Rockfrog

None of what you plan requires moving the engine. He teeing gearbox is easily removed/replaced by removal of the airbox and fender skirt for access. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Ouch, yeah, swapping to any 4cyl, 21 spline, 231 would solve that. And it'll likely come with a nearly correct gear. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

The 97+ (96 technically) runs a constant pressure system, the fuel pump assembly supplies 49psi to the rail regardless of anytbing else. It just does what it does. Th HO 91-95 runs a demand regulated pressure system, running between 31-39psi based on vacuum signals. With the HO system Th ecm controls injector firing, and timing based on parameters based around a variable fuel pressure. With the later (96+) system, the 'demand' variation is controlled by the ecm, but now is done so at the injector. The injectors themselves are completely compatible with each other. I have run 97 injectors in my 88 without issue and they actually worked quite well. 49psi is the system rail pressure, not the injector pressure. The later injectors only flow more as the system pressure is higher, and will flow less with the lower HO pressures. I myself have wondered about running a late model tank/pump with the HO return rail (just have to add the return line port). As the tank will push 49psi constant (with it's own regulator) and the HO regulator should handle the drop. But, it is likely the HO regulator will drop too low as it's based on seeing full pump pressure. Disabling the 96+ regulator should enable normal HO rail function in theory, but I haven't reached that point in my build. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

When I did mine, I drilled the studs out (they all broke but one) and just used 1/4" bots, nuts and washers to replace them (no welding) along with Th drilled out brackets (they also act to reinforce Th fender lip). Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

For that year range of vehicle, you have a fully mechanical speedometer, no wiring involved in it's function whatsoever. If you have a 21 spline gear in the speedo drive, that is your issue. 235/75r15 and 3.54 gears are all you need to concern yourself with as far as the sppedo is concerned. You need to swap to a 33 o 34 tooth gear (according to most charts, as you technically split the range with a 235/75) on the sppedo drive housing. It will be a long shaft gear that you need. You may find a 31 tooth gear more accurate though (explained lower down). If you plan to swap axles/gearing/tires at any point, plan ahead and get the gear as well. If you need to, use your phone as a speedo for the time being, I've done this several times while mid build (Ulysses Speedo is my go to app for Android). Also take the speedo charts with a grain of salt, thy are made based on the factories tendency to read 10% under speed. I have actually found a 34 tooth gear to work perfectly for my MJ when I was 3.73 geared rolling on 255/75r17, and now use a 39 tooth with 4.56 gears and 33/13.50r15 with plans for 35's so the current 5% error (reads faster than actual) is fine for now and better than factory. As a result of this, I generally keep the speedo gears from all the cases I have had pass my way. As for the tach, there should b a potentiometer on the tach itself to adjust it. It is quite likely the whole cluster was swapped from a 4cyl vehicle. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Get the matching driveshaft slip yoke. That t case will mount just fine to an AW4 or an AX15. The only input issue (length) you really need to concern yourself about is whether is came from a ZJ or not. The ZJ used a rather long input. I currently run a 99 242 behind my 93 AX15. I did have to swap the rear output shafts with an earlier one due to already having my driveshaft and not wanting to make a new one. So I converted my 99 case to internal slip yoke style. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Black is negative Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Just wired in a 98 plug, converted a 2000 motor to the earlier plug, jammed it onto a 98 transmission ... Wow, I have Wipers the move the rain again, and all sorts of speeds. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I hear pictures help. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Well, let's update. Pulled the fenders off the XJ and added them to the MJ, put the XJ's 33/13.5r15 Toyo MT's on as well. Rewired the wiper motor to upgrade with a 2000xj motor, trans, and arms. Swapped out the 93 NP242 for a 99 NP242 (just had to swap output shafts) and re-calibtated the speedo drive. Swapped in my Stinky Fab trans and motor mounts from the XJ, got rid of a $#!& tonne of odd rattles and clunks. Put all the old parts onto the XJ in prep for sale. Just need to make the new front crossmember so I can scavenge the XJ's front axle now. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

