Eagle

Cherokees have a 104" wheelbase. Having wheeled both an XJ and a SWB MJ, I don't think there's any need to go shorter than the XJ's 104", and I don't really think there's any need to shorten a SWB MJ at all. The MJ climbs better than the XJ, precisely because of that extra wheelbease. I have seen pictures of a very nicely executed MJ that was shortened nearly a foot. It looked like it just rolled out of the factory -- it wasn't a flatbed, he shortened the frame and the stock bed and made it look original. But it's a lot of work and I question the return on investment (of effort, as well as money).

My vote goes to the idiot. Couple of years ago I refurbished a Cherokee 4.0L automatic. It's problem turned out to be a cracked flex plate. The kid from whom I bought it couldn't diagnose that, but once I got to work it was obvious that he'd had things aprt. Two or three of the bolts holding the bell housing to the block were missing, as well as the hollow locating dowel on the starboard side. Replacing a flex plate isn't a 5-minute job, but this dweeb made the task about 3.7 times more difficult than it should have been, because I found that literally EVERYTHING he had touched I had to re-do. And he had touched a lot of things. Use blue Loctite on those bolts and you should never have a problem. Good luck with the truck -- let us know when you have it running.

If they can't sell it legally, what makes you think they can give it away? You aren't allowed to install a used converter in any event (at least, not legally). I don't think they'll let you out the gate with a cat.

Agreed. Back in 1988 I bought an XJ rather than an MJ for the simple reason that the MJ didn't have an extended cab. If I had the time and a place to work I would be building a Cheromanche. The one in that ad looks reasonably well done, but for my purposes the bed is too small (no doubt because they retained the Cherokee wheelbase). I'd want to put either an MJ shortbed box on it, or maybe a shortbed box truncated to about 5 feet in length. Gotta be enough left to be useful, or why bother?

Not for most MJ 2.5Ls. The 86 - 90 used a throttle body injection. ALL the 4.0Ls were multi-port. Put on a 4.0L throttle body and you have no way to put gasoline into the engine. It won't make a lot of power running on air.

Unless you are running at least a 3" lift you will also need to shorten the drive shaft. The pinion snout on a D44 is about 3/4" longer than a D35. Just swapping in a D44 at stock height leaves you with the possibility of ramming the front yoke into the transfer case and grenading that. If you are really looking for the easiest fix, that's going to be another Dana 35 ... plus that will be easier to find. The Dana 44 is a better fix, for sure, but it's harder to find and does offer the drive shaft length issue to deal with. [EDIT]Never mind. Just looked at your signature.

Chrysler may have changed things in 1989. The following is from the original '86 MJ shop manual, and it doesn't match up with your VIN at all. First digit is country of manufacture. All MJs should be 1 = U.S. Second digit is company. All MJs should be J = Jeep Third digit is vehicle type. All MJs should be T = Truck Fourth digit is engine type. 2.5L TBI should be code H However, looking at the '94 XJ/YJ shop manual, things seem to fit a little better: First digit is country of manufacture. All MJs should be 1 = U.S. Second digit is company. All MJs should be J = Jeep Third digit is vehicle type. No MJs in '94, so the XJ FSM shows only 4, for MPV Fourth digit is gross vehicle weight. F is 4001 - 5000 pounds Fifth digit is "Line" (series). For '94 T was a 2WD Cherokee (LHD) Sixth digit was trim level. 2 was Base Seventh digit was body type. '94 doesn't show a 6 (no MJ) Eighth digit was engine. They show P for the 2.5L and S for the 4.0L, but the 2.5L in '94 was multi-port, so it may have had a different code. Ninth digit was a "check digit" -- could be anything. Tenth digit was year. '94 was R, '86 was G. They must have skipped a couple in the sequence. Eleventh digit was plant location. L = Toledo #1, P = Toledo #2 The last six digits are the actual serial number. Remember, the actual takeover by Chrysler was in the middle of the 1988 model year. Through 1988 the VINs would follow the old AMC sequence and coding. I would have thought this might still be the case for 1989, but apparently Chrysler changed the coding in the first year under their control.

Okay, it's a '95 engine but are you still running the original electrical system? If so, there's a relay in the lay bank on the right fender that operates the starter solenoid. That relay might be stuck. Carnuck and I are (I think) on the same track -- I had in mind just disconnecting the wires from the starter to see if you could then push start it, he's suggesting removing the starter entirely. Either one would confirm that the problem lies with the starter. Mine is less work, and if the result is no grinding would strongly suggest a stuck relay.

The bolt pattern on the 2.5L is much smaller than the 4.0L bell housing. I think the 2.5L bell housing is also shorter, so more likely this fits between the 2.5L bell housing and the tranny. I wonder what you have to run for a clutch? The AX-15 input shaft is larger than the AX-5, so you need a clutch disc with the larger spline ... but the bell housing doesn't seem to be large enough to take the 10" clutch used on the 4.0L engines. Anybody know if there's a special clutch disc available?

Look at it this way: Wal-Mart sells Fram. Need I say more?

