SaharaTJ Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ok sorry i have to vent. My buddy calls me at like 8 this mornin and was asking me how much a d44 outta a xj costs. I told him ruffly and then he tells me he bought a damn 85 xj for get this 60 fackin bucks! its the old carbed 4.2. If you read about a jeeper goin to jail for beatin another one up haha someone bail me out! that faucker has the luck i sware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Thats not a factory thing. 87 was the first yr for the I6 in the xj, and it was fuel injected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 Thats not a factory thing. 87 was the first yr for the I6 in the xj, and it was fuel injected i took a stab at the engine, he said it was carbed and thats the only carbed engine i know for 80's jeeps besides the amc's 360 and 401 and one other but can't remember and wasn't sure which years the engines where used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowey Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Thats not a factory thing. 87 was the first yr for the I6 in the xj, and it was fuel injected i took a stab at the engine, he said it was carbed and thats the only carbed engine i know for 80's jeeps besides the amc's 360 and 401 and one other but can't remember and wasn't sure which years the engines where used. The GM V-stink was carbed. The 4-cyl's were carbed in early 80's also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 An '85 XJ would be either a 2.5L 4-cylinder or the dreaded 2.8L GM V6. Neither would have a D44 rear axle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 An '85 XJ would be either a 2.5L 4-cylinder or the dreaded 2.8L GM V6. Neither would have a D44 rear axle. Either one of them is barely worth that in my opinon, especially since there is very lil parts interchangability. If it has 4.10's it might be worth it :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 An '85 XJ would be either a 2.5L 4-cylinder or the dreaded 2.8L GM V6. Neither would have a D44 rear axle. what is the cubic size of those engine? What else could it have, hes not to bright when it comes to axles. oh could it have the 8.25 or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 Oh to add salt to the wound I found out he got freakin 2 of them for 60 bucks. but i may be acquiring one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87manche Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 It will have a D35. I don't think there were any other options in those years. the 8.25 is a chryco axle, and appeared in 91, after the chryco takeover in 88. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 An '85 XJ would be either a 2.5L 4-cylinder or the dreaded 2.8L GM V6. Neither would have a D44 rear axle. what is the cubic size of those engine? What else could it have, hes not to bright when it comes to axles. oh could it have the 8.25 or something like that. The 2.5L is 150 (some say 151) cubic inches. And, no, it is NOT the Pontiac "Iron Duke" (although AMC did buy some of those for the Concord/Eagle/Spirit line in the early 80s). 2.8 liters is 171 cubic inches. As to axles .. . if it's original, it MUST have a Dana 30 front and a Dana 35 rear. There were no optional axles in the 1985 Cherokee -- only optional ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 An '85 XJ would be either a 2.5L 4-cylinder or the dreaded 2.8L GM V6. Neither would have a D44 rear axle. what is the cubic size of those engine? What else could it have, hes not to bright when it comes to axles. oh could it have the 8.25 or something like that. The 2.5L is 150 (some say 151) cubic inches. And, no, it is NOT the Pontiac "Iron Duke" (although AMC did buy some of those for the Concord/Eagle/Spirit line in the early 80s). 2.8 liters is 171 cubic inches. As to axles .. . if it's original, it MUST have a Dana 30 front and a Dana 35 rear. There were no optional axles in the 1985 Cherokee -- only optional ratios. ok then if they are both the same engine they both have the 2.8L in it. I will double check everything when i get the pictures on them. Oh and the are they hp axles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyComanche Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Sorry to burst your bubble, but they're scrap. Unless you need body parts. The 2.8 blows. And I feel the same towards the 2.5. And the entire drivetran that goes with it blows. Even the Tcase is useless. The HP30 fronts are also worthless IMHO (hey, if you like them, I'll sell ya one cheap, comes with 4.10 gears! Make some funny noises) and the D35 rears are really only good for pulling pranks. IE, leave one on somebody's doorstep in the middle of the night, ring the doorbell and run away. All the fuel system is not interchangeable. So you can't even steal the tanks. Same goes with the cooling, etc. Rear and front suspensions are useless, unless you like stock parts. Only thing really is the body/interior. Edit, you've got a 2.5. I guess you can use some of that crap. And the front axles will be HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Well, if i can get a dd for cheap i won't complain. I just need something that runs so i can really work on my tj and my mj (when i finally go pick it up). I got a buddy that has a couple extra gm 2.8s that i can get parts from if it gives me problems. But like i said if it runs and can pass emissions and on top of that is dirt cheap i'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feerocknok Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Or... pull the doors, and romp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinnaevd Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 hold the phone...if it is an 85 does it still need emissions? i know in canada that's a big negative because it is officially a "classic/vintage" vehicle, and its now it owuld be wide open for ANYTHING!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 hold the phone...if it is an 85 does it still need emissions? i know in canada that's a big negative because it is officially a "classic/vintage" vehicle, and its now it owuld be wide open for ANYTHING!!!!!! hmm that is a good question since it is 21 years old. time to find out, but illinois emissions is a cake walk as long as its not blowin smoke out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaharaTJ Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 Which engine would the 173 be? and which trannys would the auto be and the standard be? I may be getting both of them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now