Eagle

IMHO it's more important to have redundancy for the brakes so, if you split the functions, use the upper set of two bulbs for the running light/brake function and the lower for turns and hazards. That's why the two uppers have two filaments and why the lower only has one filament. It's the right way to do it and, if you can figure out the wiring, I think it's worth the effort. Maybe someone on here who is scrapping a Cherokee could pull the rear lighting harness and send it to you. That might be a guide for how Jeep did it. Sorry the photos aren't better. My scanner only does 8-1/2 x 11. Maybe I'll try scanning to JPEG and using Paint to stitch the two halves of each page together. If I do that, I can also edit out the trailer light branch in the Cherokee diagram to make it easier to compare to the Comanche.

I can't scan full-size pages. See if you can make out the photos. http://s39.photobucket.com/user/AguilaBlanca/media/Jeep Tech/Wagoneer_Stop-Turn-Backup_zpszv8x0thb.jpg.html http://s39.photobucket.com/user/AguilaBlanca/media/Jeep Tech/Cherokee_Turn-Stop_Backuo_zpsohl7tlud.jpg.html http://s39.photobucket.com/user/AguilaBlanca/media/Jeep Tech/DSC00143_zpsatoofcnk.jpg.html

Got a suggestion for you, if you can make it work. Download the electrical manual I gave you the link to. The rear lighting is on page 71. I have the Cherokee/Wagoneer electrical manual here. The Cherokee had separate, amber turn signals. The XJ Wagoneer was set up like the MJ, and I just confirmed that the wiring is the same. So ... how to get it to work like a Cherokee is the question of the day. The Cherokees and Wagoneers mostly shared the same chassis wiring harness - the stop and taillights were changed by a different section of harness just in the back. It should be possible to find a connector in the Comanche that corresponds to that, and make a custom taillight harness for the MJ that will give you separate turns and hazards. I'll see if I can scan the pages involved and post them tomorrow.

They're around. I account for three. There's one in town about three miles from me -- it belongs to the father of a guy who used to post on NAXJA as REJeep (I think). There's a guy who works for the local office of the state D.O.T. who has one. The father of a girl who works at the local supermarket has (or had) one -- I haven't seen it recently. I've passed three more on to people in NAXJA who I hope fixed them up and kept them among the roster of viable vehicles. And I see others around in my daily travels. Not a lot, but some. Why did they die? Because Chrysler bought Jeep from AMC/Renault. Chrysler had the Dakota, and they didn't need or want a Jeep pickup stealing potential sales from the Dakota. Plus, the morons at AMC/Jeep never brought out an extended cab, and most buyers wanted either an extended cab or a 4-door crew cab. When I was vehicle shopping in 1988 I really wanted to buy a Comanche. But ... I needed protected interior space for carrying things, so I bought a Cherokee instead. I was committed to buying a Jeep. Other buyers who wanted a pickup and who wanted or needed more interior space simply had no choice -- they had to go to another brand. (And Chrysler hoped that would be Dodge, of course.)

To expand on Ohm's answer: The Comanche, unlike the Cherokee, does not have turn signals that are separate from the brake lights. That may be why you are confused. Each side has two taillight bulbs. They both do triple duty -- the low intensity filament is the taillights (or what you refer to as the "running lights"), the high intensity filament is the brake lights AND the turn signals. And the hazard flashers. In operation, the turn signals override the brake lights, so if the brakes are on and you initiate a right turn signal, the right "brake" lights will flash while the left brake lights remain steady. If you activate the hazard flashers, the brake lights override the hazard flashers. This always seemed like an incredibly dumb arrangement to me, especially since AMC did it right on the Cherokee. This may help: https://comancheclub.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=14915

Spray some Fabreze around, and drive with the windows open.

I took an adult ed tour of the Normandy beaches with my then-GF in 1994, at the time of the 50th anniversary. Seeing the beaches, seeing the terrain and the way the German defenses were set up, visiting Pointe du Hoc ... it's amazing that any of the Allied troops made it ashore. My father served in WW2, but not in Europe. He was sent to India and then into China.

If you park it on a flat, level surface and measure carefully, you're going to find that the front axle is now located roughly 3/4 of an inch over to the driver's side of the vehicle.

I thought the easiest conversion was the ZJ rear disks ...

This is why I laugh every time some of you guys put down the occasional iconoclast who mentions converting a Comanche to a carburetor and conventional distributor. Sure, it's low-tech, it might not deliver quite the same fuel economy (but it also might be better) ... but it's a lot easier to keep running, because the engine doesn't require input from four or six different sensors to know when to squirt gas into the cylinder and when to fire.

How much lift did you install? If you didn't install an adjustable track bar, your front axle is now off center to the chassis. An alignment technician will have lots of fun with that.

'88 fuel sender was calibrated 0 ohms = Empty, 88 ohms = Full. A broken wire would be infinite resistance, a grounded wire would be low or no resistance. Could be a bad ground at the tank sender. Check for ground continuity.

Did the original fuel gauge work?

http://www.olypen.com/craigh/skid.htm

Link doesn't work for me.

