gogmorgo

Google translate ftw More like: Sonofabitch she's beautiful. I find the price a bit high, but not necessarily, I don't know the French market. If it's less than the average price (for a truck of the vintage, etc) I'd jump on it. If I had the money... I know about the smell of the cities. I was in Paris a few years ago, and for such a romanticized city, the diesel fug downtown nearly made me vomit several times. But yes, drive it, try the 4x4. Make sure the floors are solid. Mine has 477,000 km and is still reliable. The only times I've been stuck were in old crusty snow deeper than the doors. That's "ostie" ;) Colline de bines!

No, but there's a big space in the tank between the bottom of where the filler neck connects to the side of the tank and the top of the tank. I meant the 23.5 gal line could be below where it hooks up. Like this:

Tabarnac qu'elle est belle! Je trouve aussi que son prix est un peu cher, mais pas nécessairement trop cher, car je ne connais pas le marché en France... S'il est vraiment moins cher que la normale, je sautterais la-dessus... si j'avais l'argent... Je comprends bien l'odeur des villes... j'étais à Paris y'a quelques années, et pour une ville si romantisée, la boucane de diesel en centre-ville m'a quasiment fait vomir plusieurs fois... Mais certainement, conduisez-la, essayez le 4x4. Faites certain que les planchers sont solides. Je bave un peu en voyant les km... le mien a 477,000km d'abus, et est encore fiable. Les seules fois qu'il m'a laissé prit, c'étais dans la veille neige crouteux plus profond que mes portes.

That's a 4.3 anyway. The later Blazers didn't get the 60° v6. Unless it was a custom job, in which case the wiring is all hacked to $#!& anyway.

Oui, je vous encourage à l'acheter. Le Comanche est un meilleur truck (un beau mot Français au Canada) que tous autres, à condition qu'on ne veut pas fair qqch impliquant le mot "passagers". Le 1992 est le plus rare des Comanches (~prononcé ka-main-tchi), avec moins qu'un mille produits. Le diesel est encore plus rare, car ce n'est pas aussi commun en Amérique qu'en Europe. Comme déja dit ci-dessus, c'est la même auto que le Cherokee en avant des portes, et tous les pièces interchangent. Dérrière les sièges, c'est une différente histoire, mais on peut encore trouver des pièces. Tant que le prix est résonnable et qu'il n'y a pas trop de rouille (en particulière sous les portes, le "rocker" comme on dit en anglais; ni dans les planchers de la cabine, ou la chassis en générale) je dirrais que c'est un bon achât. Just une avertissement, en générale on trouve que les Comanches ne sont pas entretenues autant qu'on aurait pu, et qu'il existe souvent plusieur petites choses à corriger, mais après les avoir règlé, c'est un véhicule très dépendable. Je ne suis pas le meilleur mécanicien au monde, mais je peux quand même traduire pour vous et ceux avec un peu plus d'expertise si jamais la situation s'élève. Quelques autres membres du site vivent en Europe, et je croix qu'ils ne trouve pas que c'est un immense défi pour trouver les pièces. Si jamais il arrive quelquechose difficile à trouver, on pourrait toujours vous en trouver icite, et l'envoyer. Ce ne serrait pas la première fois.

Diebold makes atm's, don't they?

No one will know the driveway needs repaired if there's a couple jeeps sitting on it ;)

Found it: http://comancheclub.com/topic/35694-drivetrain-suggestions-please/ I guess it is mostly 3.4 stuff. I don't know that I said it, but the 3.1 is mostly more readily available because a variation with that displacement was used in just about every fwd platform from GM, whereas the ones that displaced 3.4 litres had a much more limited run until later in fwd. In terms of RWD engines, though, I don't know that there's all that much difference between in terms of production numbers. Bother were in production for three years.

