Eagle

I've been to Nova Scotia, can I join? Isn't vBulletin sort of pricey? I know a lot of forums use it (I'm a moderator on two of them), and I know that the larger of them is running a VERY old version because they didn't want to spend the money to update it. FWIW, I actually prefer the older version, but it's not as secure as the newest version. The software we're using here looks nice but I'll be "that guy" and say that I don't like it. Why don't I like it? I don't like that the edit window for posts is WYSIWYG. For an analog dinosaur like me, that causes all sorts of problems when posting or editing. In reality, for a small forum with low volume, there's nothing at all wrong with Simple Machines. IIRC, that's what we used here until the [fairly] recent upgrade. It works, and it gets the job done. Another one that might be worth looking at is https://www.phpbb.com/ . It's free, and it works. I'm a member of a forum that runs it. I'm not a moderator on that forum so I can't speak to how hard or easy it is to administer it, but I know the owner well enough to ask him, and if he's open to it I can put you in touch with him directly. I would avoid GoDaddy. I don't trust them not to mine data and sell it. I'm looking at name.com for hosting, but I'm not sure if they'll host a forum.

Friends don't let friends buy from Rusty's.

Put an exhaust system on it, even it it's just an el cheapo glasspack muffler. The lack of any exhaust system may be messing up the O2 sensor readings.

For me, the answer lies in this statement from your opening post: As you know, the Comanche is a standard cab. With the bench seat, it holds 2-1/2 people -- but if it's a standard transmission, you won't be putting anybody in the center seating position on the bench seat. That eliminates "family" unless you don't have kids, or dogs. I love both Cherokees and Comanches, and I own multiples of both. For family use, I would definitely go for a Cherokee. Second consideration: His is a long wheelbase. Those make lousy trail rigs. Poor breakover angle, worse departure angle.

That's like your prom date saying, "I found the perfect prom dress, except it's a size 6 and I'm a size 10."

Factory spec is 8.2" +/- 1/2" for 2WD models, 9.2" +/- 1/2" for 4WD models. If your truck started out as a 2WD your springs are like new, if your truck started as a 4WD your springs have sagged a bit but not enough that I'd worry about tossing them and starting over. TIME OUT! Your opening post mentioned having installed longer shackles for a 1" lift. So if you measured with the lift shackles in place, then it would appear that your springs have sagged. How long have the lift shackles been installed? Longer shackles contribute to spring fatigue because they allow the springs to deflect through a longer travel distance than they were designed for. If I were in your situation and I wanted to net a 2-inch lift over stock, I would remove the lift shackles and reinstall stock shackles (or the equivalent, if you tossed the originals, then I'd find a set of 2-1/2" wide springs out of some other pickup that's spring-under, and use either the main leaf (with the eyes cut off) or the #2 leaf as an AAL to bring my MJ springs up to snuff.

Interstate highways do not have traffic lights or stop signs. As Jeep Driver suggested, you may be confusing I-74 with 174 ("Eye 74" v. One Seventy Four") Ahhh ... Looking at Google Maps, I see that I-74 runs westerly from I-95. East of I-95, it's not Interstate 74, it's U.S. Route 74, which is not an Interstate highway and which can have traffic lights and stop signs. 72 appears to be a South Caroline state road.

Gogmorgo has twice mentioned that before deciding what route to follow with springs, it helps to know if the original springs have sagged. In this discussion, we don't have any answer to that question. The original post mentions lifting "a couple" of inches, but there has been nothing to suggest that the original springs have sagged. Perhaps 1989Commanche could take those measurements and let us know what the existing situation really is before we get too deep into suggestions. It would also help to know what size tires you want to run and how you plan to use the vehicle. Will it ever carry heavy loads, or is it always going to be empty or lightly loaded?

Rancho makes an AAL kit that's listed for both the Comanche and the Cherokee. It's not quite full-length in the MJ, more like about 3/4 length. The catalog shows it as providing 2-1/2" of lift for both the XJ and the MJ. That's impossible, of course. When I called Rancho to ask, the engineer I spoke with consulted with another engineer and they agreed that I was correct. They said the Rancho AAL is probably good for about 1-1/2" in a Comanche.

Bastard pack. Find a set of 2-1/2" wide leaf springs in a junk yard, disassemble, use as add-a-leaves.

I don't understand how a kludge could possibly be better than a chassis that was designed as a longbed by experienced automotive engineers. By the time you get through futzing around with doing everything you need to properly and safely extend a shortbed chassis, my guess is that between the cost of the shortbed and the cost of the modifications you'll be way over the price of just buying a longbed.

Those are both shortbeds. I thought early on you determined that you need a longbed.

The other way for it to run rich is if the air intake is severely restricted.

See if they're there? I would strongly suggest that you just buy them. They aren't being made any more. If you let them go to the crusher, that's one more pair lost forever.

Yes.

Awhile back (maybe two or three years???) someone posted photos of an MJ that had been modified to use late-model (97-2001) Cherokee taillights. They looked pretty good, IIRC. I don't think the early XJ taillights would work -- they're too wide and too squared off.

So compromise and go with 30x9.50s

How do you plan to use the vehicle? Having run an XJ on 30x9.50-15s and an MJ on 31x10.50-15s for a number of years, my view is that the larger tires have some usefulness if you'll be off-roading in soft terrain, but they don't help anything on pavement, and they make things significantly worse in rain and snow. A 235/75-15 is almost exactly the same diameter as a 30x9.50-15, but it's a bit narrower both at the tread and at the maximum sidewall width. I would go with the 235s.

No pics today -- camera died. But ... clutch peddle looks just like the one in the photos in post #19. The actual peddle pad sits in the same place, so I've been driving it since early 2000 and I never noticed that the lever part is totally different from the earlier ones.

Didn't feel well enough to step out the door today (Thursday). I'll get it Friday -- got the camera right next to the door with a note to remind myself.

Speaking as a Vietnam veteran: Claymore mine

For that, the Dana 35 is fine. My '88 XJ has 287,000+ miles on the factory Dana 35.

I don't pay much attention to gummint fuel mileage lies. I don't remember what my '88 XJ 4.0L was supposed to be rated at, but I know that when it was one or two years old I got 28 MPG on a trip from Connecticut to Vermont, with a GF, two kids, and all out clothing and stuff for the kids to play with for a weekend on board. That was far better than whatever the EPA numbers said. I just drove my 2000 XJ 4.0L from Connecticut to central Pennsylvania and back. 24.23 MPG for just over 600 miles. Again, I'm pretty certain that's better than what the official numbers were.

No, I have a 2000 Cherokee. That will show you what it's supposed to look like.

In the morning I'll try to remember to take a photo of the clutch peddle in my 2000 Cherokee.