Eagle

XJ and MJ bump stops are interchangeable, but the factory offered four different heights. Depending on model and options, an MJ could have any of the four: 5200 2382 ==> 74mm 5200 2381 ==> 90mm 5200 2393 ==> 104mm 5200 2078 ==> 117mm The XJ only used the 74mm or the 104mm

I haven't tried it, but I have considered it and I think it's certainly worth a try. It's the old clearcoat that goes bad, not the paint underneath, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work.

I did all my own tire balancing with the J.C. Whitney unit for many years and I was usually more satisfied with my own work than I was with what tire shops and car dealers did with their machines. I think the reason I stopped using it was alloy wheels. Back then, the only wheel weights I could buy easily (this was decades before the Internet, and Amazon or eBay) were for steel rims. The clips for steel rims are no good for alloy wheels, so as I got into vehicles with alloy rims I gradually gave up on doing my own balancing. I really wish I could find that little machine.

Has anyone used the Harbor Freight wheel balancer? https://www.harborfreight.com/portable-wheel-balancer-39741.html I used to have a small tire balancer I got from J.C. Whitney about 50+ years ago, but it seems to have disappeared in my last move. I know a simple bubble balancer isn't a match for a computer balancing machine (IF the guy running the computer machine knows what he's doing, which too often isn't the case), but a bubble balancer could be useful in helping isolate which tire is causing a shimmy (just as one example). Basically the same machine as the Harbor Freight unit is available from a number of vendors on Amazon. Reviews are all over the map. I'd be very interested in knowing if anyone here has had first-hand experience with this thing.

Each state is different, of course. While in Connecticut I can get Early American (I think they recently changed it to Classic Vehicle) tags for all years of MJ and still use my regular insurance company, it's not correct that "one really has nothing to do with the other." I can put regular insurance on a vehicle with classic or early American tags, but I can't buy classic car insurance if I don't have classic or early American tags. Florida nicks you extra for personalized tags every time you renew? In Connecticut it's a one-time charge, when the tags are issued. Renewal is at the same rate as everyone else.

Good news! Congrats.

The corrosion is a problem only because the aluminum "relaxes" under pressure and allows enough space for the corrosion to take place. I lived for ten years in a house with aluminum wiring. I know too well exactly what the problem is. Plus, as an architect and building inspector, I deal with a lot of electricians.

Small fasteners that you're worried about backing out is what Loctite is made for. Only Blue or Purple, though. Red is high hold and requires heat to remove.

It will tell him the correct engine type, transmission, trim level, and whether it's 2WD or 4WD. [Edit} Sorry -- the VIN will tell us that. The door tag will give the paint codes. There should be another tag under the hood that also has the paint codes.

VIN decode from the FSM: 1JFT66L7KL574339 The VIN should have 17 characters. Yours only has 16. I can't make it match up with anything.

It appears that this thread has become mostly about wheel lug nuts, and that wasn't my intention. I used the lug nuts only as an example. The point of my original post was to introduce newbies to the concept of torque reduction when threads are lubricated, and the reason why it's potentially important. It certainly applies to lug nuts, but it's not limited to lug nuts.

Just post the VIN number. It's on a tag in the left lower corner of the windshield.

Me too. (No hash tag!)

That's what I'm counting on.

Before deciding, look into insurance. You may get a significant break if you get the early American plates. On that topic -- several years ago I inquired with two companies that at that time were the two major companies writing insurance for antique motor vehicles. Neither of them would issue a policy on anything with 4-wheel drive. Does anyone know of any classic car insurer that will cover 4WD vehicles? I may just have to register and insure the '88 Sportruck before I do the 4WD conversion.

Well, the WJ was a completely different vehicle, so if it looks like a '97 ZJ, then it's a ZJ. Post a photo so we can see it. The ZJ was more or less a derivative/evolution of the XJ. In fact, I've read that the ZJ was originally intended as the replacement for the XJ, but the XJ was selling so well that Jeep decided to keep it and introduce the ZJ as a separate vehicle. The WJ was to be the replacement for the ZJ, but Chrysler-Jeep went out of their way to make it completely different. I think I remember the early WJ ads making a point of how few parts on the WJ were carried over from the ZJ. From the build date, it sounds like what you have is a '98 ZJ, not a '99 WJ. What's the VIN? That should tell us the actual year and model. If it's a ZJ, the 4.0L should go into an MJ but the electronics, fuel injection, and accessory mounting points will be different. The fact that the ZJ front axle is a low pinion is really only a factor if you plan on serious off-road use. (Jeep changed to a low-pinion front axle in the XJ in 2000.) For the rear axle, I know the V8 ZJs used the crappy aluminum "Dana 44." I don't know what rear axle the 6-cylinder ZJs had -- if you post a good photo of the rear axle, we can probably tell you what it is.

This is all "old hat" to the guys who have been around cars and engines for awhile. We seem to have some relative rookies coming on board, so I offer this as an aid to getting into doing your own maintenance and repairs. Remember: its worth every penny you paid for it.

