DirtyComanche

Oh. I know what the issue is. I left the s in the https. Can't embed https, http you can...

Interesting CCV setup there, it always amuses me what sorta odd stuff previous owners/'mechanics' did to things. Should be a good starting point to build from though.

That's a nice looking truck. :thumbsup:

So, what's the code to embed youtube? :???:

https://youtu.be/37L9pc7thDA Boring video. But the new clutch is working well. No idea how you embed Youtube on this forum, it doesn't use normal BBCode... The transmission still moves around enough to hit the cutout in the tunnel at times, so I need to do something about that. The rearview mirrors are still useless and stupid, I need to find another option, and the rear hitch dragged on everything throughout the day... So there is of course more work to do! There's still snow

On the random shut down and no start, it's probably your crank position sensor going out... When they're reaching end of life they often won't make enough juice when they get hot. Once they cool down they'll work well enough again.

Those are the Ultra Flex rubber ones or the polyurethane?

How's clearance from the oil pan to the axle? As good or better than with a 4L?

That's disappointing. I liked the concept. If my LWB hadn't been crushed by a tree I would really consider building it into a street truck.

And one note about the clutch master cylinders, I checked, the bore size is 11/16" for an internal slave. There is some slight variations in bore size over the years, but if anything the internal slave one appears to be the smallest of them. Or it is just measuring error resulting from sizes being listed in metric and imperial. So getting a newer one (which I'm guessing is what was on there, with the integrated hose and a quick disconnect fitting) probably wouldn't cause problems.

I've got about 120km on the new clutch now, seems like it is working fine. I will try to do some mild wheeling on the weekend and see if it continues to be happy. I do need to do my rear main seal, or just the pan gasket (if I pull the pan I will do the rear main). I was kinda hoping it was just the valve cover, but that would be way too easy. While I don't think oil getting on the clutch was a contributing factor, or even actually happening, I don't like it leaking nor want it to be a problem.

This is the one I am talking about: http://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=534609&cc=1029620&jsn=578 1997-2005 Blazer. This one for carb applications: http://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=534588&cc=1029619&jsn=465 1996 Blazer. No, I haven't tried it. I probably shouldn't have said "...guarantee it will fit" because that's a pretty bold statement, but I seem to recall measuring it before and thinking it would go. Might have been on my LWB that I measured though...

S10 Blazer tank... just about guarantee it will fit. They're kinda a pentagon shape.

I think there's debate on if the 242 is actually weaker. Unfortunately I threw out the only one I had around; been meaning to grab another one to play with. Honestly, the 231 is pretty much a pile. I unfortunately cleaned out my tcase collection before I got my current MJ, or I probably would have used anything other than it... I had a nice 241DLD with a 23 spline input that could have been a great option. Or the 242 I tossed, which was 21 spline but that's an easy swap.

My pilot bushing came in yesterday afternoon. I buttoned it up tonight (also did rad and heater hoses, tsat, and valve cover gasket while I had it down) and went for a test drive. Thus far zero issues with disengagement, and that was with a fairly long test drive (40km). I will see how it fares tomorrow. Fingers crossed, replacing every part other than the transmission has fixed it.

At least they look good.

I'm not sure what that axle will be like. The Explorer (with the exception of the relatively rare Sport model) went to IRS in 2002, hence people say to get one from prior to that. The Sport Trac was also generally viewed as undesirable for an axle donor, as it seemed to share the rear axle with the Ranger, meaning it had 28 spline axle shafts and drum brakes. However, I don't know if that was true only for 00-01 models, or if it actually is even true at all. I suspect the Explorer Sport 2002+ and the Sport Trac probably shared rear axles, but hard to say... I'd go measure how wide it is. My suspicion would be that it is wider than the typical Explorer 8.8, as like all SUVs, the Explorer got bigger with each generation.

Probably a loose connection on the fuel pump. Or a pin has pushed out of the connector on the harness there. Or a loose ground. Start with the area you were mucking with when you first had the problem show up, which you've lead me to believe is the fuel pump/sender.

It's there for low traction scenarios. That might be snow, depending. Maybe ice. Rain on a gravel/dirt road, sure. Rain on pavement, probably not, unless there's enough to skimboard on. The (not available on a MJ) NP242 transfer case has a Full Time 4HI position, which is for running around in situations where you might want more traction, but there is not a complete lack of traction. Basically there is a differential in the case that allows for some speed variation between the front and rear tires. This tcase was optional on the XJ, so some guys swap them in because it's basically a bolt in. If I was to plan to run around in 4wd a lot, I'd get one. Like I said, you can use Part Time 4HI at speed or on pavement, you will just wear the tcase out faster. And your tires. And your ujoints.

It isn't the abrupt torque that'll do the damage. In the 231, the front and rear driveshafts are locked in 4WD. That means they both spin at the same speed. If the rear wheels are under power and spinning when you shift, the rear wheels are rotating faster than the front wheels. When you try to shift, all you're going to get is a loud, alarming grinding sound. It's exactly the same as trying to shift a manual tranny without the clutch, and not matching the engine speed to the road speed. It's entirely possible to do it, but you have to be abusive. It is synchro'd, it is possible to shift it in a way you shouldn't. I have seen it happen, granted not actually on pavement, but in similar situations where the rear is spinning and "I'll just engage the 4wd" happens. And if you tear the synchros and the teeth off the annulus, that was still torque that did it.

Cheap, reliable, bigger tires. You can only pick too. The XJ/MJ D30 (and the D44) is quite inferior to the newer JK stuff, and IMHO 35" tires should not be put on a D30. Every time I say that somebody says "But you can, I did it, my cousin did it, blah blah blah." It's just a failure waiting to happen, not that you can't do it. Everything about that axle was not meant to do it. I'd stick with 33s unless you want to break stuff or spend more money. Chromo shafts are just a bandaid for the other weaknesses, and you'll probably need them eventually anyways. Like I said, to do it over I'd have gone with JK axles for my current MJ, and I only run 32" tires. Beyond being a strength upgrade, the other value in them is they come with better brakes, way better steering, a bolt pattern that is now way more common, and are a much better width than the factory axles. Plus the aftermarket is all over them right now.

I'd also consider JK axles. I wish I had used them on my MJ, as they would be about right for what I'm doing. And they're almost a bolt in.

Watch out for the cast in wedge D44s, you can't remove the factory radius arm brackets as they are an integral part of the tube. They're also supposedly weaker.

At least it wasn't a MJ that got it. They build new Dodges every day... I'm hoping you have insurance for it though??????

That might be normal. It doesn't drive like a modern vehicle with fancy dampening crap. You have to ease in and out of the throttle if you're at lower RPM. But cleaning the throttle body, IAC, and all the sensor grounds isn't going to make it worse...