When the spring inside my master cylinder snapped in half, the clutch would only react at the bottom of the pedal travel. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Alright boys and girls, had some health issues arise (damn gall bladder tried to kill me). But ... After the third week I was cleared to wrench. New game plan, swap drivetrain from XJ into MJ, and from MJ into XJ. Pulled the 8.25 (4.56, Detroit) out of the XJ and stuffed it SOA under the MJ. Still have to sort out shock mounts and shocks but I ended up bandaid img it for now. Had to pull two leaves from my hauler packs (now has MJ main, XJ cut main, XJ cut second, MJ second, and MJ third, with MJ overload run long end forward). Anti wrap perches, and some old MJ plates run upside down and side swapped (lower shock mount is forward of the axle). Get some good spring wrap if I don't feather into it, and with the 255/75r17's I can start in third like I used to in first with the 8.8 (3.73 LSD). Added benefit is the 8.25 is already disc swapped so just a rebleed and they work great. Next up is to make a new crossmember to accommodate the XJ's 3 link system (custom) up front to get the 4.56, TrueTrac, GM/Dodge TRE crossover, WJ swapped, OTK, D30HP up front. Got me a jack rabbit for now. Need to swap some 4.5" springs up front to level it out in the meantime. Pulled the front driveshaft so I don't have a brainfart moment. Suspension pic shows first shock attempt, ended up moving the lower forward of the axle for now. At least until I can get the time to fab some proper shock mounts. Not sure how I'll deal with the spring wrap, maybe one (or both) of the load assist shocks in some fashion. Still researching anti-wtap bars as well. This is the new trail rig so don't want to get into stiff inflexible suspensions. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Yes it is just a standard 1/4" brake flare once the QD housing is removed. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Tires would have hit the springs without them. Might work without with a wheel with less backspacing. The axle itself is 1 3/8" narrower overall. So not a huge difference. But due to the wide spring layout, wheel choice or spacers are a question. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

The pre 90 calipers mount completely differently than the 90+. The knuckles are totally different as well. The pre-90 have a remoavle caliper bracket, the later are integrated. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Because you had a non electronic auto, only the AW4 used the TCU. The A904's were "dumb" as it were. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

