Incommando

The factory rating of the 290 is old enough to be a gross rating, which is probably 20% higher than the net ratings that became standard around 1973. Example: A 1972 Jeep 304 had 210 hp/290 TQ a 1973 Jeep 304 had 150HP/245 TQ A 1972 Jeep 360 had 245 hp/365 TQ a 1973 Jeep 360 had 175HP/285 TQ Contrary to "common knowledge," emissions was not the big factor: the change from "gross" to "net" ratings was. Under the modern system, that 290's factory rating would probably be around the 150 HP that its larger replacement, the 304, had. That 4.0L is closer to a late model 360 than anything. When combined with the off-roadabilty and ease of starting, etc... that comes with EFI, I can see which engine I would go with. I would avoid the AMC M20. Get a FSJ or MJ AMC M23 rear. One-piece axles from the factory and better tubes. Or find a MJ D44. I have owned M23's and D44's and I would not swap either for the other, they are that close. Nor would I swap a 9'' or 8.8. But a M20 needs some $$$ to equal them even if the center section is shared with the M23. If MPG is what you need, find a TJ NSG370 6spd to swap. My KJ with a 3.7 has one, and with 3.55 gears and heavy e-rated 245/75/16 MT/R's I get 18 mpg (21 hwy) in spite of weighing nearly 1,000#'s ( 4,033 lb vs 3,057 lb) more than a stock XJ and having more HP & equal Tq when compared to a 4.0. Probably a much easier swap than a V8 conversion, too.

And the D44 has bolt-in axle retention. Aren't 8.8's c-clip?

Just picked up a factory roll bar for the bed....woo hoo!

A real upgrade for the three bolt saginaw gear is the variable ratio S10 ZR2 box. I know a few people who swapped them onto FSJ's ( even though you lose one mounting bolt) and really like them with bigger tires.

My search skills must be week, or I used to broad of a term. Seat Swap, Seat Bracket, etc...returns so many hits.... :???:

www.tkhfab.com Friend has their TJ bumper. Very well made. Never seen their XJ bumpers but they may be willing to one-off something for an MJ.

Do the floor pans come with the mounting chanel for the seat brackets? The channel and lower seat bracket on mine are rusted pretty well. The truck came with a set of XJ buckets/brackets but they do not seem to be an exact match for my bench seat stuff.

JohnnyC, I appreciate the offer. I am in Ohio, though. I have to go to the CP and see if my location will show up. I was pretty sure I entered it.... :doh:

:hijack: The OME 1.5" springs on my KJ gave me about 2" and the ride/flex are both better than the junk stockers.

I bought a floor pan from Sherman for a '71 Road Runner in '95. It needed mucho massaging to work. That, and the fact that they list the Comanche as an XJ series, asks if it has the 4.0 V6, and if it is a 2dr or 4dr, gives me some concern. Has anyone used them and can recommend them? EDIT: They list their floor pans as fitting Chero/Wag/Comanche with the same part #. :???:

Just a plug: I have done business with Zack two or three times over the course of a few years. It worked well each time and I have been satisfied enough that I have recommended him to many others. Yes, wandering through Z&M is cool. Especially for VJ guys. I did not know he carried this stuff until I wondered in here now.

http://c2cfabrication.com/store/index.php?cPath=1_21_38 Has anyone used these guys? Or do you have any other suggestions. The passenger side loks good, but the driver's floor is bad. The seat bracket is completely rusted away, much worse than the floor, even.

Thank you!!!

