HOrnbrod

Yeah, that would look great on an AW4 column shifter lever..............

Good point. But I would definitely DEMAND (in a nice way of course) :D that the parts place give me free ones. :cheers:

That's strange. Every greasable u-joint I've ever purchased, be the grease fitting in the cross frame or end cap, the grease fittings came with the joint. Sure the zerks are not in the u-joint box?

They also later tested with the tailgate removed, with a bed cap on, and with a mesh tailgate. The mesh was the best for fuel economy by 5%. http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_64_more_myths_revisite.html

How about this one? A real live British 1974 Mini pickup.

There are six wires on the 91+ switch. Two for the stop lights (NO), two to the TCU for the torque converter and the ECU (NC), and another pair for the cruise speed sensor (NC). Entirely different. Well, I'll contact my friend w. the 89 and ask why he could not adjust his brake switch as you have done Wade. :cheers:

I thought the 1990 and below brake switches were non-adjustable? I know they are not interchangible with the adjustable 91+ switches. i dunno. all i know is that mine adjusted. Interesting. How many wires were on the switch connector? Reason I ask is because I was helping a friend via email who had an 89 who was doing the 95/96 booster/master upgrade, and he ended up having to change out the brake switch and bracket for a 91 adjustable switch.

I thought the 1990 and below brake switches were non-adjustable? I know they are not interchangible with the adjustable 91+ switches.

It gives the flare nut sizes on http://www.madxj.com/ in the brakes/96 booster article.

Its SPLINED, NOT threaded. Just pull it off. It is glued and will not come easily. When mine fell off and I put on a large wooden "egg". CW Thanks CW. :bowdown:

Not a highjack, but roughly the same topic, what about the AW4 column shifter MJs? Is the knob threaded at all? How do ya get it off?

You're welcome! :cheers: Glad you got it fixed; not glad you had to pay a shop. :cry:

What's it worth as it sits now since it only needs half of a new body and a fresh motor?? And yeah, I know, don't ask me what I paid for it. :cheers:

AFAIK, the NSS has nothing to do with shifting the AW4. It's purpose in life is to prevent you from starting in any other gear besides N or P, provide a circuit for the backup lights, and provide a continuity ground to the ECU to allow starting. Once started, the NSS is out of the TCU circuits and tranny solenoids that control shifting. You can pull the NSS and clean it, can't hurt, but first, since it's been sitting for awhile, I would drain the tranny, change the filter, and add about four quarts of fresh ATF. Especially if it's not been done in awhile.

I found this site very helpful when I changed out the turn signal / wiper switch to convert to delay wipers. If you can put it back together in an hour you must have been in columns before. :D Took me like four times that. The hardest part was getting the ignition switch gear rack lined up with the shifter. http://www.epiccomputer.com/dale/jeepjunk/tilt/tilt.html

It simply applies a ground to a pin on the ECU (haven't schematic-ed it out yet) that raises the idle RPM about 500 more than normal so the cops can have increased donut munching time w/o overheating. Prolly back to closed loop, but I'm not sure. But I do have one of these speedos and will be installing it shortly. I'm told the police speedo built-in circuit board logics the frequency of the sender into correct needle deflection w/o mods to indicate correct speed. I'll know soon........ :D

Has the police model 115MPH speedo and the window for the column shift AW4 shift indicator in the gas gauge. Only 91+ MJ/XJ owners can apply (electronic speedo). :D Item # 110241418796. No it's not mine!

