Incommando

I would be interested to know how long he has owned this MJ. For some reason I smell a "flipper." Dual mirrors were definitely available on all trim levels in '88.

The KJ Liberty ( '02-'07) was a better platform then the heavier KK's ('08-'13). KJ's are quite capable. I have seen it proven time and again that they are every bit as capable as an XJ with a similar lift & tire combo. I regularly wheeled with 3 KJ's and 2 XJ's. (Yes, XJ's are easier to modify and can be modified beyond what you can modify a KJ.) My '05 had a wide-ratio SIX speed ( yes, six speed) NSG370 ('02-'04 used a NV3500 5-spd) stick. Even with the stock 3.55 gears mine had the same factory crawl ratio as an automatic Tj Rubicon at 48:1. That is roughly twice the crawl ratio of the average (AW4/231/3.55) XJ at 26:1. The 6-speed option also got you an honest to goodness 241J transfer case instead of the 231J used in about everything else. No, it was not the 241OR Rubi version. It retained the 2.72:1 low range. I could easliy drive it by starting in 2nd and using 1st like a granny gear while 6th gear would get me a combined 18 mpg after the lift & tires. With 2.5" of lift, 31" mud terrains, and an Aussie in the back it was a very capable jeep. The KJ platform is roughly twice as stiff as an XJ and the roof structure is much safer in case of a roll over. A buddy we had to rescue from a roll over in a river that left him underwater and on his roof would have died had he been in his XJ instead of his KJ. We have all seen posts of flattened-roof XJ's to see what I am talking about. The V6 3.7 made more HP and equal torque to the I6 4.0 at about the same RPM range. They seemed slower as the KJ is roughly 700 pounds (!) heavier than an XJ. I hate to admit that my KJ outperformed my MJ on 32's with an LSD rear over the same courses. See this XJ? This is a different view of my KJ on the same Badlands obstacle. Yes, it made it with no rock stacking, winching, etc.... This pic gives no real indication of how steep this is. That small gravel is slick as heck, too. This is the tallest dune at Badlands if anyone has been there: Sitting still Jim's KJ after rolling 3.5 times into 2-3 feet of water and landing on its top. How would an XJ look after that?

I found this to be mildly interesting. The 10 worst selling mass produced cars in America are all foreign: ( car/country of ownership for manufacturer) 10. Volvo XC90/China 9. Land Rover LR2/ India 8. Nissan Maxima/ Japan 7. Nissan Murano/ Japan 6. Acura MDX/ Japan 5. Infiniti EX/ Japan 4. Acura ILX/ Japan 3. Mitsubishi Lancer/ Japan 2. Volvo C30/ China 1. and the worst selling car in the U.S: Acura TSX/ Japan. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/26/the-cars-americans-don't-want-to-buy/3/

I have done business with these guys and I have nothing but compliments for them.

Ebay just plain sucks anymore IMHO.

lmao

The CJ10 was sold as a pick-up truck type vehicle to civilians...but for export including to Canada. A CJ10 is a unique body on a J-truck derived chassis utilizing the same drivetrain as the matching J-truck of that year but with the option of a Nissan-sourced diesel. The diesel was a real crappy one that made 90hp/150 #/' of tq. That is why the 2wd tug retained a transfer case that was locked into low range...such gearing was the only way the tug could move anything. Scouts had a turbo on this same engine but it only added 15 hp & 25 TQ. For the road going version they were just a plain turd. The tug version was designated the CJ10A.

Comet cleaner on the belt works wonders for stopping squeals :thumbsup:

Maybe we can start on this from the other end? For the negative nellies: other than offending your sense of style what is wrong with that wood being used as a stand?

Most people looking for more power start at the engine. Usually optimizing gear ratio and tire size ( which alters final gear ratio) for the engine you have is a way better place to start. The factory gear ratios were a compromise between getting enough performance to get someone to buy the vehicle and achieving higher MPG figures for advertising & regulation purposes. The balance can be achieved. Look at the Yoder 4-bangers which were lucky to put 80 horsepower to the ground yet they do fine due to careful attention to gearing. A shorter tire effectively raises the gear ratio numerically ( even though they are called "lower gears") while a taller tire obviously moves the gear ratio into a lower numerical number for "higher" gearing.

Anyone considering this: consider using 4 REAR TJ flares as the front TJ flares add another marker light ( or a hole where a marker light should be.Pics of this conversion often do not show the extra marker lights for some reason.) The rear flare fits the contours of the front wheel well better anyway. I trimmed all four wheel wells and flares and slapped them on in about thirty minutes. Someone taking their time could do a much better job.

But it is on the net it has to be right???? :doh:

If you were to find those parts what would that mega-squirt custom rebuilt 225 cost, what would the output be, and at what RPM? Those blocks are nearly non-existent and those that can be found often have issues. Weight in the flyweight MJ isn't really the enemy, anyway. The Hyper-Pak 170 produced a whopping 150 +/- gross horsepower according to what I have seen. They would probably garner around 120 +/- horsepower net. I have an econo-box that gets 40 MPG that has 140 net HP. Installing this package on a 225 would get you around 150 +/- hp net. You could have a very capable LA for less than a 225 build ( MUCH less than a hyper-pak clone) and the adage remains true: there is no replacement for displacement. Many modern V6's get 250-300 HP while V8's get a lot more especially if we add in torque. Compare this to an oft-mentioned internet "slant six hero" who built a very heavily modified 225 that, when compared to the hyper-pak, uses a bigger cam, different pistons, milled head, bigger carb and real headers plus a 150-hp Nitrous system to get....350 horsepower. WITH the nitrous. Nitrous is not daily driver nor Jeep friendly. The hyper-pak kit had a ridiculous price tag at the MSRP of $450 in '61...about 25% of the cost of the average new car and about twice the cost of building a hot V8 in 1961. That 25% figure would make it $7,500 today...for a cam, intake, carb, and cast exhaust and 50 extra horsepower. Um, no thanks. There was a reason this set-up only lasted a couple of years 50 years ago. The power band was set way too high for a Jeep as well. They were reported to be dogs until high in the RPM range and most considered them unsuitable for the street. They could not be used with an automatic tranny for this reason. BTW: that race mentioned was in a special class that NASCAR experimented with but dumped after half a dozen races and a large investment loss. The V8 cars dusted their times. Another good adage: Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

