DirtyComanche

I've seen 231 parts scattered before... The problem with the 242 is that you can't upgrade the rear output. Which is actually a pretty easy thing to break on a stock 231, and the stock 242 one is the same size.

The difference between the cases is the 242 offers an "AWD" mode (Full time) and has a central differential. It has limitatons.

I think some of the FSJ stuff was 5-lug, but maybe not. I don't think there's anything really close. There's some stuff that's 62 or 64" wide. And the car stuff (mopar) which is hard to find and maybe good, maybe bad... Dunno.

Are those seats comfortable?

I guess a base vehicle would have the 2.5L? A 4.0 weighs about 525 turnkey, but I don't know what a 2.5L weighs?

For headers, I think you'd be far ahead if you build your own. I was watching musclecar (or something) and they did it by buying the flanges and a box full o tubing that was bnt 180*. They just cut it, tacked it, and once it all fit right took it out and welded it. Easy? No, not really. But then you could make them to build power how you want.

According to his build thread, they clear.

CW, do those 33s clear the LCAs with those rims?

Probably not in the US. The european weight includes a driver and half tank of fuel or something...

Does your's have the upscale sound deadening in the engine bay and everywhere else? Or a bunch of other options?

With my deck, which had to weigh as much as a stock box. It was 2x3x.188 HSS (and not a little of it) and 2x6 tounge and groove. Not exactly light. My truck is a SWB though.

That's scary, because my 4.0/5spd/4wd with a D44 and 'zu axle and 37s only weighed 4000 with a bit of crap in it...

After much searching, I found something, and it seems reasonable, but I'll ask if anybody else knows for sure. 92 LWB - 4.0L - 4WD - 3313lbs 90 LWB - 2.5L - 2WD - 2986lbs. Seems reasonable? I think so...

I'd do it for a j-truck. I helped a friend SAS a toyota truck last weekend. It was about as much work as doing a 2wd-4wd conversion IMHO, and I didn't get no freakin j-truck.

All batteries have some sort of pressure relief mechanism for the event of an internal failure. Well, almost, some don't (mercury batteries). So, yeah, I'd imagine it's having issues...

Even in 4wd it won't be too bad.... Torque steer affects ricers far more than a 4wd truck.

Cruise control junky. I've never had a vehicle that it worked on, so I haven't had a chance to get hooked.

And if you want those tires to work in the rear, you'll need like 2.5" BS on a 15x8. Normally people run spacers on an 8.8 so they can run 3.5" BS 15x8s (or something liek that).

THe ones that allow you to keep the 4x4.5 bolt pattern are garbage. And I don't feel overly high of the other kits either. But that's me. I had selectables on my D44 and got so annoyed with them that I put drive flanges back in.

Yes, build a large bracket on the axle, and not a drop mount on the frame. The problem is that you run into clearance issues. It's a bit of a balancing act.

I don't know how well it will work. The calculator removes the doubt on things like that. But, just looking at it, it should work fine. Or at least acceptable. The 3-link/panhard setup has a few problems in the rear, mostly to do with flex steer. With a panhard, you want it as high as possibly to make the roll axis high (more stability).

Looking back at this, I think the funniest part was what I wrote about front leafs. Ah well.

Ah. If the upper link is less than about 2/3 the length of the lowers, typically the AS will be whack. Along with the roll axis. Not to mention the pinion going all over the place (and hence your driveshaft). With a panhard, no triangulation is necessary. However, it is good if you can as it helps with the roll axis. Is this front or rear? I kinda skimmed through your thread, but didn't really read it (sorry, was getting to it).

It's microsoft product, so it's pretty much a wonder if it actually works at all.

What type of three link is it for? I've never used it because I lack excel, only the 4-link one (on-line). You'll need a panhard in there. (Maybe this is obvious, okay, it probably is, I've never used that oen so I don't know). Wait, the --- is the panhard, no... Sounds more like you have either transposed digits, or have a compatibility problem with excel.