GirsMJ86

Really dig that color, good looking rig. How do those tires ride on pavement? My BFG M/Ts are shot and been looking all around trying to decide what I want.

Matter of opinion, I really like these mini grand cherokee ones. Much better than the styling of any other brands offering in this same market category IMO. And the trail rated thing has always been a marketing gimmick, no matter the vehicle. You want to talk extreme ugly... let's talk about the commander or the kk libby. .For that line right there I offer you a :cheers: . So many people look at the brand jeep without realistic expectations and expect everything they ever produce forever to live up to the CJ. Not just a jeeper thing though. These things are nothing more than AWD vehicles meant for snow, which is all I care about really when looking at a vehicles like this. If I was in the market for a new vehicle, the top requirement is AWD or 4x4 because of winters around here and how poorly the roads are plowed. Many vehicles (read: sedans like the Fusion and such) come onto the market with AWD versions, but then the AWD version is dropped usually for poor sales. I count on vehicles like the above to provide that segment. So maybe I'm more the target audience new jeep is aiming for than everyone else here. Maybe I'm just more grounded and don't live in the idea that if I buy a jeep it must be able to conquer the toughest climbs in the ozarks or it might as well be a power wheels. If I didn't require a truck, I would have hunted me down a final year AWD Talon again since the one I had plowed through snow and ice halfway up it's wheels like it wasn't there. An AWD wagon like the compass is more practical though because of passenger space which is something I like the idea of having as I get older. I still say the wrangler, independent suspension or not, will more than likely always be the most capable stock vehicle on the market. It does after all fill a market segment that is making them money and no one else truly offers. Going independent will just widen the appeal and lessen the "money loss" that fiat sees when you cheaply upgrade a base model in the aftermarket. This would get more people to actually fork it over for the factory built rubicon. 90% of all wranglers I see anyways are just X models with basic tires on them, purchased because people like the look, want to be "part of the jeep experience", or just need 4x4 for winter.

http://www.mopar.com/community/75th-anniversary/mopar-jeep-compass-true-north.html It's not a lot, but then again I'm not a fan of big lift. Most lift I'd put on an MJ? 4.5 inches. Most on a J-10? 3 inches. Then find the right size tires to make it look proportional.

I'd take a 4dr JK in a heartbeat, as well as a 2012+ compass. Both rigs would be on road mostly with very little off road other than in the grass at campgrounds and such. The compass would receive a lift though or no dice. My reasoning? They are a jeep, can hold multiple people, 4wd to get through snow and slush, and one of them really isn't meant for much more. There are very few vehicles in another brand I would buy, so these would be my most logical choice if I needed more passenger room. If I want a hardcore off road rig, I'd buy a KJ, TJ, or XJ in that order. But I'm not into rock crawling and such so that'll never matter to me. I'd honestly buy the compass and lift it before the JK though the more I have looked into and thought about things. Unless the diesel wrangler actually does happen, in which case I might buy a 4dr anyways just because as a DD and let the MJ be my "exotic" so long as the styling doesn't change to something horrible like the new cherokee. You can't expect every single vehicle produced under the jeep brand to be a beast off road rig. In reality only the wrangler was meant to fill that role, all the rest were just meant to be capable to varying degrees. AMC, Chrysler, Fiat... none of them have cared that the vehicles are "easy/cheap" for you to modify since they didn't make money off the parts. The parts they provided to "build" the thing were higher priced for a reason. Independent suspension vehicles are perfectly capable off road, they are just limited in ease of building to be better. If you truly need a solid axle, swap it in. While you're at it, swap in portals so you'll feel even better. Even though I loathe them, I think we're forgetting that the H1 was independent and that's one of the reasons it took over in the military.

I've always used a group 34, even in my v6 rigs. I just use one of those black rubber bungies to hold it down since I've never had a factory bracket until my newest truck.

That truck would be 3x that or more around here...

Mine is going on 203k miles, still shifts just fine. It's not a sports car, you can't expect it to shift like one.