* '80-up J10: Front 63.25 rear 63.75 * '80-'83 W/T Chero Front 65.25 rear 62.25 * '80-'91 N/T FSJ Cherokee/Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer Front 59.5 rear 58 The FSJ Wagoneer was renamed the Grand Wagoneer in '84 with the introduction of the downsized XJ platform * XJ Front 58 rear 57 All of these have some minor variations due to brake changes and the like but the '80-up N/T Chero & Waggy axles are the easiest choice. Note that all modern FSJ's are 6 -lug axles. '79-older FSJ's had a pass drop front diff ( and usually an off-set rear diff) and are not easily interchangeable into an XJ/MJ. A $50 spacer will adapt a D300 t-case to an AW4 and is a dandy way to swap to pass. side diff if you wanted to, though. '80-'85 FSJ's did not have a D44 rear but a corporate Model 23 rear axle. They can be distinguished by the round "half of a basketball" diff cover. They are considered to be stronger than a D44 by many people and are much stronger than the more common model 20 axle found in CJ's. Mid-'85 saw a return of the D44 rear that continued through the end of production for the FSJ's in '91. As mentioned '80 up FSJ gear ratio's suck with 3.54:1 being the best you can hope for. An XJ Wagoneer will have the same axles as an Xj Cherokee and MJ of similar years: D30 front and either a D35 rear or (very rarely) a D44 rear and for one year only a model 20 rear was possible in the MJ. Later model XJ's have 8.25 rear axles which are a good cheap upgrade over a D35. Not all '80-'84 FSJ fronts are vacuum disconnect: stick shift models were conventional lock-out design units as were some part-time transfer case (NP208) auto jeeps that were generally sold for fleet service. Auto versions with the AWD transfer cases (219,229,etc)...were vacuum disconnect those years. Like their stolen logo design and numerous other quirks the TRS site is not high on my list.

No info. This is a pic snagged from 'net.

This is why you need a snorkle

I know of several XJ guys who have done the same mod as Pete. Most folks just opt for louvered hood vents form a Lebaron or similar vehicle. I have pontiac GTP scoops should I ever feel the need.

X 4 billion on MVUSSE's advice. I have seen numerous XJ/MJ's with that popping noise that was caused by the frame side bracket being toast.

To me those do not look like drop brackets? MJ on 32's with 4" lift: No rubbing, worked well off-road.

The "single plate savings" claim for Ohio is smoke and mirrors. As the state charges the consumer for the hard plates so there is no additional charge to the state for making & processing two plates. $47.50 a year but I will probably go historic next time.

Mopar made outstanding engines including the various slant sixes but either of the three CID's would be a giant step backward from the 4.0. Why adapt F.I. & go through the swap hassle when the factory engine is good for 250,000 miles easy? What a waste of time & money. In actuality the 170, 198, & 225 slant sixes as well as the 277, 318, 340, 360, 361, 383, 400, 413, both 426's, and the 440 V8's were pretty awesome motors. For you kids who only know of the FWD era here is Mopar that has what must be a junk engine, the 440. The engine retains the factory block, heads, stroke, etc... With just a basic rebuild and aftermarket cam, pistons, intake, carbs., and distributor the 440 in that Road Runner makes 550 hp/550 lbs. Dollar for dollar the 440 will deliver more HP than the vaunted SBC of the same era. With the exception of the roll cage only the engine and torque convertor have been modified. The rest of the car is 100% stock and it is 100% driveable on the street. All of the lights, windows, alt. etc... are in place and functioning. Even the hood is steel with a glass scoop molded onto it. At 4,300# with me in it the car will run 11.30's all day. In a Duster body this would be a low 10-second street car on pump gas. That suspension is the original '71 springs, torsion bars, everything but the shocks which have been replaced ( it is 40 years old after all). It does pull the front wheels off the ground with that well used stock suspension. Added a pic to show the tires and wheel openings at static height

That tire size change is inconsequential and will work just fine. You are only expanding the size a quarter inch in any direction. Whether the 2.8 can turn them is another matter.... :crossfingers: :banana:

http://www.ironrockoffroad.com Try those guys. More well known and to my eye much better prices

Just wondering, I have been looking into getting a better welding machine than my 90 amp Harbor freight. It's good for small things, I already killed one while working on a small project but, thankfully the warranty replacement was simple. That is quite an upgrade. The Miller will run you over $2K. I am a 1/4 owner of a Millermatic250. If you have some buddies who could also use a welder enough to justify the price then going in on one like a timeshare is not a bad idea.

Not exactly accurate. I have seen a couple of 8.8's fail and lose an axle shaft in person and know of more. That is why the NHRA requires that they c-clip eliminators for many classes. This is very serious on a drum brake rear as the whole shaft/brake/wheel assembly will leave the vehicle in the event of a c-clip failure. On a disc rear this is mainly mitigated by the bolt-on caliper retaining the disc and keeping the whole shebang from moving out laterally. Granted this is for a different scenario involving higher horsepower and more traction than most of us deal with but it is IMHO worth mentioning.