I just got an '88 SWB with a 4.0/auto/231 drivetrain. The score is it has a D44 rear. I am not able to post pics right now bt it is probably cleaner than average. The bummer is that although the PO just put in a new waterpump, t-stat & housing, hoses, rear main seal, etc... he left the header panel, headlights, bumper, etc.. off. It is all there, but it is a pile of parts and a box of fasteners. :fs1: Same with the interior. :fs1: Any good resources for putting this back together? Maybe pics on what should go on first to make my life a little easier? My goals are to go with a 4.5" lift and some 235/85/16's ( roughly 32x9...I have the rims). Unfortunately the D44 has trac-loc, so a lunch-box locker is not an easy option. Previous jeeps: '45 CJ2 w/swapped in 225 '65 CJ5 '70 Commando 225 V6 '72 Commando 304/auto 79 CJ5 304 '79 Cherokee Chief 360/T18/D20 '80 N/T Cherokee '84 CJ7 and the current ride: '05 KJ 3.7/6spd/241J with an aussie in the back on 2.5" lift and 245/75/16 MT/R's.

I would go to look at the detours XJ backbone...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1989-Jee ... ccessories I know that as a winch mount these wind up pretty low, but what are the thoughts on this strengthening up the front subframe?

The FSJ's had model 23's, and the main difference was the one-piece shafts. Everyone called them M20's because of the more well known CJ version, but they have their own designation as M23. It sounds like MJ's had M23's, as well. Good to know. They are an under rated axle that eliminated the M20's biggest weakness.

I didn't see a relative response: We can praise D44's all day ( I currently have 5 under 3 vehicles and in the past have swapped them into vehicles) but they are so rare in XJ's as to not be worth mentioning, statistically. It doesn't matter why they are rare, just that they are rare. Could you track down the # of factory D44 XJ's versus the entire XJ production run so that we could see the percentages that we are talking about? My guess (and it is only a guess) would be 1 or 2 percent. Does anyone know if the '86 MJ's had Cj-style Model 20 rears, or FSJ-style Model 23 rears?

I was not knocking the XJ at all: I was merely pointing out that it was not loved when new, and it only got a huge following after the first ones were paid off and became cheap enough for more people to make trail rigs out of them. The YJ was hated when new. Again, once they got beat on enough to make 'wheelers, their popularity with the jeep cult took off. Jeep/ChryCo/Fiat/whoever does not care at all what we plan on doing with a 25 year old jeep as it makes them no money. They do not care if a jeep is easily modifiable 25 years from now. Selling a new vehicle to someone who may come back in 3-4 years and buy another new vehicle is all they care about. And unfortunately, many of us jeep nuts fall well out of the realm of people buying new jeeps every few years. When you figure how many D44 XJ's were actually made, you would have to admit that they are a statistical non-entity.

2wd and/or IFS far preceed Chrysler in Jeep's history. Remember the VJ? DJ? Delivary vans? Heck, the first Wagoneers and 1/2 ton J-trucks ahd an IFS Dana 27 front option in (IIRC) 1964. The KJ is a better vehicle than haters will believe. Properly optioned, like with a 6spd, will get you a 5.0 first gear NSG370 and a 241 transfer in place of the 231. 29-spline 8.25 rear > than 95% of the rears in all of the XJ's sold. And body stiffness: no comparison. The XJ flops like a newspaper when stacked up to its replacement, the KJ. The 4.0 is a great motor with longevity for sure, but the 3.7 is a dandy. And no KJ came with a 2.5 or 2.8 .... Sure, there were some few 2.4's, but very very few. The TJ Rubicon was the most capable off-the-shelf Jeep ever sold to the public. And it was a Chrysler. Folks need to look up "CAFE." Without fuel-efficient models, the jeep line-up has to die. Thank whoever makes the CAFE caps for that. For the youngin's: NOTHING was more hated than the '84 XJ. "Real jeepers" said they were k-cars with a front axle. And the drivetrain choices sucked badly. They were poor vehicles by most measures and pre-dated Chrysler. The first YJ's were hated so badly that people refused to wheel with YJ owners. But it sounds like jeep history ignorance and lack of acceptance didn't stop in '87... :ack: EDIT: Anyone checked out the new Power Wagon proposal? Everything it has now on a SWB frame! Awesome. But yes, on a personal level I hate the Trail Duster as much as I hate the Dodge Calibers that they call Compass or Patriot.

I have two FSJ Cherokees now, and you would be lucky indeed to find used rear spring packs that were not already wasted.