Rockfrog

More like ... https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0vkVt03Tj7zxLTRwUjVLZYnPRyEQen4Fk9NGoXyn64E-yR6OrAg

I looked for a standard spring at the local Lordco here, nothing short enough. Headed into work for 8 days, so I'll have to search the others after I get back. I suspect that a Yoga Guru would survive better than we do at this. I was damn near upside down in the seat when I finally got the spring in. A tilt column adds a few more millimeters of contorting room. But, I dare say it was still easier than pulling the assembly. I shortened my stock spring by roughly 1/3 it's length.

I have to run to the local parts bins (Canadian Tire, and Home Depot) so I'll look for something.

I removed my spring and replaced it while the assembly was still in place. It was a pain contorting into the footwell, dropped the spring several times. Issue with dropping the spring was it liked to fall inside the pocket between the ratchet and base. Small mirror and a set of mini long nose needle nose to grab it. But, sound like less hassle than removing. Mine was the same issue, push pedal, but the pawl refused to lock at all. Now it all works perfectly. I definitely agree though, a stronger spring would likely solve many issues. I suspect the stripped ones are from an incorrect lock due to a weak spring. So it locks at the minimum limits and strips a little each use until one day it just let's go. Similar effect as trying a 3/8" socket on those E12 bolts on the trans (go admit at least some of us have tried). A higher tension spring would push the pawl deeper into the ratchet and reduce the effect if not end it.

When I fixed mine, I shortened and recurved the spring (essentially making the spring stronger). And some lube on the mechanism. Like many things, it gets sticky without lube. Prior to this it would not lock at all.

Sounds like a TPS issue.

I ended up swapping in the "withouts" from the '92 in ... The passenger side literally fell apart when it came out.

The exhaust manifolds from 2000 up are incompatible with previous heads. The intake will work. And it's use will require some throttle body decisions to be made. Adapting the Renix TPS is bone simple, I made mine from some scrap aluminum flatbar, a cheap 8" drill press (a hand drill would have worked as well) and some hand files. Valve cover works using the earlier gasket. The later power steering pump setup is far superior in adjustment and will bolt right up to a Renix, along with the intake. Booster and master will swap in the usual manner. Complete front clip will swap if you wanted to. If you do take the header wiring harness plug and splice it into the stock harness - newer, better, less corroded plug. There is actually a lot that is compatible between the two with a little work. And a lot that isn't so much (engine management) unless you make some major changes.

I surf the forum with Tapatalk on my phone. It had an option to not display 'stickies' ... Problem solved.

The bottom elbow on the MAP is just a rubber elbow. Would actually be fairly easy to move to the TB on both a Renix and an earlier HO. And, I totally gapped ... Tap the stock MAP port, run a nipple there, and mount off that side of the TB. A simple bracket can be made to hang off the IAC bolts and wrap around to wherever. Even easier that doing it on an early HO. [emoji12]

Being that the MAP didn't move to the TB until what ... 2000? What makes that such a big HO selling point? Change the plastic line for a piece of 3/16" brake line bent to suit and never break it again. If it broke, it was because it was brittle and needed replacement anyway. As for mounting one to the TB ... easy ... Drill a hole below the throttle plate through the TB body. Hammer in a small section of brass tubing. Make a bracket to index off the rubber air hose bolts. Mount MAP on that bracket and run short section of hose to new TB nipple. Even us Renix guys can figure that out ... but it also begs the question ... Why? Other than protection from inattention around old crusty parts, is it going to make any difference?

I've done exercises back in the day where we were supported by US Warthogs and Helo's ... It was pure awesome sauce. No better day than rocking the 50cal with an A10 soaring overhead hammering the target with that "Fart" gun. Pure Chub!

Check the wiring to the horn. If that's fine, replace the horn. The clicking is the horn relay doing what it is supposed to. I've had three stock horns die in the last year. Cheap enough to replace.

Re key the glove box to match the others it's cheaper. As for original jeep keys, order some new blanks off eBay as well. I have omix-ada/rugged Ridge locks in my doors, work fine. Use the same keys style as stock (so GM/AMC door blanks). Same deal for the ignition, it's a GM column, and GM lock, just get a new Jeep key blank and any replacement cylinder.