Or the roof AND the rafters peel away from the wall. I can't begin to count how many houses I've looked at that had rafter "hurricane" clips installed to tie the rafters to the wall plates (and/or studs) and the clips were installed on the wrong side of the wall, which reduces their effectiveness about 75%. I looked at one new house where the contractor put a "few" (a VERY few) anchor bolts into the tops of the concrete foundation walls ... but he didn't bother putting nuts or washers on them. How do you fix that after the fact? Code calls for anchor bolts every six feet. If they're only installed every twelve or fifteen feet ... how do you retrofit something that's supposed to have been cast into the concrete? (There are ways, of course -- but they're not especially easy, and they're not especially cheap.) Same with "hurricane" clips -- if they're not there at all, or they're on the wrong side of the wall ... how do you retrofit them without tearing the house apart? Many years ago, when my parents were alive, my father allowed an "energy auditor" to go through the house and suggest ways to make the place more energy efficient. Our huse had a walk-out basement. The walls weren't insulated (built in 1950), and half of the basement had later been finished as a recreation room. The rec room didn't have sheetrock or cheap plywood paneling for wall finish. My parents were after the feel of my grandparents house in Maine, so the walls were done with tongue-and-groove pine boards. The energy auditors suggestion was to insulate the basement walls. "How?" we asked. "Just remove the wall finish," the kid responded. Anything can be done, but to do that would be so expensive that it would have taken fifty years (or more) to amortize the cost of installing that insulation. The pine was nailed to 3/4" furring strips, which were nailed to the concrete. So the most you could get in there would have been 3/4" bead board insulation. That has an R-value of about 2, IIRC, which is just slightly better than nothing at all.

Just about all of the measures discussed in that link are good ideas, and required by the latest residential code, but not what I would call "mitigation." When talking about an existing house, to me "mitigation" addresses things the homeowner can do to lessen the risk of {whatever] WITHOUT having to take the house apart and rebuild it. Want "hurricane" nailing on your roof shingles? Too bad -- the only way to get it is to remove the roof and start over. Same with closer nailing of the roof sheathing to the rafters, or the latest code requirement -- taping the joints between the sheets of plywood on the roof. Sure, all that helps resist damage from high winds, but ... how can you do those things without tearing the house apart? It turns out that I'm familiar with the procedures and philosophy of "wind mitigation," but I've never before heard it called that.

I have a question: I'm a licensed architect and a licensed building inspector. I've been doing this for more than 40 years. I have never heard of "wind mitigation." Explain, please. What the heck is "wind mitigation"?

In this corner of the world, "washroom" is another word for "bathroom" or "toilet room." Shall I assume that what you mean by "washroom" might be "laundry"?

Correct. Which is why for stock tires 3.54 gears are a much better choice than 3.07. With 3.07 gears either you're below the optimum "fat" part of the torque curve at highway speed, or you don't use fifth gear. Seriously -- on stock tires with 3.07 gears, 65 MPH is 1800 RPM. Really? What were the engineers smoking when they made that decision? And that's with an overdrive ratio of 0.75:1 -- I think the ratio for the Peugeot tranny is 0.72:1, which just makes it worse.

1. While I'm not saying that Knucklehead needs his own realtor, points are not paid to either the buyer's or the seller's realtor. Points are paid to the bank, as part of the mortgage. 2. The realtor's fee is split between the buyer's and seller's realtors. Around here, the fee is typically 6 percent of the selling price. If the buyer also has a realtor, then 3 percent goes to the buyer's realtor and 3 percent goes to the seller's realtor. That said ... I see no reason for Knucklehead to bring in a realtor at this point. The role of a buyer's realtor is to find him a house. That's already been done, so a realtor for Knucklehead at this point would be about as useful as tits on a boar hog. It's an appraiser he needs, not a realtor. And a home inspector.

That sounds like something I would do -- or might have done. Be thankful it was a tee shirt, not a nut or a washer.

If it has a SOA, how did you determine that the springs have sagged?

I use numbers from my own spreadsheet, which I compiled using actual tire manufacturers' revolutions-per-mile data. I think that's more accurate than numbers based on a theoretical tire diameter. My spreadsheet is up on Google Docs -- there's a link to it somewhere in this site, lemme see if I can find it ... See if this works: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pHFuhGgj6dQDfzyfFJH5z7NCDLW2KX3ABQgAJr3lBvM/edit#gid=0 FWIW -- I ended up running 3.73 gears in my '88 MJ with 31" tires. The gears were purchased for installation in my '88 XJ, which I ran on 30x9.50-15 tires. Then I bought the MJ, which had a 4" lift on it, so it was crying out for at least 31" tires. It was a 5-speed, though, and 31" tires with 3.07 gears and a 5-speed is rather awful. 4.10 gears would have been better but I already had the new 3.73 gears sitting there in a box, so they went into the MJ. The result was that the overall final drive ratio was almost exactly the same as stock tires with 3.54 gears. Very nice on the street, but I would have preferred the extra gearing of 4.10s off-road.

They're gone now, but I've owned very early example of both the XJ and MJ. I rescued them from oblivion, and eventually passed them along to brethren from NAXJA. The XJ was a very early '84 XJ Wagoneer. I've had two '86 MJs, one of which was rescued from a scrap yard. All of the early ones I had were four-bangers. The reason I think at least one of the '86 MJs was very early is that there was something (which I don't remember now) that was different about the rear suspension than any other MJ I've ever seen. Production changes are often a clue. I encountered the same thing with AMC Javelins. The one I bought new (1968 production) had staggered rear shocks, to combat axle hop over bumps. I later picked up another, 1967 production, on which both shocks came down behind the rear axle. It did make a difference.