Eagle

Build up a couple of plies on the back (top) side to hold it together, then sand the joints smooth on the fabric side and maybe put a thin coat of resin to seal it. Probably worth a try. JoAnn Fabrics carries headliner fabric in most of their stores, BTW.

The original 4.0L and the HO 4.0L are the same engine. What changed is the injection/ignition system, from the original AMC "Renix" (RENault-bendIX) to a Chrysler designed system. The Chrysler system is OBD compliant (not OBD-2, however), the Renix is not. They are both good engines -- that should not be your determining factor.

Yeah, I'll bet that's what he figures. And it's obvious why -- eBay has become a haven for opportunists and rip-off artists.

Aren't the headliner boards made of fiberglass? If so, what about putting the pieces together and joining them on the back side using boat fiberglass and resin? You can buy glass fiber in rolls of various widths, like 2" or 4". I would think a layer or two of tape and resin maybe 6" wide would provide a decent weld.

If the board is intact -- I'm interested. The fabric isn't important as long as the board is solid and not bent or broken. How far is Granby from New Haven, CT?

Most of the stock rims are 15x7 with 5-1/4" backspacing. The wheels you are considering are 2 inches wider, plus 3/4" less backspacing, which means they will extend 2-3/4" farther out than stock rims. Only you can decide if it's going to look goofy or "tough." One thing to consider, though, is they almost certainly won't be legal. Most jurisdictions require that the fender or flare cover the whole width of the tire tread -- a few allow half to extend, but no more. I don't know what the rules are where you live or how aggresively they get enforced, but it's something to think about.

As of about a year ago the factory warehouse still had a few NEW headliners. I think the only colour available was grey, which was fine with me because that's the only colour I'd want. I am also considering tinkering with an XJ headliners, because my '88 MJ came with nothing. The problem is the back end -- the stock moldboard curves down over the rear window, and I don't know if it's going to be possible to match that profile with a chopped XJ board. However, if you have the tail end from an MJ board, perhaps the curved section could be overlaid (or uderleaid) to make the transition.

It will always look like a cobbled up patch job, because that's what it will be. The XJ wheel arch opening is smaller in both height and length, and IIRC the height from the bottom of the panel to the first body crease is also different. A friend of mine used XJ quarters to get his beater MJ through safety inspection. It didn't have open rust holes, but it sure wasn't pretty.

Man, if he's in PA he should be heading to that HUGE pick & pull yard in Hazleton. You can see the place right from I-81, just off the same exit as Paragon Off-Road Park. I think it's called Harry's. They always have Jeeps. Lots of Jeeps. If he's closer to Philadelphia, he should also check the u-pull in Conshohoken. Don't remember the name on that one, though. Shorty's? Shorty & Dave's? Something like that.

The bench brackets are the same, but they only have one track on each bracket. The bucket seat brackets have two tracks. If you didn't destroy the inner tracks, you can transfer them over to the bench seat brackets. If the tracks are history, you have a problem. Take a look at the illustration Pete posted and you'll see what I'm talking about:

The bolt pattern is the same for the 4.0L as the 4.2L but I do not know if the AX-15 tranny used the same bell housing as the Peugeot. If the question is a YJ bell housing vs. an XJ bell housing -- they should be the same.

Define "fit" please. Considering that the MJ wheel arches are both longer and higher than the XJ, and the height from the bottom of the panel to the first body crease is different, I wouldn't say that an XJ panel will "fit" an MJ. I suppose in an emergency it could be made to work, but it'll look like hell. A friend of mine patched up his MJ using XJ quarters, so I can attest first-hand to how bad the end result was. It got him through the state safety inspection, but that's the ONLY good thing that could be said for it.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I just need to dismember one of the XJ packs and hold the main leaf under the MJ to see how close the arch is. I think it's going to work. Yeah, Pete, I am fretting over a lousy inch. Probably 98% of the time I drive one of the MJs the box is empty, but when I load it up ... I load it up. I really don't want the back any higher than stock for that 98% of the time, but I do want the extra load capacity for the other 2% of the time.

I have the same problem on my '87. I replaced the tank, drove to the gas station to fill up, and promptly pumped several gallons of gas onto the pavement. What seems to happen is the brazed or soldered joint where the metal elbows pass through the fuel pump mounting flange cracks, allowing gas to flow out when it reaches that level. I don't recall if it was here or on the NAXJA forum, but someone suggested cleaning up the outside really well and then sealing the joint with a collar of JB-Weld. That's what I'm going to try next.