Nope, it is not an urban legend. It's another proposal by El Presidente Jorge to turn the United States of America over to anyone EXCEPT Americans. :nuts: :mad:

Any possibility that you got the wrong starter in there? You changed the starter, correct? Do you still have the one that came out? If so, how do the teeth look? If it was grinding a lot, you should see the teeth being chewed away. If you don't have the old one, when hubby gets home (or yourself, if you do your own wrenching, but I always like a witness to call 9-1-1 when I'm working underneath) pull the new starter and look at the teeth for evidence of damage. At the same time, get a good strong light and maybe an inspection mirror and see if you can get a view of the teeth on the ring gear. If you replaced the starter, is it safe to assume that the new starter included a new solenoid with it? The 87 - 90 MJs used a starter relay AND a solenoid. Either one could be stuck. Try disconnecting the small wire from the solenoid (tape the end to avoid shots) and then try to push/pull start the vehicle. In fact, try first with BOTH wires disconnected but the starter in place. That'll help establish if you have a physical problem or an electrical problem.

The problem is, you have three possibilities -- the tranny, the transfer case, and the rear axle -- NONE of which should allow you to push the vehicle by yourself up an incline if that was the problem and it was severe enough to bring you to a screeching halt when driving. Before you go out buying axles and/or gearboxes, you really have to zero in on which is the culprit. I think what I would do is jack it up and put all four corners on jack stands, invite a couple of pals over to help watch and listen, and then go through the motions to try to isolate what's hanging up. First things is you want to be sure the tranny isn't locked in multiple gears. That's easy to check -- put it in neutral with the t-case in 2WD (engine not running) and try to turn the driveshaft by hand. To check your transfer case, just shift it to each position and rotate the rear driveshaft by hand. Have someone help you listen for odd noises, and be alert as you turn it for any grittiness or "catches" in the movement. In 2WD only the rear driveshaft should turn. In 4WD both should turn. To check neutral, remember that in your year the neutral position disengaged from the tranny, but did NOT unlock the drive shafts. So, with the tranny in neutral AND the t-case in neutral, both shafts should rotate when you turn the rear. Then put the transmission into gear. If you canNOT still turn the driveshafts by hand, your t-case neutral isn't disengaging. While it's up on jack stands you can also spin the rear tires and listen for odd noises coming out of that round thing in the middle of the rear axle. Even better (except it's freakin' COLD out) would be to pop the cover off the rear diff and take a peek inside. I'm honestly not sure what sequence I would follow to trouble-shoot this one. Maybe just keep trying things, one after another. Keep a notebook so you don't lose track of what you've already tried. Last oddball suggestion for the night: We know that the brakes on XJs and MJs get a bit ... "eccentric" ... when cold and damp. And the drum brakes are what's called "servo-assisted," which means that when you're rolling forward the shoe geometry is such that they help apply more force once the shoes contact the drum. The servo-assist geometry does NOT work in reverse, which is why the parking brake is more effective when you park facing downhill than it is when you park facing uphill. Is it possible that you got some ice stuck in your rear brakes, and they basically applied themselves? But not so hard that you couldn't push it backwards? You were going forward when it locked up, yes? Did you push it in reverse? If so, maybe try pulling the rear drums and UN-adjusting the brakes as an experiment.

Is the noise a grinding noise or a scraping noise? Could it be the outer ring of the harmonic damper (on the front of the crakshaft) rubbing against the timing case cover? Alternator bearings?

Your major problem will be cooling. Did I mention "MAJOR" problem? Personally, I'd do an AMC 360 to keep it all in the family if I were to do it at all, but I'm really more interested in a stroker version of the 4.0L. I can't believe anyone would claim a V-8 is "easier to work on" than an I-6.

From what I am reading here, you don't know and we don't know if the problem is actually the transmission or the transfer case. The original description of the problem sounded like when you shifted the tranny slipped out of an operating rod as you went for the next gear, leaving it in two gears at once. That would explain the sudden stop, and the inability to make it move after that. However, if that's what happened (and it does happen, not only with the Peugeot tranny. I have an '89 here with an AX-15 that's permanently locked in reverse) you should not have been able to push it back into the parking space. How hard was it to push? Did you have someone inside holding the clutch peddle down while you pushed? In fact, that wouldn't matter, as I think on it. The clutch only divorces the tranny from the engine. The tranny is ALWAYS connected to the rear drive shaft, unless you put the transfer case in neutral. Something here isn't adding up in my little brain. Like #5 said in that goofy robot movie, "Need input!"

Purolator 14619. Be sure some well-intended (but dumb) previous owner didn't "upgrade" to use the new filter, but not change the decal. On an '88 4.0L the oil filter should mount upside down, with the top leaning slightly outboard toward the passenger side fender. The newer SAE-thread filter mounts horizontal, with the top of the filter facing back towards the firewall. Whatever you do, DON'T use a Fram oil filter.

Interesting truck, but I wonder what makes them think it looks like an Army truck. The trucks we had when I was in didn't have alloy wheels. That thing is a mixmaster. It is a 4.0L, not a 2.5L. It was a base model truck -- notice the idiot light cluster. But it has a sport steering wheel and hockey stick armrests, which may have come from the same vehicle as the engine. It does appear to be pretty solid, though. It's probably worth the current bid, but I don't think it's worth $4,995.