I've had a long-running dispute with a friend about the correct torque value for lug nuts. Over the years, Jeep factory manuals have changed on this. My MJ FSM (which was printed in 1985, so it came out with the original MJ in 1986) calls for 75 foot-pounds. The 1994 FSM for the Cherokee and Wrangler says 95 foot-pounds, and then says "Never use oil or grease on studs or nuts." My 2000 Cherokee FSM says 85 to 115 foot-pounds. What's a guy to do? The lug nuts haven't changed -- they've always been 1/2x20 with a 60-degree cone on the lug nut. I have had more than one abused XJ or MJ come into my possession with the lug nuts so frozen in place that they were almost impossible to remove. To alleviate that in my life, I have used Never-Seez on my wheel lugs for ... a very long time, like maybe 50 years or so. And I've never had a lug nut either come off, or be frozen in place. But we have to be careful, because PUBLISHED TORQUE VALUES ARE FOR CLEAN, DRY THREADS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Why is that important? Because when torque values are specified for bolts, the manufacturer doesn't care how hard you have to pull on the wrench. The important thing is the "clamping force." They want the bolt to stretch just slightly, but staying within its elastic limit, so the elastic property of the steel will be trying to remove the stretch. That pulls the nut into firm contact with whatever it's holding, "clamping" the piece between the bolt and the nut. Too little clamping force and the nut may back off. Too much torque ==> too much stretch ==> the bolt may fail because it has exceeded its elastic limit. I've wondered why the torque value for the same lug nut has changed so radically over the years. This is only a guess, but I think it is because alloy wheel are now found on more cars than steel wheels. Aluminum has an unfortunate property: under load, it continues to deform. It's referred to as "creep," and this is why aluminum is no longer used for house wiring. It was, for awhile. And it caused many house fires, because as the wire deformed under the pressure of the screw head, it lost clamping force. The connections became loose, resulting in corrosion, arcing, heat build-up, and fires. My theory, then, is that Jeep increased the torque value for the lug nuts to compensate for the "creep" property of aluminum in alloy wheels. BUT ... all those torques are for "clean, dry threads." The '94 FSM specifically says to not lubricate the threads. Anti-seize is a lubricant. If you use it (and I use it on just about every nut or bolt I touch on my vehicles), the torque values have to be decreased because the lubricant makes it easier to achieve the required amount of stretch (clamping force) with less torque on the nut. If you use the specified torque with lubricated threads, there's a possibility that you may exceed the elastic limits of the bolt, causing it to fail. At the moment, all of my viable XJs and MJs are on alloy rims. I use Never-Seez on the wheel studs. So I've decided to go by the most recent torque spec, which is 85 to 115 foot-pounds. But that's a wide range, and I need to reduce it because of the Never-Seez. The question is: how much do you reduce published torque values when using anti-seize? And sources don't agree. Years ago, my go-to bolt supply emporium had a chart on their web site. It want by actual bolt sizes, and the reductions weren't the same percentage for all sizes. In part, they changed depending on whether the thread pitch is coarse or fine thread. In general, the reduction seemed to average about 15 percent, so that's what I decided to go with. I never like to go to the max on anything (unless there's a compelling reason), so I looked at 110 ft-lbs and 105 ft-lbs. 110-15% = 93.5. 105-15% = 89.25. I settled on using 90 foot-pounds, and I always use a torque wrench to install my lug nuts. This is one of the reasons why I don't allow anyone else to do my wheel rotations. If a tire needs balancing, I remove it and I take it to the shop in the back of my vehicle, loose. The shops may use torque-limiting devices on their impact guns, but if they do they'll be set for dry torque. Not good. Recently, I've found other sources that suggest even greater reductions in torque for lubricated fasteners. This one: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/torque-lubrication-effects-d_1693.html calls for different reduction values depending on what's used as the thread lubricant. They call for reductions of 30% all the way up to 50%. WOW! Another site: https://www.antiseize.com/PDFs/torque_specifications.pdf This site is specifically about anti-seize. They call for a torque reduction of 25% on fasteners lubricated with anti-seize. What else can go wrong if you over-torque bolts? War story: back in my autocross days, one of the guys in my club had a habit of prepping for each competition by going around his car and giving each lug nut a small turn with a 4-way spanner lug wrench, just to be sure his wheels were tight. No torque wrench -- he made sure the nut moved by about 1/8th of a turn. EVERY SINGLE TIME. By the end of the season, he had pulled the lug nuts right through the wheels. The periodic increase in clamping force resulted in the 60-degree cone of the lug nuts to gradually increase the size of the holes in the wheels. Oops! Bottom line: I recommend using anti-seize on everything. If you use it, be aware that you should reduce the torque values accordingly. Do your own research and decide how much of a reduction factor you think is appropriate. And USE A TORQUE WRENCH. Even the cheap torque wrench from Harbor Fright Tools is better than nothing. I carry one in each vehicle, with a 3/4 x 13/16 reversible impact socket, for tire changes on the road in the event of a flat tire.

The bolt holes have to line up or it can't be bolted to the crankshaft. That's not the issue. The issue is that the relationship between the CPS windows on the perimeter have to be exactly positioned relative to the crankshaft or the injection and ignition timing of the engine will be off. It doesn't matter if that perimeter ring has all the holes sized and spaced the same as the other one unless that ring is correctly positioned relative to the mounting holes. And your photos do not give me any confidence that the ring is correctly positioned.

Your truck is supposed to have a rake when unloaded. If your overload leaf is in contact with the rest of the leaf pack, your springs are seriously sagged. Check the ride height measurement against factory specs to see how badly.

How do you figure it's a match? Those slots don't look to me like they align with the original. Look at your first photo.

It's a Jeep Comanche. They didn't make many of them, and they become more scarce every day. My vote has to be "Keep it stock." If you must have more power, do a cam or a stroker.

I don't know what the 6-cylinder WJ used for a rear axle. If it's the aluminum "Dana 44," it's not even a good boat anchor. There's a thread here not more than a week or two ago about the WJ front axle. Bottom line -- it won't fit without a lot of work, and even then the wheel lug bolt circle is wrong.

My first thought was catalytic converter clogged, too.

It is not normal.