Because the Renix engines weren't designed to run in that RPM range. There are three (or four) “generations” of the 4.0L engine. The “first generation” was introduced in the 1987 model year. This version used a Renault/Bendix (“Renix”) designed, multi-port fuel injection system. The original 1987 model was rated at 173 horsepower at 4,750 RPM and 220 foot-pounds of torque at 2,000 RPM. The horsepower rating for this version was raised to 177 horsepower at 4,750 RPM and 224 foot-pounds of torque at 2,400 RPM for model years 1988 through 1990. As a result of the various changes Chrysler made in the 1991 model year, the second version of the engine (the original HO) was rated at 190 horsepower at 4,750 RPM and 225 foot-pounds of torque at 3,950 RPM. The increased horsepower was perceptible in street driving, resulting in an engine that “felt” considerably faster than its predecessor even though it was not, in fact, significantly faster. However, the horsepower increase came at a price: although the rated torque was unchanged, the torque peak was now at nearly 4,000 RPM, which is higher than the engine would likely see in daily street driving, and considerably higher than what is desirable for off-road use (other than mud bogging). The “third generation” 4.0-liter engine: In 1996 DaimlerChrysler again revised the electronic engine controls, to comply with a Federal mandate to make all vehicles OBD-II compliant. The horsepower rating for the 4.0-liter engine remained unchanged at 190 horsepower at a slightly lower 4,600 RPM, but the torque peak RPM was lowered, to 225 foot-pounds at 3,000 RPM. An additional running change was introduced in the Grand Cherokee in model year 1999 and in the Cherokee for model year 2000: the single ignition coil was eliminated and ignition was handled by a coil rail system, in which each spark plug has a dedicated coil mounted to a rail directly at the spark plugs. This arrangement eliminates the high voltage spark plug wires of older (“conventional”) ignition systems. The author considers this to be a variant of the “third generation.” However, it can be argued that the change is sufficiently significant that the 2000 and 2001 (and 1999 Grand Cherokee) 4.0-liter engine should be considered to be the “fourth generation” of the design. This version produced incrementally more power than the preceding version: 193 horsepower at 4,600 RPM and 231 foot-pounds of torque at 3,000 RPM. The 1991 HO engine had completely different heads with a higher flow and higher ports, different intake and exhaust manifolds (which you negated by going to aftermarket headers), a tweaked cam profile, and a different ignition and injection system using larger injectors and a completely new fuel map. The HO engine is operating near its "sweet spot" in the 3,000 RPM range, which is while it feels so much stronger than a Renix from 3,000 to 4,000 RPM even though the horsepower ratings are virtually identical. The Renix engines are in their sweet spot between 2,000 and 2,500 RPM. You can feel it when you drive it. Mine will rev past 2,500 ... but I'm not doing anything at higher RPMs, I'm just making noise. What I consider to be the "natural" shift point is around 2,250 RPM. By contrast, my 2000 XJ 5-speed really likes to be shifted at 3,500 RPM, and hills I can drive up in 4th gear with the old Renix at 30 MPH require downshifting to hold 30 MPH with the new 2000. You really cannot extrapolate from one engine to say anything meaningful about the other (except that they're both Jeep engines and will run forever if you change the oil). Eagle, thanks for the excellently detailed explanation. My block is a 96 (my original 91 block could not be bored safely over .030), but the head and intake are from the original 91. And since I changed the gearing from 3.55 to 4.10, highway cruising @ 70 MPH raised the RPM to just below 3000RPM, closer to the "sweet spot", and I'm getting a little bit better highway mileage too with the AW4. But this was offset by the decreased mileage in town. Many thanks, I understand now. :cheers:

Yes, fat-fingered it. The charts start at 3000 RPM and continue to 5000RPM. 3000RPM was peak torque on both runs. Should be: BEFORE: Torque 274.7 @ 3000RPM; HP 182.4 @ 4200RPM AFTER: Torque 296.0 @ 3000RPM; HP 207.2 @ 3950PM

After reading this thread, I thought I'd dig out my old Hesco dyno readings. The BEFORE was done on my fresh stroker engine in Mar 2005; the AFTER was done after exhaust mods in May 2007. The BEFORE exhaust was with a 2.5" Mike Leach header, hi-flow cat, Dynamax muffler, and 2-1/4" exhaust exiting behind the right rear wheel. The AFTER exhaust was with the same header, a Cherry Bomb 2-1/2" muffler replaced the cat, a 2-1/2" Walker HP muffler with dual outlets, and 2-1/2" dual pipes exiting under the rear bumper. And these were not mandrel bent exhaust pipes. These were the peak torque and HO vs. RPM at the rear wheels: BEFORE: Torque 228.7 @ 4200RPM; HP 182.4 @ 4200RPM AFTER: Torque 276.8 @ 3950RPM; HP 207.2 @ 3950PM Peak Torque and HP averaged about a 13%-15% increase across the board starting at 2000RPM, with no changes but the exhaust mod between the two runs, and of course the engine was fully broken in. Mileage decreased approx 1 MPG. So it appears going from 2-1/4" to 2-1/2" is a good move for the HO engines. I don't understand why the Renix engines would not see similar results. Why?? :dunno:

This link will help: http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/np231.htm

What year is your MJ??

Yes, same spline count.

Understand. I knew there was a overiding reason why I figure he's the best qualified candidate. :deal:

And to continue the hi-jack for another brief moment: Yeah. That's a hell of a clip on that Colt 45 (it looks like the monkey has a 45 anyhow). :D Now, if they could only market that thing. :eek: