coolwind57

I take that back. My tires are 31s.

It's been a few years, so I don't remember for sure. But it wouldn't surprise me if so. Replace drilled out rivets with stainless bolts/nuts hardware would be my advice. I don't recall spot welds.

I have a full-size tire under there. No prob with clearance or anything. In fact, its a 33. Anyhow, a few years ago I did rebuild my spare tire winch device. I disassembled and used stainless cable and lubed the hell out of it. Easy peazy. I strongly recommend using at least some cheap small ratchet straps as an additional means to secure your tire. I did in fact have my spare drop off at highway speeds on me prior to the rebuild. I thought I ran over a human being or something, as it made a terrible sound and lifted my rear end up off the ground....at 65 mph. I pulled over and did a quick visual, not knowing what had happened. I then discovered that my tire was missing. Had to go back a few miles to retreive it. Scared the life out of me. I've now criss-crossed with small ratchet straps, never again trusting just the factory winch device.

I just put a THOR cowl-mounted intake for my 89 Renix. It runs great so far without the stock intake-mounted vacuum line going to the evap canister. I've capped that line off and left the fuel tank line connected. Do you think I really ought to run an intake line to the THOR? Will this effect run-ability or will capping that line just cause some light, insignificant pressurization of the fuel tank?

I like the text on the bed. Tasteful and looks more natural on there instead of the free-floating text that's not on the truck. Regardless, I'd be thrilled with whatever the end result is. You're doing good work putting this together. Thank you for taking the lead and working on this, Pete.

I just sent you a pm.

Sorry, I just saw this. I decided to go ahead and reinstall my Renix header, but I appreciate the offer for trade.

Well, I'm pretty bummed. Looks like the Banks Revolver I purchased for $250 isn't going to work with my Renix intake. It's pretty far off the mark, at the #2 and I think the #4 or 5 port. Looks like it would require significant removal of some intake material AND likely some hammering on those two primaries to make it work. Anyone running one? If so, what intake are you using? And...anyone interested in buying a Banks Revolver? Looking like I will be trying to get some of my investment back.

Funny, for the life I me I could not think of the word "grommet" on my post above. Getting old sucks. The mind is the second thing that goes....

I LONG for one of these.

Yes, it looks like the plastic parts are keepers for the very-short metal tube that runs through the valve cover hole. That metal flares out to form a flat washer-like assembly that the valve cover bolts sit upon. No, I certainly wouldn't say that. I'd say they weight about the same....maybe the HO stamped one may actually have a couple more ounces to it actually. I hadn't weighed them, but only estimating by hand. I was surprised myself, thinking the stamped one would be lightweight, thin steel but it's quite thick and heavy.

Well, it looks like I have my choice of which to use. I'd like your input. I did perform the internal shortening mod of my Renix aluminum cover years ago. But I picked up this stamped HO valve cover when I bought my 7120 head. Any benefit with going with the HO, with that very different "baffle" system inside? I do get annoying leaks with the non-screw in cap on the Renix that would probably go away with the design of the HO cap. Will the different baffle design help with excessive oils on the air filter element? I'll be running a Renix intake setup, so I'd need to adapt the larger lines from the HO but that seems easy to do. Any comments, guys?

Just got off the phone with my builder. He's got some stock Hemi springs that are 113lbs on the seat and 255-256lbs when open. He's saying that we're safe to prevent cam wear if we stay under 275lbs open. I'm kind of dumb on all the specifics, so I'm at the mercy of smarter guys like him and you guys. Its my understanding that we'll be replacing my valves with later 3-groove valves and because the hemis use 8 degree retainers and locks and a much different valve seal design, I'm needing 5 parts in total: valves, springs, retainers, locks, and valve seals. And of course, machining of the head is necessary to make it work. He's comfortable that with this setup, we'll prevent excessive cam wear and avoid valve float. I'll update with more & better, more accurate info as we proceed for those interested in following the thread.

Here are the cam specs from the company packaging. Currently I have all stock parts on this head, including the valves.

Pricier than $850? I really appreciate the good input. I'll continue to snoop around.

So my engine builder hooked me up with a 1993 freshly milled .40"-over block. I had him assemble a short block for me and we agreed upon souping it up a bit with a Comp 68-232-4 camshaft. I had a freshly-done cylinder head at home, a 7120 that I had gasket-matched to my Renix intake manifold. Last week I picked up the block and the original plan was to install the cam-matched springs myself. Lucky for me, I had the cylinder head with me when I picked up the block. My builder took a look at the 7120 and found that the Comp cam-matched springs were a bit wider than the stock springs on then 7120 head. In fact, the width would require that we regrind the spring contact/seat area of the head so that they'd be sit flat. The stock springs are barrel-shaped and are narrower on the tops and bottoms than the middle. The upgraded Comp springs are cylinder-shaped and the same width from top to bottom. This is a problem. My builder is now convinced that we'd be taking off too much material so closely to the water jacket to make these springs fit. Additionally, that raised cast area that sits inside the spring would likely need some attention as well. I don't have the Springs part number or specs in front of me at the moment so I don't have the part number handy. They are matched to the cam I've been told. The next option he is currently exploring is matching required specs (spring tension/travel, etc) with a set of Mopar springs that he's familiar with and is sure would fit the bill. Dang man, I already have this short block assembled this past week with harmonic balancer, timing cover and other accessories. I'd really not want to take the necessary parts of to yank that camshaft out. The hemi spring will require different valves and some additional milling as well, according to him. Anybody heard of this issue with the 68-232-4 Comp camshaft, it's matched Comp springs and 4.0 cylinder head design? This will all put me over my budget for sure. Looking at about 850 bucks for the cylinder head mods now.

Terrible to hear this. LEGEND Condolences to the family and all of his friends here. Sad, sad day.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree that they may have higher torque specs than hex or allen heads. Still don't know why Jeep used them along top of the bell housing when standard hex heads work fine for this purpose and are a heck of a lot easier to use without non-standard tools.

Yea, I've only seen box end, non-ratcheting. I am certainly not putting them back on. We'll go with a standard hex.

Pardon my poor choice of nomenclature above...should had said "E-torx bolts" instead of "E-socket bolts." Yes, I used an external torx (E-torx) 3/8-drive socket. An E-torx wrench would had likely been better to use in this case. This Jeep is the only time I'd ever seen these bolts used on automobiles.

I am kicking myself for not replacing the E-socket bolts with hex heads the last time I separated my engine from the bell housing. I had to fish an E-socket with 5 ratchet extensions from the back. Why on Earth did Jeep use these E-socket bolts along the top of the bell housing?

As I look into it more, it does appear to say 4.2. The owner told me he got it for his Grand Cherokee and said that it fits 4.0. Oh well, I passed on it anyhow and scored a Banks Revolver.

Curious if you had gotten this pipe installed. I ordered and received what appears to be the same one and it just ain't going to fit my 89. The bend at the flange does not follow my stock pipe and will not align with my header.

Well dang, I don't know how I missed that in the pic. I appreciate the advice. I already have a 7120 head port-matched to my Renix intake. I think I'll be ok with this setup for now. I do have a bored Renix throttle body already as well. I'm working on getting ready to delete the down pipe "crush". And I just pulled the trigger on a Banks Revolver header this morning. My block is .040" over with the "RV" cam. Perhaps I'll eventually experiment with a 99+ intake to see if I get any seat-of-the-pants difference. But I think I'll be ok. I'd be interested in the logic behind this from Cliffords.

Why collector gasket leaks? Are Clifford headers known for leaking at the collector donut or something? It looks like the same collector joint as stock. I'd deleted my EGR, so no need for the EGR port. I was just going to plug it anyway if I decided to buy this header. .