I bet if you were to place an order you would get an email saying they are out of stock. Too bad they can't get the body lines right on these fiber ones compared to the old metal ones.

Sure thing for the instructions. The rears go behind the flares/wheel wells completely and the bracket hugs each side of a seam that you'll see once you get under there. When you get them figured out, if you could let me know what is needed to attach the rears that would be great. All I have are the flaps with brackets for the MJ set I have. So bolts, nuts, that kind of stuff, I'd appreciate it. I've not messed with my set yet or I would have grabbed pics by now doing a test fit. My brackets on my rear flares are rusty so I want to clean them up and por-15 them before I truly install them. Either that or have some duplicates made out of stainless since I have a set of stainless brackets for the fronts.

I agree with Eagle on NGK plugs as well. Ran great in my old Talon and BMW, the '88 I just got will be getting some swapped in soon enough.

SWB or LWB? Factory? Aftermarket? If aftermarket; chrome, black, rusted?

The '92. A 4x4 swap is easy, but even the 2WD rigs are very capable. I prefer autos, plus it's a '92 Eliminator. Really should have kept my '91 Eliminator, but oh well. With premium, low ethanol fuel, my '91 got really good highway mileage (above 20). What I'd give to live in a state where I could get my hands on a '91 or '92 Eliminator in decent shape.

Doors, behind the panel on the back of the cab, in the bottom of the b-pillars. They've been found everywhere.

The body looks a lot better than I thought it was going to. I'd still stay away though because of what it'll take to remedy the 2.8 problem and the fact a 4.0 rig could be had for the same amount. Only reason I ignored the 2.8 issue of the '86 I bought earlier this year is because of the holley stuff which does bring some life to that crappy engine since I've seen the conversion on an S10. Figured I'd engine swap down the road. But unless you go 3.4 as a swap pretty much everything will need to go and you'd basically just need a donor rig. That's why I decided to call it quits on my '86 and just buy a 4.0 rig with a lot already done to it for 1000, the extra cost and work didn't make sense to me at that point.

That basically looks like the one I found in the door of my '86, only fancier Chrysler version rather than AMC. Mine isn't that long but it lists all that info you mentioned.

What is a "vehicle production broadcast" sheet? Are we talking about build sheet? If so I pretty much figured it all out, for an '86 anyways, after I found mine in the driver side door and compared to what options the truck clearly had like chrome, roll bar, foglights, etc. and what knew from working at Jeep and GM dealerships.

Use the link on photobucket next to the IMG text box. As for the topic, I'd pass. An '86 just isn't worth that kind of money with those specs and a beat up body. I'm only asking $1200 for the '86 in my sig but it has a manual and 99% straight body.

Jealous of them wheels. Good looking rig, just need to fix that rear bumper and replace that v6 and you're golden.

Ran into that on my long bed. It's 100% stock though with the big tank, the spring doesn't make contact but comes very close. I did have an issue with it crushing a hard brake line against the rail though, ended up breaking it when I tried to move it away. Stupid Ohio rust. Going to swipe them for my short bed though maybe unless they are way too short since it has a 4.5 lift, although the ones there now are maxed out basically just sitting still so they can't be any worse.

Awesome, thanks. Just what I needed. I did find the pdf of the '88 FSM on here, but I couldn't find any torque specs in it. I'll just have to buy all 2 or 3 FSMs for '88 sometime, however many there are for that year.

Yup, that's how they work if your running/head lights are not on. So it does sound like this just mimics the factory wiring.

I saw that too, sadly no torque specs listed there.

I know I found this info somewhere before, but doing a search I didn't come across it again. I either overlooked it or found it on another forum. Getting ready to replace my rear main and I'm needing to know what the torque specs are for the oil pan bolts and the bolts for the cover thingy that holds the bottom half of the rear main.

Yea, the dash/hood ornament gave it away for me. That thing looks awesome, I like the color. I see one or two of them driving around here now and then during the summer, but they are always black.

hmm Can't believe I never posted in here. Well, no more. Here I is! Marion, about 40 miles north of Columbus