Well, not much new to say but ... Got a set of Charger 18" wheels with 70% 225/70r18's for $70 so swapped those on to give the tired old 4.0 a break. They look kinda goofy to me but I've gotten lots of compliments on both tire/wheel sets. She's showing her poor history at this point. Low hot oil pressure (seeing 35psi max hot at 2500rpm ... But still pushing 15-20 @ idle). The motor is smoking a but at start up and makes some nasty clicks until warm (mostly exhaust leak but also suspect a head gasket issue) so time to plan for the future. Have my 92 4.0 to swap in for now and will start a rebuild on the Renix block. Best part ... Just found a running 4.2L close to me for $200 ... So ... Stroker here we come. It'll just be a basic poor schmuck build for now (hell, it may even wind up in the XJ if the 92 motor does well enough once put back together).

You may have to add a spacer in behind it to push it back out. You need to check the 2001 crank snout dimensions versus the 1987 crank snout dimensions. You may be dealing with an issue opposite to a 4.0 stroker build using an early crank. Given the 2.5 shares most external and many internal parts with the 4.0 (the 4.0 actually being a 2.5 with two cylinders added) it most likely shares the same crank snout dimensional changes. You will likely find you need to ADD a 10mm spacer to the crank snout (so actually in behind the damper) to adjust for that.

Check the swaybar endlinks as a source for the click/clunk. If they are loose or worn you will get a nice clunk at low speeds and on a first turn. If it has disconnects they may have slop due to design. Disconnect them and try a short drive. I know my disconnects are the source of a fair bit of noise on my XJ. If you are feeling a vibe in the wheel, and nothing from the seat, 9 times out of 10, it's the front end. Given the road speeds you mention, try swapping front wheels for the backs. Also look at the front driveshaft. It may not have power going to it, but it is always being driven by the front axle. Check the wheel bearings.

I generally replace my lugnuts with solid units as I tire of the stamped covers falling off. That said I have a coffee tin of good lugnuts case they are always handy to have when needed. Its' just a lugnuts, same type as used by GM, Ford, etc ... Their was nothing particularly MJ specific about the factory lugnuts. They were just the generic lug of the times, and are the same as those supplied to this day (given 1/2" threading).

The issue isn't the column, it's the wiring in it, they were still Saginaw columns. But there were plug and wiring layout changes at some point before the Chrysler column was introduced. That's where the main issues lie. The Renix ign switch is essentially the same as the later HO switch, it just seems Chrysler decided to flip it on its head in 91 for whatever reason. The plugs were the same just swapped and flipped. So if the 94 uses the same switch as a 92, then it's compatible with a Renix. Other than the lock cylinder using a double sided key, and the aforementioned plug flip .... My 88 column was fully compatible back and forth with the 92 column. As stated previously I have had a 92 column in my 88 for some time now.

Toe-in can be measure with a simple tape measure and some chalk (if you want to get basic about it). I usually add in a level, and a carpenter square. So I can mark both side of the tire more accurately. I do my own alignments, have for the last 5yrs, and can honestly say I have gotten pretty damn good at it. At many points in my MJ and XJ builds I have done several re-aligns a week. Caster can be checked with an angle finder off the front face of the differential (with a little math). Camber is non adjustable in any way stock, and if it is out of spec, the ball joints are traded or the axle is bent. Although a rack is nice it is not entirely needed for these vehicles. There are only a few means of adjustment and not the mass amount of wear pints typical of a modern passenger car. A jeep is a fairly simple animal.

I have a 92 XJ auto tilt column in my 88 5spd ... Only issue I had was they switched orientation of the in switch, basicly just flipped it over (course it took me a bit to realize that bit). Otherwise it was plug and play. Many of my electronic components are 91-93, so I would agree the 94 year may be the change over year there.

Couple scenario's there. 1. You have a bent axle. It's bent in the opposite to the usual manner likely from someone at some point coming down on something solid. 2. You have a bent axle, and someone improperly installed some adjustable ball joints. 3. The toe is improperly set and this makes the tires looks cockeyed due to the relation to also improper caster. Causing excessive outside tire wear. This is the most likely. As for the springs hitting the axle C's (not spindles, those are in the bearing hub and have a big nut on the end) ... Either the C's are bent, or the spring is not seated properly in the spring seat (lift the truck, let the axle hang and try to turn the spring back into position). But they are fairly close in relation to each other regardless. There are a couple other possibles in both cases, but that should get you started.

The D30 has a carrier break ... So uses two carriers depending on gear choice. 3.73 and up use one carrier, and for lower (numerically) there is another carrier. The only difference between the two is the spacing of the ring gear in relation to the pinion.

From your description, testing fuel pressure will likely reveal a dying fuel pump (it will keep on idle but fail to keep with demand under load). They generally show up at the most inopportune times.