GM did a lot of screwing around with the 60° v6. There are a bunch of 3.1's and a bunch of 3.4's. Apart from the F-body versions, they were mostly fwd engines, so there may be some obstacles in using them in a rwd setup. The 3.1 which was in the Camaro from '90-'92 is a gen-II engine, but the 3.4 (1993-1995 f-bods) is based off the gen-I engine for whatever reason, and so is more similar to the 2.8's. The 3.4 makes slightly more power, I think. A lot of the complaints about the 3.4 actually come from the overhead-cam version, where changing the rear spark plugs is impossible without taking off the intake manifold, and the timing belt was a bit of a b*@$£, too. The ohc made for a really poor fit in the engine bays designed for pushrod engines. Also, the gen-III 3.4's weren't exactly well known for their intake gaskets not leaking coolant into the engine. Neither of those issues has anythign to do really with the F-body's 3.4. In all honestly, the Buick 3.8 is a better engine than either, and was used in the Fbodies from 96 until their demise. I don't know that it uses the same bellhousing pattern though... If adapting a fwd engine isn't an issue, I'd go for the LQ1 from a Lumina or Monte Carlo Z34. Yes, it's the dohc engine mentioned above, but I think the biggest issue with it was that the back half of it simply wasn't accessible in the fwd cars, which would go away in a rear-drive situation. But it's the only version of the 60° V6 that makes over 200hp. Someone else brought up a similar subject a while back. I'll see if I can find the thread.

My best guess is that since the filler neck goes into the side of the tank, the 23.5 line is below it. The time I did it, I'd just driven about 110 miles with my low fuel light on. So I was feeling pretty weirded out as it was. Then the manager at the full serve saw me squinting strangely at the receipt so I told him my tank wasn't that big. We went back and reviewed the security tape, and the attendant hadn't done anything out of the ordinary. But I've pumped my own gas ever since.

Imperial gallons are bigger. 23.5 is something like 19 imperial.

I once put 26 gallons into my 23.5 gallon tank... :???:

I'm as interested as you are. My dome lights only come on about 2% of the time when I open the doors. Sometimes they come on after my door has been standing open for a few minutes. I haven't pulled anything apart to look at it, but messing around with the switch when they're not on hasn't done me any good. Can't help you though... just saying I'm in the same boat and sort of looking for answers. Solidarity, you know...

The guy I bought mine from arranged the sale to take place at the insurance place, so he'd know everything got switched over... He left me with his plates, though...

Soaked it in PB for three days. Impact just made a lot of noise. I had a new nut and spindle, so after breaking the breaker bar, I just took a cutoff wheel to it.

Yeah, I want to say registration in Manitoba was around $100 too, but I'd have to dig out my papers and I'm too lazy... Edit:: Just had a brain wave... used MPI's online insuance calculator. Registration fee, $154 + $7 "plate use charge".

Yeah, hardest part of the axle shaft removal/install is getting that axle nut off. You will break 1/2in drive breaker bars. Although since you're replacing the bearing, might as well throw a torch on it. It'll make your job that much easier. But yeah, when they're going back in they just slide right in. Don't drag them along the bottom of the axle tube so you don't wreck the seals.

Couldn't tell you what the plates/registration itself cost, since I paid them together with the required insurance. Total rate per annum is $600. And that's in Manitoba, where we've got some of the lowest rates in Canada. I'd be willing to bet it would cost three or four times that if I was still in Ontario. I'm on all-purpose insurance, since I drive it too far to get to school to be on basic insurance. It adds around $50/year.

There's such a thing as a winter bike? Everyone up here just rides the same one year round...

The few times I've posted a youtube vid, I just paste the link into the reply text and leave it as is. Like this:

Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

It would be helpful to know a bit more about your MJ. Which engine for a start. There are a couple things I can think of that would cause this. Either the engine isn't making enough power to stay running without the help of the starter, or else not everything is turning on in the on position. (i.e. fuel, spark, etc.) Can you hear the fuel pump prime when you turn the key to "on"?

Unless you've got full visibility while only moving your head, a safety harness is a pretty terrible idea. They don't retract, so you have to tighten each strap individually, which is a pita without help, and unless you tighten them all, it's not going to do you much good. And when they're all tight, your body may as well be welded to the seat. You won't really be able to lift any part of your body off the seat, from your @$$ all the way up to your shoulders.

There are a few other FSAE teams running singles, and while they don't make quite as much power, the weight savings from the lighter engine and less steel in the shorter more compact chassis (usually about 100 lbs or so lighter altogether) mostly make up for it. Our team still runs the four-bangers though, because they're supposedly easier to come by. It's not really my department, though. I'm mostly just involved with the drivetrain after the transmission sprocket. But sorry for the :hijack:

Actually, today was nice and warm. Only needed a light jacket, no gloves or toque. A balmy 20F.