kro10000

AFAIK the Ford uses a 1.6:1 ratio, however it seems to me that it would still be possible for a rocker to establish a higher ratio in one head over another due to design differences. If in the Ford head the rocker pivot point is closer to the valvestem than in the 4.0 head, than that same 1.6:1 rocker on the Ford could be a 1.75:1 on the 4.0. Obviously there would have to be other coincidental specs on the rockers as well, like the distance for the pushrod tip to seat would also have to be correct, or close. Anyway this is based on my own thoughts, so please correct me if my logic is wrong. :typing:

Really need to change mine, about 1/4 of the rubber is missing... :doh:

Well then I'll take some measurements of both Saturday and I will post my findings. It would be interesting to find an inexpensive way to get our engines to breathe better on the cheap. If you buy all the parts new it will be somewhere about $110, or if you find some at the junkyard in good condition, very cheap.

They do have it, I work at O'Reillys, the part I used was a Borg Warner, I believe the part number was RU4 It isn't exactly the same, it is .2 ohms higher, but works fine. The resistor won't show up in the computer there, only paper catalogs

Definitely check the CPS

Easy enough to make an adapter from a spark plug

So I remember this being mentioned in another thread, but did we ever determine if these rockers would work, and if they achieve higher lift? I did some crossreferencing at work and found all the applications for these particular rockers: 85-96 anything with the 300 86 sable with 4cyl 86-90 taurus with 4cyl 84-94 tempo/topaz I'm going to try to order a couple next saturday to measure, but I was wondering if anyone had any info

It is a resistor mounted on the drivers side fender (easily viewed with the hood open) it drops power to the pump to reduce noise/extend pump life. I think it is right about 1.4 ohms It is white, has a single bolt going through it, and has two wires attached.

Just want to let you know that we all hate you (incredibly jealous) :cheers:

Erm well not sure if this helps, but you started seeing them in the mid-late '70s

Haha, my d44 will smile back at you, this is before it got the xj stuff knocked off, and the mj perches welded on

diesel motor oil that contains zinc sorry not true - diesel bearings are made with silver ..oil using zinc is a big trouble .. todays oil has almost no zinc dichromate due to the EPA which means trouble in the long run .... They have the ZDDP additive, which helps flat tappet camshafts Zddp is Zinc dialkyldithiophosphates

Personally I despise that front end, looks very asian and belongs far away from a jeep.

Yup, GTX diesel is what I run, I work at O'Reillys and pretty much went through every single oil we carried on the shelves to see which was SL rated. It was a while ago but I remember these: Royal Purple Mobil 1 HiMi Peak Mystic HDEO Castrol GTX Diesel HDEO O'Reilly's HiMi I don't trust additives at all, even stuff like Lucas "oil stabilizer" can have ill effects on your motor And then we had some old bottles on the shelves, all of which I bought eventually

POOOOWWWWWEEEEEEERRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: Haha, well I'd consider a GM Gen III motor, you can usually pick them up dirt cheap, make ridiculous power if you want, and get great economy when left reasonably stock. The 5.3 is probably what I would go with, mate it up somehow with an AX-15 and leave it stock in hopes of not destroying the trans, and give me what in all likelihood would be better than 4.0L MPGs. Also there are some aluminum 5.3s out there that will help drop the weight off an MJ's nose, and cool better. Of course if you want to go bigger, than the 6.0L engines (LQ4, LQ9) are out there, and are cheap. And if you want to spend money get any engine that starts with LS.

Typically they're pretty expensive, that's why I'll just stick to whatever I can find at the local pick and pull... Except when it comes to mustang parts, that's where I'm screwed. :wall: :rant: :eek: :( :mad: :ack: :cry:

:redX:

Agreed, ford 9 inch in the rear, and I really like that ford 8 inch front axle that currie built for their MJ.

I may have to try that, I'll also do a visual on the O2 sensor. I wonder if jeep will still replace it since the recall was never done.

My MJ has had this issue for several months now, but is now happening often enough to start me worrying. Occasionally when I take off from a stop, with light throttle the engine will cut out momentarily. Since its a stick it causes the whole truck to jerk, which is annoying. I haven't done any actual diagnosis as of yet, it's a 4.0 renix, open filter, 2.5 exhaust with no cat/flowmaster 40. EGR has been unhooked, higher end borg warner cap, rotor, and wires (probably 25,000 miles on these), PO said he replaced O2 sensor recently when I bought it (about 35,000 mile since), fuel filter was replaced probably 7,000 miles ago. Champion copper plugs, standard heat range (not sure if I should run a cooler range with no EGR). There have been no recent changes to the truck, besides the axle swap (in December). My guess is a fuel pump, but I'm interested in you guys' $.02 Also the ballast resistor is newer, but I think a slightly higher resistance than stock. Like 0.2 Ohms higher

:???: Never heard this before... Maybe it was an option that was never actually produced, like the Peugeot diesel.

I made an honest attempt to read that, I failed. :thwak:

I guess it really depends what you use it for, if you are constantly pulling a high load then it is useful. Also as said it is better in extreme climates, as well as it allowing longer oil change intervals. If you just drive it regularly and it isn't cold where you live then you might as well run a conventional oil. I don't think it's a good idea to try to save money extending your oil intervals with an old higher mileage engine. I've run synthetics in my jeep before, but now I've switched back to using HDEO (diesel) conventional oils, I see no difference and have no apparent valvetrain noise from my 215k 4.0. HDEOs do a great job keeping everything clean, and have the high ZDDP that our engines thrive on. Of course it could be argued that the 2.5 is working hard all the time. But that's just my $.02

I think they had most definitely started working on the Comanche by '84. I don't think any were built until '85 though, for the '86 model year. They probably started working on the XJ in '81-'82

:agree: