front springs are stiffer than the rear because they carry the engine. I thought factory fronts would be around 180 to 200+ pounds-per-inch.

Getting back the the original question, the headers are different so making a grill fit the wrong year header is more than a "bit" of work. Even the headlight doors are different.

It's unclear when you ask about price tag if you mean the cost of going through a legal proceeding, or the cost of raising a kid by yourself. In either case, there is no "one size fits all" answer. Each case is different. I have not been through either, thankfully, but a friend of mine has been involved in a custody battle with his ex-GF for literally years. The woman is a head case. It began when the kid was born -- she refused to list my friend as the father, even though there was no question. She just didn't list a father. My friend spent a couple or three years and several thousand dollars just getting himself declared the legal father. That only set the stage for the repeated battles over her failure to abide by court-ordered visitation and periodic custody arrangements. If you don't have an attorney -- get one. But don't bother asking how much to expect it to cost, because it's not anything you OR your attorney can control. If the other party wants to make things difficult for you, it will be exceedingly costly and the only option is to bail out and surrender. Not what you wanted to hear, I suspect, but it's the fact. Don't overlook the fact that the courts are stacked in favor of the women in cases where child welfare is concerned. It is VERY difficult to prove to a court that a father would be a better parent/home environment than the mother.

What changed? Rusty used to have a reputation for very mushy springs, softer than factory.

I wouldn't. You can't trust it.

No MAF, uses a MAP sensor. anyway, my 2 cents. Heat soked component somewhere, could be a sensor, could be the ignition module itself. Warm it up, pull a spark plug wire and check for spark. if it's got spark then the ignition side is good, move on to fuel pressure. Yep. Could be a sensor, but coils usually fail first when hot. In the Renix system, the coil is part of the ignition module assembly. I would not overlook that possibility. Many years ago I replaced a carburetor and then a distributor when the only real problem was a faulty condenser (which was new, so I never thought to check it).

Define "work." You can screw them on and they'll satisfy legal requirements for tire cover, but they don't bolt onto the original mounting holes.

There's a good chance the stock master cylinder won't hold or push enough fluid for the rear disc brakes. Best swap is to use both the master cylinder and proportioning valve from a mid-90s ZJ with rear discs.

No wonder I could not find this in my FSM............... :mad: How can I get these IS bulletins Eagle? I got it from Dyment, the DaimlerChrysler literature clearinghouse. The title is "M.R.277 I.S. Notes" and it's part number 8980 010 169A. I don't remember what it cost me and I have no idea if it is still available.

Yes, you will. Plus you know you already have the tires rub the lower control arms when you turn, even with 31x10.50s (and, BTW, they'll also rub a little with 30x9.50s), so with 32x11.50s you'll have a half inch MORE tire inboard of the centerline of the rim, therefore it'll rub more and with less of a turn angle. In the rear, you'll also have half an inch less clearance between the tire and the frame. It'll probably clear going straight on pavement, but I know for a fact that 31x10.50s rub against the frame when the rear axle gets twisted, so 32x11.50s will only rub more and sooner. Lift is NOT the answer to either of these conditions. What you need is rims with less (not more) backspacing. The rear wheel arches are probably large enough that you won't need much or any cutting there, but the front WILL require cutting.

Sounds like my post. :) I found the factory data. Not in the FSM after all, but in a book of IS bulletins. Front: Measure from top of axle tube to underside of frame rail, inboard of the coil spring. Do NOT measure from the diff housing or shift motor housing. 2WD models should be 6-3/4" plus or minus 1/2". 4WD models should be 7-3/4" plus or minus 1/2". Rear: Measure the vertical distance between the top of the axle tube and the underside of the frame rail inboard of the jounce bumper. 2WD models should be 8.2" plus or minus 1/2". 4WD models should be 9.2 inchws plus or minus 1/2". So you lads are correct about the 4WD models riding higher. If I once knew that, I had forgotten it.

I can do better. That measurement is in my Comanche FSM. I'm at work now but I'll look it up at home if someone will be kind enough to send me a reminder by PM. FWIW, I know y'all keep saying the 2WD rides lower than the 4WD but I don't recall seeing two specs in the FSM. We'll see ...

Most factory rims are 15x7 with 5-1/4" back spacing. Ed Stevens over on the NAXJA forum did extensive research a few years back. He removed the springs and cycled the suspension through the full range, and he found that on stock rims you can run 31x10.50 tires on a Cherokee with no rubbing. (Except on the lower control arms at full steering lock.) MJs have larger rear wheel arches, BUT the frame sits closer to the outside. Running 31x10.50s on OEM rims at 4" of lift, I would come back from a wheeling trip and see scuff marks on the sides of the frame where the inside tops of the tires rubbed when the rear axle was twisted up. CW is correct, that less backspacing cures one problem but creates others in the process. If you run any less backspacing, even with 31x10.50s, the front tires won't stuff inside the flares, they HIT the flares -- and they hit the lower corners of the wheelwells when turning. Run wider tires on wider rims and the problem just gets worse. If you want to run 12.50s on 8" rims, you'll have to choose the backspacing that will keep the tires off the frame in the rear, and then cut the sheetmetal like crazy to eliminate the resulting interference everywhere else.