Yeah, the 2.5L is a somewhat different animal. They mostly came with 3.73 or 4.10 gears, they have a narrower torque band, and the torque peak is higher than with the 4.0L. For a direct comparison, if my 4.0L 5-speed with 3.07 gears turns 1750 RPM at highway cruise, a 2.5L 5-speed with 4.10 gears would turn 2337 RPM. 1750 is below the torque peak for the 4.0L, and 2337 is below the torque peak for the 2.5L. I would expect a 2.5L to run at higher RPM. BUT ... it's a smaller engine. 37.5% smaller, to be exact. So at the same RPM, it's pushing 37.5% less gas through the system. I'm not sure what came stock on the later 2.5Ls with multi-port injection, but on my '86 XJ and MJ 2.5L and the '88 MJ 2.5L, the stock exhaust is either 2" or 1-3/4" -- it's definitely smaller than the 2-1/4" on the 4.0L vehicles. 2-1/2" exhaust on a 4-banger is massively oversized and isn't helping you at all. You're giving away torque, and the 2.5L needs the torque a lot more than the 4.0L does.

Too funny -- I was thinking about making such an adapter just last Saturday and Sunday. Now I don't have to.

Unfortunately, the rears will NOT work. I had that idea for one of my beaters. Took a decent pair of used XJ shocks and trashed them by removing the upper cross pins. THEN I discovered that, fully extended, they were 1/2" too short to fit into a 2WD MJ sitting with maybe 100 or 150 pounds of junk in the bed. I could have force-fit them by adding weight to the bed, but they would have been fully extended and putting constant pressure on the pistol against the extension stops unless the truck was loaded down. The ride would be terrible and the shocks wouldn't last long. You can get NEW Gabriels from Pep Boys for $10 each. Not the best shock in the world (that model, nothing against Gabriel as a brand), but they'll do the job.

There was CONSIDERABLE debate about that flat spot on the NAXJA forum back maybe four or five years ago. It became quite ... "agitated" ... at times, because people on both sides of the argument were so sure they were right that they became unable to look at the question objectively. The key issue is, none of us know why the dent is there, but it WAS designed in from the factory, so it must have a purpose. Keep in mind that the pipe that dent is in is a 2-1/2" down pipe. The amount of metal making up the pipe wasn't changed, so flattening it slightly certainly doesn't reduce the cross-sectional area down to the equivalent of a 1-3/4" pipe. The other thing to consider is a concept from Physics that my grandfather used to talk about: the Bernoulli Theorem. Basically, it says that in a long pipe/tube/duct of a given diameter/area, if a short length is reduced in cross-section, the fluid (or air column) flowing through the pipe or tube will not be affected because at the area of localized reduction, it will simply flow faster. This lends credibility to the notion that the dent is there to provide physical clearance rather than performance. On the other hand, we know that the 4.0L needs some back pressure to develop low-end torque. Many of the people in the great dent debate on NAXJA swore that running a header or custom down pipe without the flat spot resulted in less torque. I have never tried it, so I don't know. What I DO know is that a 2-1/2" cat back system with a turbo muffler very much cost me torque and gas mileage. I have no reason to believe that a header wouldn't have the same effect. Like I said -- all that high flow stuff is intended to handle ... high flow. The stock engine operating at less than half the stock redline RPM doesn't produce high flow and does NOT need additional exhaust capacity. You would need high flow components if you built a drag race truck, like Bob Salemi in Rhode Island, that routinely sees 6,000 RPM and up. To cruise down the Interstate at 1750 RPM, or to crawl over rocks at barely more than idle -- tell me again why the Hell you *NEED* a high flow exhaust system. Randimal: If your leak is the stock down pipe, I would just replace with another stock down pipe. If your leak is the exhaust manifold, since you already have the header by all means use it. But skip the 2-1/2" stuff down stream. Stay with stock replacement components and you should be okay.

So what happened to the one I GAVE him? If he junked it or sold it I will be highly pi$$ed off. I donated it to be a prototype bed, not for him to make money I could have made off it.

Synthetic brake fluid (which I think is DOT-4) mixes with and is compatible with conventional DOT-3 brake fluid. Silicone is a different animal. It is "compatible" with conventional brake fluid, but it doesn't mix with it. Think oil and water in the same container. They don't interact chemically, but they also don't mix. The same thing occurs when you combine conventional and silicone brake fluids. They'll sit in the same system and not cause any problems ... but they are not miscible (don't mix), and with even a little bit of conventional stuff in there you lose the benefits of the silicone. Replacing with silicone is easy enough. Use a kitchen baster to remove as much of the conventional as you can from the master cylinder, fill with silicone, and bleed until you see blue (or yellow, depending on brand) juice coming out of the bleeder port. When you see that ... you're done.

Maybe the law covers "cars" but not trucks? I know Canadian XJs have them, because there have been numerous discussions on the NAXJA forum about trouble-shooting (or just shooting) them. But I don't know what year they first showed up in the XJ.