Hey, Pete -- About that extra main leaf: I've done that second main leaf on XJs (as have several other people). With an old XJ and an old pair of donor springs I grossed 1-1/4" of lift -- most people seem to gain about 1-1/2". I'm looking at doing the same thing as a budget way to upgrade a standard MJ to a metric ton sort of rating. But I only want additional capacity, I don't want lift. Did you do the extra leaf at the same time you did the SOA, or did you add the leaf as a separate operation that would allow you to quantify how much lift it produced? I have available to me both an MJ spring pack and a couple of XJ spring packs. I'm trying to decide which to use as donor AALs.

Thank you, but I admit to cheating. My wife is Chilena and I am learning to speak Spanish, but my Spanish is very poor and I used a translation program for that post. Ciao

Since a spring-over uses the same springs, and by flipping the perches the springs are mounted the same distance from the axle centerline -- why do you think doing a SOA conversion would cause any more spring wrap than you already have? I don't see how it be any different, unless you throw in a bunch of blocks after you make it SOA.

The real difference isn't the viscosity. You can't compare the numbers between gear oil and motor oil -- they aren't measured the same. The problem with using motor oil in a tranny that wasn't designed for it is that motor oil doesn't have any extreme pressure additives in it. Motor oil is intended for use in an environment where it is circulated by a pump, under pressure. Gear lube isn't under pressure, it gets distributed by splashing and dipping. So the only thing that prevents two sliding surfaces from just squeezing the lube out and self-destructing is the EP additives. They are all specially formulated. For example, when I saw that new Pennzoil Synchromesh fluid I bought a bunch of it to use in the Peugeot tranny in my '88 XJ. Then I read the label, and it didn't meet the Mopar spec for my tranny. I called Pennzoil and their engineer told me that stuff was formulated to run in the new NVG 3500 and NVG 4500 manual trannies, and should NOT be used in either the BA 10/5 or the AX5 and AX-15. I'd go with GL-3, or Redline.

Fernando, The difference is that the 1988 axle does not use a 'c' clip to retain the axle shaft in the assembly. The outer bearing is an enclosed assembly and it is retained in place by the outer retainer plate. The 1993 Dana 35 axle uses the same ring and pinion gears, but it does not use the retainer at the outer bearing. This axle uses a c clip inside the carrier to lock the inner ends of the axle shafts into the carrier. In general, the newer Dana 35 axles are considered inferior to the older axles because if the shaft breaks, the new design allows the wheel to fall off the vehicle. With the older design, the retainer plate at least holds the wheel in position. ---------------------------------------------------------- Fernando, La diferencia es que el 1988 eje no usa un 'C' clip para retener el túnel de eje en la asamblea. El cojinete exterior es una asamblea encerrada y es retenido en el lugar por el plato exterior. El 1993 Dana 35 eje usa los mismos engranajes del anillo y piñón, pero no usa la iguala en el cojinete exterior. Este eje usa un 'C' clip dentro del portador para cerrar los fines interiores de los túneles de eje en el portador. En general, los ejes Dana 35 más nuevo se consideran inferiores a los ejes más viejos porque si las interrupciones de túnel, el diseño nuevo permite que la rueda para caigase el vehículo. Con el diseño más viejo, el plato de iguala por lo menos asideros la rueda en la posición.

Good pick on the dunce. I know that one's just for me. 8) I LUV the BS-meter! But I can think of some other forums that need that one more than we do.

I don't trust nylocks. I've had them strip out at well below the recommended torque for the size of thread I was using. The ones I get from Superior Spring come with heavy pattern (double thick) washers, and double-depth nuts. Between that, the correct torque, and a touch of blue or purple Loctite on the threads, I'm confident they'll never come loose when I don't expect it.

210 on the gauge. It's actually a bit less in the engine but the sender is located at a hot spot -- rear corner of the head.

There are SO many things wrong in that long spec list that I wouldn't even know where to start. However -- I have owned my XJ since I bought it new in 1988, I've owned MJs for several years, the red '88 came with no rear flares and I want to put them on, so I can assure you that I thoroughly investigated using XJ flares. That's the reason why I have a pair of 2-door XJ quarter panels here. They do not fit the MJ. To make them work I would need to hammer the sides of the MJ wheel arches perfectly flush, then graft the XJ sheet metal over the MJ panel, resulting in a smaller wheel arch opening. It can be done, and it might be what I end up doing ... but it's not my first choice.

It's pretty close to right as it shows in that picture, but I wouldn't be terribly upset if they didn't use headlights that look like triaxial speakers ...

How far west is this proposed location from Paragon (Hazleton)? Paragon is already 4 hours away for me, so I'm wondering how much farther the trek would be. Short bedliners? PLURAL? Somebody needs to get rid of short bedliners?