My current clutch setup is 88 stock master cylinder, 88 stock line, Novak adapter fitting, 94 stock external Slave. Works just fine. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I don't expect to see much change there as the relationship between the crank, the rotor, and the piston won't really change, and the ECM will adjust into spec as it always does. I'm more expecting to see a basic shift back to the low grunt typical of a Renix, with the usual top end "wheeze out" Right now, the motor literally runs like my 2000 XJ does, where the power really comes on above 2200rpm and keeps pulling up past 3500rpm (I hate pushing it past there personally). I mean there is some grunt, but not like the original (and quite worn out) motor had, it was a very noticeable difference. The new motor is way more powerful than the old one is by leaps and bounds (well given that it's 10yrs newer and in far better shape internally), but I hate pushing an inline so high, I'm merely hoping to shift the power curve back down lower is all. In no way am I thinking of any huge power gains. Who knows, there may be no change at all, well, other than those of putting a less stretched timing chain into place. But, like the GM TPS swap I did, and the 97+ MAP swap .... only one way to know for sure. And since I have to do the whole cooling system anyway (rad, thermostat and pump), the front of the engine will laid bare for the taking so why not? I dunno, I've had stranger ideas ... Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Fair enough, no way to adjust ignition timing, all good, no argument. But cam timing in relation to the crank Is Not controlled by the ECU. We are discussing a valve timing difference, the ECU has full and complete control of the ignition event, agreed. But any adjustment at the CPS is still only an electronic adjustment which the ECU can and will adjust for. Granted and agreed. So bear with me while I state my reasoning and understanding here if you would please ... What I am talking about is changing the actual cam timing and thus the actual valve timing events. Something the ECU has no effect on whatsoever. The ECU/ICM can't adjust valve timing, it can only adjust ignition timing based on the CmPS/CkPS which is still an indexed ignition event. If the valve itself opens 4 degrees sooner (or later) the ECU has no knowledge of it and can't adjust it in any event. This is what was in rumour/theory was adjusted with the later HO models, the cam timing itself was retarded 4 degrees allegedly. Whether it was for emissions (mimicking some effects of an EGR effect as some have speculated) or some other gloriously lost in the 90's reasoning, the fact remains that the Renix and early HO Cams were the same, and for the most part should (in theory, and from my limited understanding) follow fairly similar (obviously not identical) ignition timing curves given the similarity of the actual base engine .... So I ask then what did they change to create such a massive shift in power peaks? I mean when the TQ peak climbs from 2400rpm to 4000rpm and the overall numbers don't greatly change ... 224 up to 225 ft lbs. If three variations of ignition timing changes produced more and more power output, with no effect on peaks points ... There had to have been a large adjustment made somewhere, no? Which again, leads to a mechanical timing event change (cam to crank relationship). The only thing the cam sensor and crank sensor really do is dictate where each cylinder is based on number one being at top dead center, I doesn't indicate if the valves are opening at any specific point based on either, that's where the cam lobes and the timing set itself are the sole means of adjustment. The ECU is in a nutshell, just concerned with point A, open injector, make spark, point B, open injector, make spark and so on ... again, all based on rotor position (cam sensor) in relation to cylinder position (crank sensor). The simple fact that the rotor is driven by the cam, does not mean the two events (valve and spark) are controlled or related to each other (other than the fact that they do have to happen within a given window of opportunity for the engine to function). I'm not trying to pick fights here, I'm merely trying to find an answer to a question that has been asked repeatedly over the years (in my search for an answer I found several other questions on this), and very rarely ever gets answered, and usually with little more than look elsewhere. Given that 4 degrees of cam timing can/will have a considerable effect of an engine (whether retard or advance from what I've managed to research) .... I aim to find out ... Something ... anything really. So, what say the more knowledgeable? Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Which seems to coincide with the differences in peak RPM's between the two EFI systems. Renix had a torque peak at 2400rpm whereas HO bumped that up to 4000rpm, then dropping to 3400rpm with the new cam (dual pattern) in 97. So as the early HO and renix Cams were the same, it seems to lend some credence to a difference in initial cam timing, rumor or not, I'll do it anyway, since I have a new (run for about 12,000kms maybe) set and the 'new' motor (97 TJ) has an old stock set with roughly 150,000kms on it. Curiosity being what it is, what's the worst that could happen .... I know, but can't hurt to try. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Yeah, there's not a lot of info out there on the differences. But from what I've found so far the timing (at the timing gears) was retarded by 4 degrees when the HO was introduced. If it does ring true, it opens up a 4 degrees advance option by using the Renix set on up to a 99 engine. Like I said, I should be swapping the old (new) renix set onto the 97 motor this weekend so I should have an update by Monday. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

From what I've found so far, the Renix timing set is advanced 4 degrees more that the later HO timing set. Next weekend, I'll be swapping the timing set out of my old Renix block (was replaced and only used 3 months) into the 97 TJ motor I currently have. What I've noticed between the old motor and the new motor is the 97 want to Rev high before making any real power. Which seem to support the newer timing being 4 degrees retarded. From all I've read the Renix set should simply swap in up to late 99 when the newer cam retainer was introduced. I'll let you know how it works out. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Tons of room for something like that, even with the receiver mount added up front. Might even add a plate to the Receiver mount and add a winch later on. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I already have a new (only about 3000km's on it) timing set, Cloyes stock replacement for an 87-90. Not really wanting to buy another. From what I've read the Renix already has an additional 4 degrees on the HO as it is. Just not sure how it would play with the 97's dual pattern cam .... I could use the additional Renix grunt for towing, that's for sure. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

So been wondering if I were to used the new Renix timing set in my old motor on the new motor (97 TJ 4.0L) would I see a benefit? From what I've read the Renix timing set is advanced 8 degrees and the HO were only 4 degrees. Just nit sure how it would work with the later dual pattern cam is all? Anyone have any ideas on this? Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk