HOrnbrod

Good point. The passenger is definitely an airhead, so little head movement would occur.

Harold, it's good to see that your passenger's head restraint is adjusted correctly to help prevent violent rearward head movement in case of a collision. However, he (or she?) appears to have very little neck muscle support.............

Here's the perfect header for the I6, the Mike Leach long tube. It fits the MJ like a glove even with the 1999and up intake manifold. Unfortunately it's no longer available since Mopar performance dropped it from their catalog years ago and ML stopped producing them. I got one of the last ones back in 03 from Kolak. He deals mainly in Banks headers now for the I6. Brett, his prices are very good, wouldn't hurt to email Nick for a quote. His email address: Kolak@aol.com

Where you been Jim? How 'bout them Sox? :yes:

Pick up a test light at the Zone or similar and check for power. As long as you're not measuring voltage amplitude, it's an easy quick way to troubleshoot simple electrical circuit problems. And you really don't need to know anything about electricity. :thumbsup:

Well stated Pat. :thumbsup:

Not that this deserves a response, but I'll respond anyhow. :yes: "True Jeeper"? WTF is that? Everyone has their own opinion, and they mean nothing to me. In my mind, if you have build several Jeeps of varying models to varying degrees over time to attain what you want from them and have exclusively driven Jeeps for many years, you are a "True Jeeper". Doesn't matter what the trolls say. As far as justifying buying a new JKU, I bought a new 2012 end-of-the-year model equipped all the options I wanted (and because of the 1st year 3.6 Pentastar engine) and paid cash because I can, because got a good deal, because it holds it's resale value better than most any other new US vehicle does, and because Mama wanted one. I consider her a "True Jeeper" too. I immediately made suspension and steering mods for it, and it's a safe, secure, and reliable ride for her with decent mileage. And no, it's never going off road. "True Jeepers" :hmm:

Yes, you have a short. A good one. Since you replaced the fusible link and when you reconnect the battery you obviously still have a short further down the line. Fusible links suck as protection devices because it takes them time to blow, and when it finally does the components it is supposed to protect are already fried. Use an ohmmeter connected between the fusible link and ground, and start disconnecting components down the line until the short goes away with your meter. This is tough to do w/o a factory electrical manual because you're more or less guessing. You might be able to find an electrical manual on-line specific for your 86. If you do, ID the fusible link that blew, then start removing/disconnection components working down the line.

Yeah, but it's "Trail Rated®". Unfortunately also "Extremely Ugly Rated®"

Thanks for posting those bracket pics Skidoo. They are not even in the parts manuals, only the "sports" bar itself. Or maybe I just can't find them.... .

Hmmm. The battery tray must be a bit lower in the HOs then. Reused the bracket and it fit well. It's sure not a critical piece though.

Aye. Time marches on driven by the bottom line.

Thanks for sharing that - dude.

I echo all the comments above. You are sharp young man for having the foresight and intelligence to concentrate your efforts into the restoration of your fine unmolested 91 rather than jack it up, butcher the wheel wells, and slap bigger tires on it as most do. Kudos to you for preserving MJ originality, and congratulations for MJOTM.

Yeah I saw it. Is it gold plated? :rotfl2:

Looks super Alex. That shot looks like it could be land up near Brownboro off Rt 72?

The best way (other than using the DRBIII scanner) is to check with an ohmeter across the connector pins while rotating the wheels (or the tranny). The meter should make/break continuously while the tranny is turning. But it's not always conclusive. Mine tested okay even though it was bad.

LWB Factory Roll Bar Image Not Found Image Not Found Image Not Found Image Not Found

Cruiser; just looked up the Group 65 and it is larger than the Group 34 battery. You might want to verify the group 65 measurements for an unmolested fit? Bigger is always better. :yes: Group... L................W................H 65..........12 1/16......7 1/2...........7 9/16 34..........10 1/4........6 13/16.......7 7/8

This is true. The largest group battery that will bolt in using the original hardware and not interfere with hood clearance is a group 34 battery, as used in the 97 and up XJs. It's has about 20% more CCA than the stock group 58 series and requires no modifications. I'm not sure the group 65 battery will do that. But if it does, I'd like to know.

This link also confirms the FKJ engine code is a 1991 2.8 engine in the Engine Identification chapter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73875013/Chevrolet-Gmc-s10-s15-Sonoma-s10-Blazer-Jimmy-1982-2004-Parts-Catalog

Below is the link for the 88 XJ/MJ electrical manual. I fail to see why you think this is an upgrade though. https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=c40904cfda278a46&id=C40904CFDA278A46!115#!/view.aspx?cid=C40904CFDA278A46&resid=C40904CFDA278A46!140&app=WordPdf

Of course you are correct, but have you ever seen a engine dyno runout that torque wasn't measured in ft/lbs? I haven't. This is a case in which it's very safe to ASSume ft/lbs due to the subject matter and number posted. Unless torque is commonly measured using different units in Canada. I don't know if it is. :cheers:

:thumbsup:

Hesco and other stroker engine builders use this abbreviation. Probably the most important number you look at on the dyno.